Glenn Beck Breakdown
I know that the name Glenn Beck has become a trigger for some readers in this audience for tuning out and getting angry, but here goes:
I have heard him cry about America and snap at two callers: one who said he was not attacking Obama enough(!), and a former alcoholic who said Americans basically forgive Obama for his past associations.
He continues to bring up his associations with Acorn, Rezco, Ayers ... Pointing out how Palin is getting ripped on the Internet and no one is accusing Obama suoporters of sexism ... That Obama is basically a Robin Hood Marxist....
Now, let me state what some readers affected by the Glenn Beck trigger have actually read: "Evil Republicans."
Damn.
I have heard him cry about America and snap at two callers: one who said he was not attacking Obama enough(!), and a former alcoholic who said Americans basically forgive Obama for his past associations.
He continues to bring up his associations with Acorn, Rezco, Ayers ... Pointing out how Palin is getting ripped on the Internet and no one is accusing Obama suoporters of sexism ... That Obama is basically a Robin Hood Marxist....
Now, let me state what some readers affected by the Glenn Beck trigger have actually read: "Evil Republicans."
Damn.
Labels: Glenn Beck, Obama
posted by Skew | Wednesday, October 15, 2008
8 Comments:
Guilty as charged.
I guess ive got the glenn beck syndrome or whatever you wanna call it.
Ive heard this guy talk,Ive heard what is opinions are, hes not that much different than the rest of that crowd.
The only difference is that he thinks he's funny or is doing something different than the other a.m. radio talk show hosts, but he sounds just the same as the rest of them to me.
he is kind of a weird source to site for anything, if somebody starts off a sentence with
"glenn beck says..."
it just makes me go,
glenn beck?
what intelligent take can he have on the situation?
no disrespect to you was intended.
but to me, glenn beck is a goof.
it goes something like this:
hannity says schmucky stuff so he is a schmuck.
savage says crazy stuff, so he is a kook.
and glenn beck says goofy stuff so he is a goof.
Limbaugh is on a whole different level of absurdist b.s. that almost defies description, so im not even gonna go there.
as far as beck is concerned, I dont hate him, I just think hes kinda dumb, like schnitt.
to each his own.
there are plenty of left leaning people on the radio that i also cant stand listening to, like randi rhodes, and mike malloy.
rhodes sounds like barbara striesand's more political sister, and malloy sounds like he needs thorazine.
I cant stand either one of them and they are about as left as anyone can get, so its not a partisan thing with me, like I said i dont hate beck, i just think hes silly.
To me he is a gnat.
i can just brush him away.
but if somebody cites him as a source it makes me roll my eyes.
I cant help it, its nothing personal.
"Cite him as a source."
"My friend," I was merely commenting on his radio show.
As far as the whole Acorn, Rezco, J. Wright, etc. stuff that Obama is associated with ... uh, I think this is common knowledge at this point.
The question is whether that stuff matters or not. Much like the Clintons and Paula Jones/Whitewater/Monica, people tend to ignore that kind of stuff once you've been nominated for the Presidency.
It's a reflection of all the people out there that cheat, lie, and steal their way through life. They TRUST a guy who is willing to do WHAT IT TAKES to win.
People are also sick of idealistic do-gooders who can't speak english clearly. W. embarrasses a segment of the population -- combine that with another segment that likes the lying Clinton-type, and throw in people who want a cast a vote of HISTORICAL significance ... and you have what you have.
Making history is now a reason to vote for obama?
Liberalism has always been on the wrong side of history, yet many Americans conveniently forget this fact. It's particularly mind boggling when Europe and Canada are electing conservatives to lead because of their own failed experiences with big government liberalism. With Obama, Pelosi and Reid leading Washington, we may become more like the socialistic Europe of yesteryear, while Europe becomes more like America. Truly strange times.
I remember during the Clinton years, I would hear stuff like this:
"He's such a great liar!"
"I'd feel comfortable inviting him over to bar-b-que and have a beer."
"So what he cheated on his wife? His mistake was getting caught!"
"Times have been good for me with Clinton as President."
I'm having deja vu with the way people go out of their way to ignore allegations against Obama.
I dont listen to ol G.B. so I dont know what hes been talking about, so I am making no claim about being offended by his recent comments, nor by yours.
and if hes been making comments about Acorn, Rezco, J. Wright, etc. that doesnt suprise me either, its what they all do.
theyre going after what other people have done whom Obama has met or had some kind of association with.
McCain was a keynote speaker a acorn 2 years ago, but how often does anybody hear about that?
I dont think its a big deal, because neither Obama nor McCain had control over what acorn did.
but if radio talk show hosts are going to say Obama has bad judgement, how come McCain's judgement is not equally bad and why isnt McCains association with acorn brought up?
answer:
because talk radio is populated almost exclusively by dishonest partisan hacks,or they are aware of the facts and are dishonest with their audience,
or both.
this is the simplest explanation.
to midnight:
"Liberalism has always been on the wrong side of history?"
Like when?
Please be specific.
Child labor laws, public education for all, food and water safety standards, minimum wage, time and a half for overtime, the 40 hour workweek, tarrifs to protect american manufacturing, womens sufferage, civil rights that ended separate but equal practices, the list goes on and on about how our society has moved forward in a positive way because of so-called "liberalisim" which you guys always demonize.
"Liberalism has always been on the wrong side of history?"
Honestly, I dont get your comment.
