http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011120014
Beck urges people not to believe that he is into child pornography. JUST IN CASE SOMEONE ACCUSES HIM OF IT.
Hes also "rolling dude heavy" apparently.
OK
this is the first thing i've checked out by this guy and i didn't make past 30 seconds. "said my prayers this morning, "
FUCK YOU
if this guy doesn't molest kids, it's only because he's afraid of hell. what a fucknut. i can't believe this guy is anyone
I predict the Streisand effect.
:lulz:
Second commenter has it
QuoteI'm thinking he either knows a shoe's going to drop (unlikely, IMOP), or he's thinking, "How would I attack me?"
Third commenter misses the point and is thus a moron. Par for the course at Media Matters, though.
Or he wants someone to attack him that way so he can rail against it and stir up more drama.
That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:32:07 AM
That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.
:cn:
Quote from: Pēleus on November 14, 2010, 08:47:07 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:32:07 AM
That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.
:cn:
I believe it to be anyway, don't care enough this late about proving my point so mbyl8r. Have you watched his show?
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:53:59 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on November 14, 2010, 08:47:07 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:32:07 AM
That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.
:cn:
I believe it to be anyway, don't care enough this late about proving my point so mbyl8r. Have you watched his show?
If Peleus is asking you for citation needed, there is good reason to provide citation. You're really not going to find anyone sympathetic to anything that Glenn Beck says here. You would be best served to describe what specific things Glenn Beck is legit about, before Cain/Subetai sees this. And if you do so, best back it up with sources.
Blight,
-eating popcorn
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 14, 2010, 08:59:28 AM
If Peleus is asking you for citation needed, there is good reason to provide citation. You're really not going to find anyone sympathetic to anything that Glenn Beck says here. You would be best served to describe what specific things Glenn Beck is legit about, before Cain/Subetai sees this. And if you do so, best back it up with sources.
Blight,
-eating popcorn
I can't find very much at the moment but heres some excerpts from his book, "Arguing with Idiots" which I own I'm copying this from PDF. The book has about 20 pages at the end dedicated to citations and it's all small print. If I could find a better PDF version I'd share, but here. I could show you hour upon hour of his show that shows him repeatedly stating that he's equally dissatisfied with the Republicans as he is with the Democrats, but he himself is very much to the right. I don't agree with him about everything but I do see the points he's making when it comes to dealing with the way things are run. I find that the book was more informing than anything else though.
Zzzz~ time though, zzzz~
Excerpt from the Book:
"WE NEED A NEW KIND OF CAPITALISM, ONE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS MORE CONTROL."
Thanks for buying the book, Stalin. Actually, if you agree with that statement, your views are closer to those
of French President Nicolas Sarkozy than those of Stalin. In January 2009, while hosting a two-day
economic conference titled "New World, New Capitalism," Sarkozy said that "in capitalism of the 21st
century, there is room for the state."
Now, I'm not exactly sure when America started taking advice on capitalism from socialist France -- but
plenty of people seem to be listening anyway. From German Chancellor Angela Merkel (If governments "are
not in a position to show that we can create a social order for the world in which such crises do not take
place then we'll face stronger questions as to whether this is really the right economic system"), to Alan
Greenspan ("It may be necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and
orderly restructuring"), to Newsweek magazine's cover ("We Are All Socialists Now"), there seems to be no
shortage of voices begging the government to take more control over private markets.
And that's exactly why we should ignore them all. It's easy to get caught up in the headlines and make
decisions based on emotion, but it's much harder to objectively look at the decades of evidence that
conclusively prove that the state runs things only one way: right into the ground.
The reason why combining the government with private industry always fails is simple: their motives are
completely different. Private companies exist to create wealth, the government exists (at least in theory) to
provide protections critical to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Private companies closely manage
expenses and ensure every dollar has a return; the government attempts to spend every dollar it's given and
measures returns in campaign donations and polling data.
Their constituencies are also different: Corporations serve shareholders and customers; the government
(again, at least in theory) serves taxpayers, which means they have to serve politicians, special-interest
groups, and the established bureaucracy first.
The incentive to earn a profit goes hand in hand with the ability to operate efficiently and effectively. Take
one away and the other will vanish faster than the taxpayer dollars that are continually wasted trying to
overcome the simple rules of economics.
Here are four examples of how a few high-profile public/private partnerships have played out in real life:
1. FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC
Fannie Mae was started by FDR in 1938 with a billion dollars and a mission: to buy up mortgages from
private lenders so that those banks would have more capital to lend. It worked. By 1968 Fannie's loan
portfolio had grown so large that it was weighing down the federal budget. So, our politicians did what they
always do when faced with something they don't like: They hid it.
