The Glenn Beck Thread....

[Earthborn]

NOT an April Fool's joke. Apparently.

That video really does make you think, doesn't it? About what exactly would be wrong with a "non-violent fascism with a happy face". The reason fascism is bad is because it is violent, so what is left when it isn't? Utopia perhaps... with a happy face:

Glenn Beck's muddled argumentation together with his calls for people to stand up united make it somewhat unclear to me whether he is arguing in favour or against this "non-violent fascism with a happy face".

 

[Brainster]

I don't think there's anybody comparable to Beck on the left; somebody like Mike Malloy is equally insane but with nowhere near the megaphone.

I don't think it's fair to compare him to major leftie bloggers like Kos or Atrios or Greenwald. They may be guilty of excessive partisanship but they really don't dabble much in the conspiracy theories of the far left. Brad Friedman or Bev Harris, or any of the "Diebold" crazies are the best comparables, but again they don't have any reach compared to Beck.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That video really does make you think, doesn't it? About what exactly would be wrong with a "non-violent fascism with a happy face". The reason fascism is bad is because it is violent, so what is left when it isn't? Utopia perhaps... with a happy face:

Glenn Beck's muddled argumentation together with his calls for people to stand up united make it somewhat unclear to me whether he is arguing in favour or against this "non-violent fascism with a happy face".

Facism with a happy face makes me wonder if deep down he understands more about the world than he lets on, since the State as a body is a salient metaphor in fascist philosophy.







Naaaaaah.

 

[shawmutt]

Maddox put him in his place years ago (about mid-page).

 

[Bob Klase]

I actually liked listening to Beck for a few months when he first started broadcasting locally here (around the end of 1999). For the first 2-3 months he wasn't as political as he is now. That started changing 2-3 months after his show started and by the end of his 6th month I couldn't take anymore. Then he went national a year or two later.

Reagan may have "won" the cold war but in order to do so, he set in motion an economic policy that has finally been shown to have no clothes.

And it only took 30 years.

Not defending Beck (or Reagan), but we could say that Roosevelt's economic policy has finally been shown to have no clothes and it would be just about as relevant as your statement.

 

[themusicteacher]

I actually liked listening to Beck for a few months when he first started broadcasting locally here (around the end of 1999). For the first 2-3 months he wasn't as political as he is now. That started changing 2-3 months after his show started and by the end of his 6th month I couldn't take anymore. Then he went national a year or two later.



And it only took 30 years.

Not defending Beck (or Reagan), but we could say that Roosevelt's economic policy has finally been shown to have no clothes and it would be just about as relevant as your statement.

Yeah you could say that but you'd be wrong. Roosevelt was trying mightily to pull us out of a depression and it worked, eventually. The nation began building wealth and paying off massive debts. Reagan, on the other hand, along with every other repub prez since FDR, increased our debt by A LOT without ever planning ahead to pay it back. Certainly, some of the entitlement programs created by FDR are still with us and complicate the issue (whereas many more of his policies were cut back and expired) but the simple truth of Reaganomics have led us to this inevitable conclusion. It really is an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Bob Klase]

Yeah you could say that but you'd be wrong. Roosevelt was trying mightily to pull us out of a depression and it worked, eventually. The nation began building wealth and paying off massive debts. Reagan, on the other hand, along with every other repub prez since FDR, increased our debt by A LOT without ever planning ahead to pay it back. Certainly, some of the entitlement programs created by FDR are still with us and complicate the issue (whereas many more of his policies were cut back and expired) but the simple truth of Reaganomics have led us to this inevitable conclusion. It really is an apples and oranges comparison.

You're giving Reagan too much credit. If Carter's policies had stopped the double digit inflation then Reagan would have (probably) never been elected. So let's blame Carter. Or the Democrats that controlled congress for most of the years since 1980. Or Bush 1, Clinton or Bush 2 since they did little to stop the problem. Or LBJ. (You could try saying that Clinton was getting it under control until W changed things. But then you still have to blame W a lot more than Reagan.