Let me clarify:
Liberal Democrats were wrong about the Rosenbergs. They were wrong about Algiers Hiss. They were wrong about McCarthy.
Which started me thinking:
They were wrong about Communism. They were wrong about the Soviet Union. They were wrong about Socialism. They were wrong about welfare. They were wrong about the Laffer Curve and Taxation.
They are really pushing hard to be wrong about European societal standards. They are really trying hard to be absolutely wrong about Iraq and the Global War on Terror. They are wrong about hate crimes, racial quotas, the nature of free speech, racial profiling, and politically correct speech/thought. They are wrong about educational standards/systems, and wrong about abortion.
Of course, all that's just from my perspective, so take it for what it's worth.
Still, it seems like the Democrats biggest problem is they can't get over that they've been wrong about pretty much everything since the early 1900s.
Left-liberal Democrats have been on the wrong side of every single policy issue, domestic and foreign, without exception, for at least the past sixty years.
From the Cold War to Gulf War I to the current war on terrorism, libs have been naysayers, claiming the US was going down the wrong path and telling everyone who would listen that America was doomed. Fighting Reagan and wishing to follow their path of appeasement towards the Soviet Union was wrong. Fighting Bush Sr during the Gulf War and advancing the 'strategy' of appeasement towards Iraq was wrong. And regarding the current war against terrorists, history will once again look back at libs as being wrong.
democrats are not communists or socialists.
we dont believe in government control of everything.
we are not holding those systems up as what to be like.
but we do support socialized medicine and social security.
is social security socialism?
and if so do you want to get rid of it?
the examples I named in the last post still stand, and I think you did not refute them successfully.
However, you named some examples that I would like to refute:
#1-wrong about Iraq?
You must be joking.
only the people who said we should not have gone in because there were no weapons of mass destruction have been proven right by history.
Those who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction are on your side and have been proven wrong.
lets also not forget the rest of the overall war on terror that inavles practices that are considered torture according to the geneva convention to ellict confessions from those who have been held in american custody for years and denied a trial to prove that theyve done anything.
I know who history will see as the moral cowards of our era that abandoned principles of right and wrong because of fear.
#2-racial quotas:
In this society, there are more black people per-capita serving time in prison for longer sentences for the same crimes that white's commit.
It is also generally harder for them to get employment,loans etc.
this is because of racism.
Ill admit affirmative action is not a perfect solution because there should be no double standards in our society ,but what does your side offer to adress or correct this issue other than to do nothing?
I dont like affirmative action, but I say doing nothing to adress the inequities caused by racism in our society is possibly worse.
#3-"They are wrong about educational standards/systems":
If you were in charge would there be no public education?
(amnother idea that came into being because of liberalism)
would only those with wealthy parents get an education at a cost of whatever the free market would choose to charge?
go ahead and explain why denying poor people an education would make our society better.
the system we have now is not the best, but why blame "liberalisim" for its failures?
#4-abortion:
I dont like abortion either.
If you were in charge would abortion be against the law?
remember that it used to be and there were many unsafe back-alley abortions that sometimes caused death.
other than to make abortions illegal what would you do?
then are you going to go out and arrest every woman that gets an abortion and every doctor that performs one and force every woman who is pregnant to carry the baby to term even in cases of rape and incest?
you say we are wrong, but how are you guys right if this is what you would do?
#5-"wrong about pretty much everything since the early 1900s."
really?
I thought the examples I named in the last post were pretty good.
"Child labor laws, public education for all, food and water safety standards, minimum wage, time and a half for overtime, the 40 hour workweek, tarrifs to protect american manufacturing, womens sufferage, civil rights that ended separate but equal practices, "
you seem to have ignored everything I put up in the last post which means that I am probably wasting my time trying to make sense to you now, But ill keep going anyway.
#6-the Cold War.
the nuclear arms race that endangered all life on Eatrh, and still continues to to this day(although not as much since the collapse of the Soviet Union) was an act of complete insanity that both countries were to blame for in a contest that endangered all life on Earth.
This cold war mentality also caused the Vietnam war.
This led to american troops being stuck in vietnam for years and years.
a war that served no purpose and nothing seemed to be accomplished.
but back then they said that if we didnt fight them over there, they would come over here.
just like is being said now about Iraq, which is another country that did not attack us and was not going to.
we did not win in Vietnam, and they did not come over here to fight us afterward, so the anti-war protesters of that era have been proven right by history and all the names on the vietnam wall that never came home to see their families again, because of this cold war you guys would like to return us to.
and You say we were wrong about the cold war?
#7-appeasement?
You mean like when Reagan met with Gorbachev?
Im sure the old video of Reagan sticking out his hand to shake hands with Gorbachev are on youtube somewhere.
how come you dont call Reagan a wimp who appeased the communists?
Oh thats right, I forgot, Reagan was a republican and only democrats can be appeasers, while republicans are not, even when they do the exact same thing as appeasers do.
"appeasers"
if he was democrat thats what you would call him.
for "appeasing" the russians.
However, I will give credit to Reagan either way for this one as there was significant arms reduction treaties between the two countries as a result of this "appeasement".
so you see, appeasement is not always bad.
Reagan was an appeaser because he met with the russains and you love him.
in closing,
I know my arguements probably sound like "Treasonous Godless Liberalism" to most of you and I most likely havent changed anybody's mind about anything important.
But id rather be a Godless unpatriotic anti-american liberal, than a fool.
peace everybody.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home