President Johnson turned Fannie into a quasi-governmental corporation that would be publicly traded. That
allowed him to take Fannie's debt off the government's books, an idea that worked so well they used it to
form Freddie Mac two years later.
Unfortunately, there was one big problem: Given their history, size, and importance in the mortgage market,
virtually everyone knew the government wouldn't let them fail. That not only gave Fannie and Freddie an
unfair advantage over their competition, it also gave them access to things like guaranteed lines of credit
and exemption from state and local taxes. We all know how this story ends. The so-called implicit
government guarantee turned into a very explicit one that resulted in the government seizing control of the
two companies in September 2008. It also resulted in the $5 trillion in mortgage liabilities they'd racked up
moving right back onto the very same books politicians removed them from in the first place.
2. AMTRAK
Congress created Amtrak in 1970 (are you starting to detect a trend here?) as a for-profit corporation.
They've lost money every single year since. Despite receiving over $30 billion in federal subsidies (not
including another $1.3 billion that they picked up as part of the 2009 stimulus bill), Amtrak has never quite
figured out how to fulfill their politically mandated mission and make a profit. So they've done neither.
I realize that I'm no choo-choo-train expert, but I am a thinker, so let me take a stab at fixing Amtrak's
problems: First, some of their lines require massive government subsidies because the costs simply don't
justify the ridership. For example, the Sunset Limited, which runs from Los Angeles to New Orleans,
requires somewhere in the area of $466 in government subsidies for every paying customer. Now, again, I'm
a self-educated guy...but if that were my business and my money on the line (oh, wait, it IS) then I might
take one look at the old annual report and think to myself, Huh, I bet if we stopped operating that line and
instead moved the trains to a line with, you know, ACTUAL PASSENGERS, we could make a little more
money.
But that kind of common sense doesn't go over well at Amtrak. Their former chief executive, David Gunn,
actually warned Congress that they shouldn't be fooled into thinking that the decisions were so black and
white. "Do not be misled," Gunn said, "by those who quote huge per-passenger losses on certain routes.
Most would conclude that by simply cutting the [Sunset Limited] train you would save tens of millions of
dollars." But the actual savings, according to Gunn? "Less than $15 million." Oh my gosh, only $15 million a
year -- what was I thinking? Why would we even bother closing a route that costs taxpayers only $15 million
every year? Of course, while that kind of logic may explain why Mr. Gunn was fired by Amtrak seven
months later, it can't explain why I can still go onto the Amtrak.com website and book myself a seat on the
Sunset Limited for $133.
And that brings me to Amtrak's second big problem: Pricing is dictated by politics. The Sunset Limited takes
47.5 hours to make the trip from L.A. to The Big Easy. Does anyone else see a problem with charging $133
for 47.5 hours? Here's a hint: That's a rate of $2.80 per hour! The IRS figures the cost of driving one mile at
fifty-five cents. So, figuring that you can drive 65 miles per hour in most places, the cost to drive for an hour
is about $36 -- over twelve times more than the cost per mile that Amtrak is charging for this route.
The only reason the Sunset Limited route is still in existence is politics. Amtrak needs subsidies to stay in
business, those subsidies have to be approved by Congress; therefore, Amtrak needs to keep certain
politicians happy. They can't do that with heavy discounts on their delicious café-car microwave pizzas, so
they do it with concessions and favors (like, for instance, keeping a money losing route open in exchange for
votes from the politicians who represent the districts that the train runs through).
Some might argue that that's actually a good thing -- America needs intercity rail service (even the moneylosing
kind) and the government is the only entity that can provide it. Fine -- but then let's have that debate;
let's talk about nationalizing Amtrak and changing its mission. Until then, we're just kidding ourselves that a
company reliant on the government for survival can ever produce a profit.
3. CITIGROUP
In 2008, Citigroup, along with just about every other major bank in the country, opposed the idea of "cram
downs" which would give bankruptcy judges the discretion to modify a borrower's loan. But, on January 7,
2009, news broke that Citigroup had changed their mind -- they would support cram-down legislation after
all. Why the one-eighty? I can give you 40 billion good reasons. That, of course, is how much money Citi
had taken in federal bailouts at the time they "changed their mind."
So why should you care about any of this? Because when private companies start making decisions based
on what's best for their political relationships instead of what's best for their shareholders, we're in big, big
trouble. Cram downs are a terrible, awful thing for the banking industry. After all, if some judge can rewrite
the terms of a contract, why would a bank ever want to give out another mortgage?