Reaganomics can share the blame, but there were too many other hands in the pie and and too many since then who worried more about their own reelection than fixing problems to pin it all on Reagan.

 

[dudalb]

I don't think there's anybody comparable to Beck on the left; somebody like Mike Malloy is equally insane but with nowhere near the megaphone.

I don't think it's fair to compare him to major leftie bloggers like Kos or Atrios or Greenwald. They may be guilty of excessive partisanship but they really don't dabble much in the conspiracy theories of the far left. Brad Friedman or Bev Harris, or any of the "Diebold" crazies are the best comparables, but again they don't have any reach compared to Beck.

Agreed.
But I can think of several commentators on the left..Olbermann for instance, who are on the O Reilly/Hannity level when it comes to half truths,general purpose distorting of news, etc.
THe point is that Beck is carrying the looniness much farther then any other prime time host on a major cable network has.

 

[TraneWreck]

I wounder if you put any energy into looking into the claims that Olbermann makes on his show to see how much truth is in them.

Olbermann seems borderline obsessed to me. All his show is now is mostly attacks on Fox News and O'Reilly. And a lot of the same ones over and over again too. Tons of stuff to cover out there, but every night it's the same things.

Seriously, with the Democrats now in charge and tons of stuff to cover, so much that you can fill all day with news channel talking heads discussing these issues, does a show that's just one hour from Olbermann really deserve multiple segments about Fox News, GlennBeck, and O'Reilly?

I challenged everyone making this claim to find examples of Olbermann going off the rail like Beck and O'Reilly do on a regular basis.

The point of a discussion forum is that other people bring their view points to the table. I cannot be expected to know everything about all subjects, so if you have examples of bad behavior on the part of Olbermann, link them up. We can compare them, it will be informative.

But what doesn't count is an unsubstantiated equivalence supported with nothing more than, "Come on, I mean, Come on, seriously." Merely criticizing what Olbermann's interested in isn't sufficient. Someone could spend an hour debunking false claims of stamp collectors, and while boring, the product could still be well supported and rational.

You need to find examples of Olbermann behaving insanely like Beck or 9-11 truthers, if you can, great, we can move forward, if not, your mealy-mouthed complaints will continue to fall on deaf ears.

 

[bob_cadaver]

talk a little bit about the fixing science in her seat again, as Barack Obama stated during his inaugural address, putting science right back on the top of the food chain, which is always a spooky thing...

Oh that's pricelessly, floridly insane.....I wish I didn't laugh so hard as that is one scary assed statement about science. *hides*

 

[TraneWreck]

Not defending Beck (or Reagan), but we could say that Roosevelt's economic policy has finally been shown to have no clothes and it would be just about as relevant as your statement.

And what, pray tell, would be evidence of that? Glass-Steagall, a protection put in place by Roosevelt (the second half of Glass-Seagall was passed under the Roosevelt administration, the first part was Hoover's) in response to the '29 crash and subsequent depression, was abolished in 1999. It was meant to control speculation in the wake of all the commercial bank failures. The 1999 act that replaced it, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, allowed commercial banks to engage in insurance activities and otherwise consolidate financial functions that were kept separate since 1933.

One of the major causes of the current financial disorder is the prominence of credit default swaps, which are insurance policies taken out by banks to cover mortgages. Restrictions were loosened by the Fed (like the requirement for insurance institutions to keep cash on hand to cover those mortgages) that allowed banks to create CDSs on mortgages they didn't hold.

If you examine the specifics of every aspect of this current crisis, the source is a move away from the regulations and controls placed on the financial system by Roosevelt. If we had continued his policies, this would not have happened.

If anything, this crisis has shown how absolutely correct many of FDR's policies were.

 

[joobz]

My take:

Clearly Biased: All Pundits

Crazy: Olbermann, O'Reilly

Batcrap Crazy: Hannity, Limbaugh, Maher

Crazy like a Fox: Coulter, Savage

Insane: ?