Citigroup's support of this idea means they are acknowledging that their relationship with politicians is more
important than their profits. If you're a fan of capitalism, that's a very scary prospect.
4. THE POSTAL SERVICE
This might seem like an odd example, but it's actually a great study in how government meddling can
prevent an organization from ever reaching its full potential.
In 1971, the "Post Office Department" was turned into a quasi-governmental corporation called the "U.S.
Postal Service." The USPS is run by a board of eleven, with nine of those people appointed by the president
(meaning they're not exactly independent of the political process). There are other oddities, too. The USPS
receives no government appropriations (good), but they have to adhere to a set of complex regulations that
mandate each class of mail pay for itself (bad). They can borrow money by issuing debt (good), but all
increases in mailing rates are decided by an independent body called the "Postal Rate Commission" (bad).
They don't have to adhere to federal standards on employee pay (good), but they have a federally mandated
monopoly on regular mail delivery (bad).
Here's what all of that has added up to: After being semi privatized, the USPS recognized the need to
update their antiquated systems. By issuing debt (and bypassing the ridiculous federal acquisitions process)
they adopted bar-code readers and optical scanners that, by 1986, were responsible for processing 90
million pieces of mail each day. Think that would've happened if they were still a government agency?
But it wasn't all sunshine and lollipops. Remember those political appointees? Along with Congress, they
wielded tremendous influence over the organization. By simply threatening to hold hearings on the Postal
Reorganization Act (translation: "we'll make you a government agency again"), they could influence all major
decisions made by the USPS.
In the mid-'70s, the USPS sought to take advantage of their "semi-autonomy" by closing underutilized post
offices. Like a national retail chain with under performing stores, they realized that they could close some
locations without impacting service. In fact, a GAO study calculated that they could save $100 million a year
by closing 12,000 post offices, some of which served only a few people or were located absurdly close to
other post offices. But politicians liked that idea about as much as they like the idea of closing down a
money-losing Amtrak line that runs through their district. To stop it, they amended the Postal Reorganization
Act to prohibit the closings, stating that "the rural post office has always been a uniquely American
institution" and that "service" is more of a priority than "profit."
In 1977 the USPS, under pressure to keep postal rates low, decided to suspend Saturday mail delivery.
They calculated that it would save them $400 million a year and wouldn't adversely impact many
businesses. In fact, polling indicated that most people preferred the loss of Saturday delivery to higher
stamp prices. But Congress did not. The House passed a resolution opposing the change and the USPS
dropped the idea, even though they knew their budget would suffer. Being unable to execute either of those
business strategies has cost the USPS at least $500 million a year (likely much more given inflation) for the
last 30+ years. The result? The USPS lost $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2008 and expects to lose another $3
billion to $6 billion in 2009.
In early 2009, Postmaster General John Potter told Congress that the USPS is once again "facing losses of
historic proportion. Our situation is critical." But their hands are tied. The Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act of 2006 mandated the USPS to fund its entire retiree health-benefit fund within ten years -
- something, as postal officials point out, that no other government agency or private company is required to
do. They tried to resurrect the idea of five-day delivery again, but leading politicians with oversight of the
USPS, like Senator Susan Collins and Congressman Jose Serrano, have both said they would oppose it.
The Postal Service brought back the idea of closing facilities, but politicians don't like that either. (You try
winning the next election after losing a few post offices in your district.)
That leaves the USPS without very many options. They can't raise rates, close locations, cut employees,
reform retirement benefits, or change their service. In fact, about the only thing they can do is continue to
issue debt and accumulate losses -- all of which will have to eventually be paid back by the constituency
they serve: the taxpayers.
Glenn Beck is lulzy. And by luzly I mean "has clearly never worked for a corporation in his life", in any sort of admin capacity anyway.
Corporations are just as wasteful as government. Both are heavily top-down, hierarchical structures that rely on systems of surveillance and discipline to keep order. This invariably causes waste as systems of control rarely ever contribute to efficiency, and usually detract from it. Both attempt to ideologically train their subjects in their preferred ways to identify their goals with overall group goals (strangely enough, with the emergence of the Third Way managerialist style, this ideological training is now virtually identical). And the biggest corps are supported by the government anyway. Hallliburton didn't just "happen" to get lucky, it chose people with political access to sit on it's board and voila, no-bid contracts. Goldman Sachs didn't just "get lucky" when the government decided to recognize it as an investment bank for bailout purposes, it had several dozen former senior managers in government, and several dozen high-ranking Treasury and Finance officials now working for them. So creating a dividing line between a "corporation" or "business" (good) and "government" (bad) is a false dichotomy in the first place. Anyone aware of the history of, say, the East India Trading Company would be aware of how this relationship works, but Beck has shown repeatedly he is rather ignorant of history (using W. Cleon Skousen as his inspiration was a big clue). Corporations are a political invention and thus embedded in the political structure of any nation they occur in, responding to and trying to influence political decisionmaking to their exclusive benefit. To pretend otherwise, as Beck does, is lunacy.
Also, I can think of a couple of excellent counterexamples to Beck's assertion that "states run companies run only into the ground" off the top of my head. Gazprom, for example. The NHS, for another. The Swiss Federal Railway, back in the day, as well. As for "governments attempt to spend every dollar they get", how does that explain the massive cost-cutting exercises now taking place all over "socialist" Europe? The UK government alone is engaging in spending cuts that are making Thatcher green with envy. Not because they need to, as they so often claim (the maths does not add up), but because they want to and are ideologically predisposed to do so.
Beck also seems ignorant that sometimes profit and the greater good do not go hand in hand. The French postal system is an excellent example. It was efficient, with two deliveries every day except Sunday. All deliveries were guaranteed, and it would take at most 3-4 days to send a parcel from the south west to the north east. As such, in the pre-internet years, it was a huge boon to French companies and businesses, as it allowed for efficient, secure and prompt transfer of information and good.
And then, it was privatized. Lots of workers were laid off, prices were raised and the ability to provide the same sort of service the state-run system did was degraded. Laying off the workers and selling off assets sure made plenty of profits for the owners, but it negatively impacted on thousands of other companies in the process. A somewhat similar story happened with privatization in the UK, in most cases. The trains in particular being an excellent example - they were terrible under British Rail, no-one will deny that, but they became even more terrible once privatized. Again, the quickest ways for the new owners to make money was to engage in layoffs, raise prices and strip-mine assets and sell them on. All of which resulted in a massively degraded service.
As for Beck being equally dissatisfied with the Republicans as he is with the Democrats, why is he playing around with the Tea Partiers then? You know, those groups of numpties who protest against the government which, in most cases, is paying their benefits, and is organized by senior Republicans such as Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, and frequently extolled by President Bush cheerleaders such as Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin and, uh, Glen Beck himself?
In fact, the only thing that seems to override his political beliefs is his incessant, cross-platform self-promotion. He's a sloppy analyst, terrible historian and partisan hack. And the world is a lot more complex than he would like his viewers and readers to believe.
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:32:07 AM
That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.
lolwut
Uh-oh. Phox smells a verbal smackdown coming on. Death, i warned you about those conservative views of yours....
:drama1:
There's nothing inherently wrong with having conservative views, but there is something wrong with listening to and/or believing thigs spouted by an ignorant demagogue who eschews facts and logic in favor of fearmongering and appeal to emotion.
The problem with Glenn Beck is not that he is right-wing, it's that he's a dangerously ill-informed idiot who panders to an audience gullible enough to believe his lies and half-truths.
Without responding to specifics, what I'm getting from you all is that he's a piece of shit and no one shouldn't believe anything he says. I think some of the things he says are pretty stupid, and misinformed, but I also don't believe that everything he says should be treated with a grain of salt. Some of the things he says actually DO make sense, at least to me. There are different ways of doing things in governments with different kinds of benefits, and sometimes the better way is not always discernible only because we don't always have good examples/models to go off of, ESPECIALLY since the economy and technology is constantly changing.
Glenn Beck is not my hero, my idol, or my ideal politician. I just happen to think some of the things he says make sense.
Quote from: Pēleus on November 14, 2010, 08:47:07 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:32:07 AM
That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.
:cn:
QuoteWould you kill someone for that?...I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore...I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,...No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.
Quote
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.
Quote
You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one – I can't speak for you, but I'm on the verge of moral collapse at any time. It can happen by the end of the show.
Sounds legit to me. Legitimately crazy and full o' douche.
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:16:14 PM
Without responding to specifics, what I'm getting from you all is that he's a piece of shit and no one shouldn't believe anything he says. I think some of the things he says are pretty stupid, and misinformed, but I also don't believe that everything he says should be treated with a grain of salt. Some of the things he says actually DO make sense, at least to me. There are different ways of doing things in governments with different kinds of benefits, and sometimes the better way is not always discernible only because we don't always have good examples/models to go off of, ESPECIALLY since the economy and technology is constantly changing.