Criminally Insane: ?

Charles Manson Insane: Charles Manson

Moonbat Wingnut Upside-Down Insane: Glenn Beck

I Updated it for you.

As for Savage and Coulter:
I'm not sure it's "Crazy like a fox"
or if it's "Cartoon noise AOOOGA AOOOGA Crazy" Crazy. I suspect they do it as an act, but there's still that uncertainty.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I Updated it for you.

As for Savage and Coulter:
I'm not sure it's "Crazy like a fox"
or if it's "Cartoon noise AOOOGA AOOOGA Crazy" Crazy. I suspect they do it as an act, but there's still that uncertainty.

And I wonder if that makes them better or worse. Is it worse to say hateful things when you truly believe them to be correct, or when you have reasoned that they are the most profitable things to say?

 

[dudalb]

And I wonder if that makes them better or worse. Is it worse to say hateful things when you truly believe them to be correct, or when you have reasoned that they are the most profitable things to say?

Hard to decide. Hypocrisy is bad, but bigotry is worse.

 

[applecorped]

I loved Blow by Blow. Great album!!

 

[themusicteacher]

I Updated it for you.

As for Savage and Coulter:
I'm not sure it's "Crazy like a fox"
or if it's "Cartoon noise AOOOGA AOOOGA Crazy" Crazy. I suspect they do it as an act, but there's still that uncertainty.

Beck and Savage may be douchebags but Coulter is one of the most truly evil spirited people on the planet. She gets the special but well deserved distinction of being one of those "ladies" (if Skeletor the Anorexic can be called such) who receives the c-word that rhymes with bundt nomenclature. I don't pull that one out for just anyone so she must be an absolute horror of a human being. And she is...

I've always been turned off by Mike Malloy and anyone who's out there making ad hominem attacks. It serves no purpose other than to inflame and obfuscate.

 

[Wally]

Beck and Savage may be douchebags but Coulter is one of the most truly evil spirited people on the planet. She gets the special but well deserved distinction of being one of those "ladies" (if Skeletor the Anorexic can be called such) who receives the c-word that rhymes with bundt nomenclature. I don't pull that one out for just anyone so she must be an absolute horror of a human being. And she is...

She's the Fred Phelps of politics.

 

[Gangularis]

On a monitoring visit of fox news, I noticed this new site of theirs called "TheFoxNation".. at least I think it's new.. it's another obvious grab at the "i'm an American and proud of it!! Don't like it? GET OUT!! " audience.. Anyway, I came across another amusing video of Beck being interviewed by O'Reilly.. . another one of the few times I actually kind of liked O'Reilly.. I found it kind of interesting that he said "one worlder".. i've never heard it called it that.. but whatever. Here's the vid:

http://www.thefoxnation.com/media/2009/04/03/oreilly-and-beck-take-fascism

 

[headscratcher4]

Can you imagine the outrage of the right were so-called leftists like Oberman or Maddow essentially calling on Americans to prepare for armed-revolution?

The revolutionary left in this country is all but marginalized. Those evil left-ists that the Becks and Hannitys condemn are all, essentially, part and parcel of a narrow middle and status quo in this country. After all, making the money they make, how much of a revolution can they really want?

On the other hand, it is the wacko-right that is being encouraged to stockpile weapons and to view all moves by Obama as some sort of political revolution and the run-up to assaults on their basic rights (which begs two questions: where were they when the Bush Administration was slicing and dicing the Constitution? And, what powers they think Obama may use against them were of a kind that GWB and Cheney asserted were inherent to the "unitary" executive).

What is particulary sad is that these "pundits" lost the election. But, rather than find ways to win-back voters (and await the inevitable swing-back or over-reach by Obama -- because American politics always see-saws), they choose to delegitimize not only Obama but the electorial process...if only the public knew what they knew, they would have not elected this president. But, the public did know what they know.

 

[dudalb]

As I said, the GOP leadership and that of the Conservative movement seems to be as confused by what hit them in November as the French Generals were in 1940.