Glenn Beck is not my hero, my idol, or my ideal politician. I just happen to think some of the things he says make sense.
That's true for just about every douchebag out there. Just statistically some things everyone says is bound to make sense.
Like this:
QuoteWhen I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining.
SENSE!
ETA: For the most part a lot....some?
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:16:14 PM
but I also don't believe that everything he says should be treated with a grain of salt.
Everything said by
everyone should be treated with a grain of salt. Just sayin'.
This is a good idea. If I take up autoerotic asphyxiation, I'm going to make it publicly known that if someone is trying to kill me and make it look like an accidental death, that's the route they'll be going. That way, nobody will accuse me of having botched the ol' choke'n stroke.
Quote from: Alty on November 14, 2010, 06:20:03 PM
QuoteWould you kill someone for that?...I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore...I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,...No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.
Quote
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.
Quote
You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one – I can't speak for you, but I'm on the verge of moral collapse at any time. It can happen by the end of the show.
Sounds legit to me. Legitimately crazy and full o' douche.
Those are examples of the stuff he says that obviously are ignorant and misinformed. In my post--
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:16:14 PMI think some of the things he says are pretty stupid, and misinformed
So I'm not disagreeing with you.
Damn Alty, it seems like Glenn needs to be on something, or perhaps locked away as a danger to himself and others.
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:33:27 PM
Quote from: Alty on November 14, 2010, 06:20:03 PM
QuoteWould you kill someone for that?...I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore...I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,...No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.
Quote
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.
Quote
You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one – I can't speak for you, but I'm on the verge of moral collapse at any time. It can happen by the end of the show.
Sounds legit to me. Legitimately crazy and full o' douche.
Those are examples of the stuff he says that obviously are ignorant and misinformed. In my post--
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:16:14 PMI think some of the things he says are pretty stupid, and misinformed
So I'm not disagreeing with you.
A vast majority of what he says is tripe, and dangerous tripe too, he's better off being ignored because the less intrest he gets the better, if he has ever said anything of use (You're examples are still choked on his own brand of dumb), someone else has probably said it more eloquently anyway.
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 06:28:32 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:16:14 PM
but I also don't believe that everything he says should be treated with a grain of salt.
Everything said by everyone should be treated with a grain of salt. Just sayin'.
Phox, then if I see you today and you say anything to me I'll throw small handfuls of salt at you. Just sayin' :)
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:33:27 PM
Quote from: Alty on November 14, 2010, 06:20:03 PM
QuoteWould you kill someone for that?...I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore...I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,...No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.
Quote
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.
Quote
You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one – I can't speak for you, but I'm on the verge of moral collapse at any time. It can happen by the end of the show.
Sounds legit to me. Legitimately crazy and full o' douche.
Those are examples of the stuff he says that obviously are ignorant and misinformed. In my post--
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:16:14 PMI think some of the things he says are pretty stupid, and misinformed
So I'm not disagreeing with you.
I tend to disregard the words of people who say stupid and misinformed things with alarming regularity because I do tire of having to make sure...oh let's see, is this possibly accurate or
batshit insane like that other shit? Even when some things they say appeals to my emotional sensibilities. Especially then. But that's me.
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:38:27 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 06:28:32 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:16:14 PM
but I also don't believe that everything he says should be treated with a grain of salt.
Everything said by everyone should be treated with a grain of salt. Just sayin'.
Phox, then if I see you today and you say anything to me I'll throw small handfuls of salt at you. Just sayin' :)
That's all well and good, but if you do see me, I won't be saying much anyway. But I'm as full of shit as everyone else. So, fact check me all you want, there's a good chance I might be wrong. :lulz:
Quote from: Alty on November 14, 2010, 06:39:07 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:33:27 PM
Quote from: Alty on November 14, 2010, 06:20:03 PM
QuoteWould you kill someone for that?...I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore...I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,...No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.
Quote
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.
Quote
You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one – I can't speak for you, but I'm on the verge of moral collapse at any time. It can happen by the end of the show.
Sounds legit to me. Legitimately crazy and full o' douche.
Those are examples of the stuff he says that obviously are ignorant and misinformed. In my post--
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:16:14 PMI think some of the things he says are pretty stupid, and misinformed
So I'm not disagreeing with you.
I tend to disregard the words of people who say stupid and misinformed things with alarming regularity because I do tire of having to make sure...oh let's see, is this possibly accurate or batshit insane like that other shit? Even when some things they say appeals to my emotional sensibilities. Especially then. But that's me.
Understandable, I would probably hate him but I was exposed to his show and books before I was his faults. After seeing enough of his ridiculous fuck ups I probably won't pay attention anymore, but I'm not totally to that point yet.
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 06:40:50 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:38:27 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 06:28:32 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:16:14 PM
but I also don't believe that everything he says should be treated with a grain of salt.
Everything said by everyone should be treated with a grain of salt. Just sayin'.
Phox, then if I see you today and you say anything to me I'll throw small handfuls of salt at you. Just sayin' :)
That's all well and good, but if you do see me, I won't be saying much anyway. But I'm as full of shit as everyone else. So, fact check me all you want, there's a good chance I might be wrong. :lulz:
What you have to say makes a lot more sense and lacks tard 95% more of the time than the rest of the people I see, so pfft.
LET ME HELP!
QuoteCindy Sheehan is a tragedy slut.
QuoteAl Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax....You need to have fear. You needed to have the fear of starvation. You needed to have the fear of the whole place going to hell in a handbasket. Which — do we have that fear now with global warming?...Then you have to discredit the scientists that say "That's not right." And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing].
QuoteAnd it was from America. Progressive movement in America. Eugenics. In case you don't know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. .... The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening. So I guess I have to put my name on yes, I hope Barack Obama fails. But I just want his policies to fail; I want America to wake up.
QuoteThis president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture, I don't know what it is.
QuoteI don't think we came from monkeys. I think that's ridiculous. I haven't seen a half-monkey/half-person yet.
Most of this stuff IS from his show.
Also, just a friendly PROTIP: If you say "most of a lot" people are going to think you mean it. If you mean some, say so the first time and save yourself a headache.
Quote from: Alty on November 14, 2010, 06:57:14 PM
Also, just a friendly PROTIP: If you say "most of a lot" people are going to think you mean it. If you mean some, say so the first time and save yourself a headache.
Tip taken, thanks.
Copypasta is too long but ill make decussion points
1.FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC
Doesnt even talk about retail vs investment banks and how a bill clinton signed removed a depression era regulation that would have prevented them from selling retail bonds on the stock market.
2. Pick your train: love, peace, or crazy
3. Ignore shitty group, focus on chase and gold man's sack :fnord:
4. Mail monopoly :lulz:
It keeps costs down, try sending a later by fedex
Death, if some of what a person says seems to be true, but the rest of it seems like either batshit lunacy, fear mongering, or hatred, it would be best served not to use him or her as an example of the kind of things you believe in.
I mean, if you want to hold the belief system of a pro-capitalist constitutional originalist, I'm sure there are better people to hold up as an example.
Grover Nordquist, perhaps.
:lulz:
Beck. :lulz:
When Glenn Beck compares Al Gore and his support of global warming prevention (or whatever) to Hitler and Nazi Germany, it's okay, and probably true.
When everyone starts comparing Arizona, our governor, and Sheriff Joe because of SB1070 to Hitler and Nazi Germany, well, that's just a bit over the top, isn't it?
Fucking hell, I hate Glenn Beck. :lulz:
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:16:14 PM
Without responding to specifics, what I'm getting from you all is that he's a piece of shit and no one shouldn't believe anything he says. I think some of the things he says are pretty stupid, and misinformed, but I also don't believe that everything he says should be treated with a grain of salt. Some of the things he says actually DO make sense, at least to me. There are different ways of doing things in governments with different kinds of benefits, and sometimes the better way is not always discernible only because we don't always have good examples/models to go off of, ESPECIALLY since the economy and technology is constantly changing.
Glenn Beck is not my hero, my idol, or my ideal politician. I just happen to think some of the things he says make sense.
Oh, dear.
How long has it been since we've had a real, live RWN on the board? Voice of Truth, IIRC.
Also, Glenn Beck. :lulz:
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:32:07 AM
That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.
Beats thinking for yourself, right? :lulz:
Bump for teabaggery goodness!
The main thing I love about Beck, magical underpance aside, is that he's so damned consistent. There's rarely a moment when his epic douchebaggery falters. That MLK thing was just so...EPIC. He owns that shit.
Quote from: Alty on November 15, 2010, 09:55:49 PM
The main thing I love about Beck, magical underpance aside, is that he's so damned consistent. There's rarely a moment when his epic douchebaggery falters. That MLK thing was just so...EPIC. He owns that shit.
HE'S LEGIT AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT!
Sometimes he needs help to cry, though. :lulz:
I'm willing to do my part.
We need a :toolegit2quit: emote for him.
SCREW the concensus, MOAR emotes!
Quote from: Alty on November 15, 2010, 10:01:17 PM
I'm willing to do my part.
We need a :toolegit2quit: emote for him.
SCREW the concensus, MOAR emotes!
1. Someone else can add them (everything I do is BAD and WRONG), and
2. We have one: :hammer:
Quote from: Alty on November 15, 2010, 09:55:49 PM
The main thing I love about Beck, magical underpance aside, is that he's so damned consistent. There's rarely a moment when his epic douchebaggery falters. That MLK thing was just so...EPIC. He owns that shit.
Or his magical way of avoiding libel lawsuits. I mean, just look at the facts, I'm not going to make up your mind for you and I am not saying that you should believe that Obama is a Nazi, but just look at the facts.
Quote from: Gray Jester on November 16, 2010, 01:26:10 AM
Quote from: Alty on November 15, 2010, 09:55:49 PM
The main thing I love about Beck, magical underpance aside, is that he's so damned consistent. There's rarely a moment when his epic douchebaggery falters. That MLK thing was just so...EPIC. He owns that shit.
Or his magical way of avoiding libel lawsuits. I mean, just look at the facts, I'm not going to make up your mind for you and I am not saying that you should believe that Obama is a Nazi, but just look at the facts.
That's what happens when you're rollin' dude heavy.
Quote from: Gray Jester on November 16, 2010, 01:26:10 AM
I mean, just look at the facts, I'm not going to make up your mind for you and I am not saying that you should believe that Obama is a Nazi, but just look at the facts.
Which facts would those be? Please be specific.
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 14, 2010, 05:03:13 PM
There's nothing inherently wrong with having conservative views, but there is something wrong with listening to and/or believing thigs spouted by an ignorant demagogue who eschews facts and logic in favor of fearmongering and appeal to emotion.
The problem with Glenn Beck is not that he is right-wing, it's that he's a dangerously ill-informed idiot who panders to an audience gullible enough to believe his lies and half-truths.
This.
Although, through evaporative cooling of group beliefs (http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beliefs/), finding intelligent conservatives within the US tradition is increasingly difficult. Most intelligent conservatives are either being forced out or ostracized by said demagogues, and calling themselves something else now.
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 06:16:14 PM
Without responding to specifics, what I'm getting from you all is that he's a piece of shit and no one shouldn't believe anything he says. I think some of the things he says are pretty stupid, and misinformed, but I also don't believe that everything he says should be treated with a grain of salt. Some of the things he says actually DO make sense, at least to me. There are different ways of doing things in governments with different kinds of benefits, and sometimes the better way is not always discernible only because we don't always have good examples/models to go off of, ESPECIALLY since the economy and technology is constantly changing.
Glenn Beck is not my hero, my idol, or my ideal politician. I just happen to think some of the things he says make sense.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Even some of the most idiotic commentators on this side of the pond occasionally say things which make sense.
However that doesn't make me a fan of, or a follower, or interested in them. Because any idiot can point out basic truths, and frequently do. It's what they get
wrong which should be focused on.
People who get big things wrong occasionally...well, they're suspect. Everyone makes mistakes, but if they keep on making them, it suggests there is something going wrong somewhere. People who get things
radically wrong much of the time, like Beck...is it really worth your time to scratch through the muck to find the occasional gem, when there are other places you can get the same information from without exposing yourself to his paranoid, conspiratorial worldview? Even if you don't buy into it, exposure to such muddled and irrational thinking can and will impact on you, given enough time. I've seen it happen enough times before.
Maybe you have the time to go through that process, of extracting gems from metric tons of muck, but I don't. I want accurate information, and I want as much of it as possible. Once someone starts stating untruths, intentionally or otherwise, they are no longer a useful source - except to keep a tab on political/social trends and the latest manufactured, hysteria-driven outrage.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 16, 2010, 02:09:19 PM
Quote from: Gray Jester on November 16, 2010, 01:26:10 AM
I mean, just look at the facts, I'm not going to make up your mind for you and I am not saying that you should believe that Obama is a Nazi, but just look at the facts.
Which facts would those be? Please be specific.
Chicago Political Machine Progressive Maoist Muslim Son of Malcolm X.
What other evidence is required?
Of all people, Jon Stewart had a good insight into Beck, and is relevant to the immediate conversation.
He said something to the effect of, "What Beck does is list off a number of points and facts, most of which have some semblance of truth. But then he goes and makes connections between them that have nothing to do with the reality we currently live in."
In other words, he give it the Law of Fives treatment, deliberately.
So sure, you can find things that Beck says which are true. But I humbly request you show me instances where his final analysis is true.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 16, 2010, 02:09:19 PM
Quote from: Gray Jester on November 16, 2010, 01:26:10 AM
I mean, just look at the facts, I'm not going to make up your mind for you and I am not saying that you should believe that Obama is a Nazi, but just look at the facts.
Which facts would those be? Please be specific.
I'm pretty sure he was paraphrasing our buddy Glenn.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 16, 2010, 04:35:59 PM
Of all people, Jon Stewart had a good insight into Beck, and is relevant to the immediate conversation.
He said something to the effect of, "What Beck does is list off a number of points and facts, most of which have some semblance of truth. But then he goes and makes connections between them that have nothing to do with the reality we currently live in."
In other words, he give it the Law of Fives treatment, deliberately.
So sure, you can find things that Beck says which are true. But I humbly request you show me instances where his final analysis is true.
God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Ergo...
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 16, 2010, 04:37:35 PM
God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Ergo...
God blinded Ray Charles while making love?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2010, 04:38:04 PM
God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Ergo...
Obama is the next Hitler.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 16, 2010, 04:39:18 PM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 16, 2010, 04:37:35 PM
God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Ergo...
God blinded Ray Charles while making love?
This is why you'll never be a pundit, LMNO. That clearly proves that Ray Charles is a socialist, according to Acts II.
Damn. GIMME ANOTHER ONE!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 16, 2010, 04:43:09 PM
Damn. GIMME ANOTHER ONE!
Barack Obama's wife was photographed at Yellowstone National Park wearing shorts and a tee shirt.
Explain why this implies communism on the part of the Obamas.
Oh! Oh! I know this one!
It's because he's from Kenya, right?
Quote from: Freeky on November 16, 2010, 04:47:20 PM
Oh! Oh! I know this one!
It's because he's from Kenya, right?
Nope, that's why he's a Muslim Nazi.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2010, 04:47:58 PM
Quote from: Freeky on November 16, 2010, 04:47:20 PM
Oh! Oh! I know this one!
It's because he's from Kenya, right?
Nope, that's why he's a Muslim Nazi.
Damn.
How about because God said that good American presidential families don't dress casually, because capitalism?
Oooh! National parks are federally funded, which is socialism, and Michelle exposing skin proves she's not sufficiently christian, most likely atheist - and Socialism + Atheism = COMMUNISM.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 16, 2010, 04:55:37 PM
Oooh! National parks are federally funded, which is socialism, and Michelle exposing skin proves she's not sufficiently christian, most likely atheist - and Socialism + Atheism = COMMUNISM.
Okay, but you forgot to mention that dressing as a regular citizen while she's first lady is a HALLMARK of Marxism.
Now, finally, explain why the opposite, her wearing some very attractive dresses is also proof that she's a communist.
The two reasons should preferably contradict. Think Big Lie, you know?
Making up spurious bullshit is HARD. :sad:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 16, 2010, 05:01:01 PM
Making up spurious bullshit is HARD. :sad:
That's why they get paid the big bucks.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2010, 04:57:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 16, 2010, 04:55:37 PM
Oooh! National parks are federally funded, which is socialism, and Michelle exposing skin proves she's not sufficiently christian, most likely atheist - and Socialism + Atheism = COMMUNISM.
Okay, but you forgot to mention that dressing as a regular citizen while she's first lady is a HALLMARK of Marxism.
Now, finally, explain why the opposite, her wearing some very attractive dresses is also proof that she's a communist.
The two reasons should preferably contradict. Think Big Lie, you know?
Because wearing expensive dresses while expecting the rest of us to tighten our belts to pay higher taxes is proof that she's a liberal elite, and therefore communist. Like a typical hypocritical limousine liberal, she wants to live a luxurious lifestyle while insisting that regular folks like you and me who work for a living pay for wasteful entitlement spending.
Something I never understood is how Glenn can call Obama a marxist and then criticize him for being an elitist that doesnt care about common people.
Well, to be honest, I doubt Stalin much cared for the common people of Russia either, though he wasn't much of an elitist. But that's going into the whole True Marxist Scotsman territory, which is a prickly enough subject on it's own.
But yeah, it is funny that Beck's critique of liberals, in general, with a few changes in terminology, reads like an undergrad paper by a quasi-Marxist. I think Slavoj Zizek, the Slovenian post-Marxist philosopher and media troll, has also noted this general tendency, with some amusement.