Goner Message Board
 | Forums | Register | Reply | Search | Statistics | Manual |
Goner Message Board / ???? / Glen Beck in the shadow of William Safire
Posted: Sep 27, 2009 9:20 pm
 
I don't have television but do pay attention to media news, so I have an idea of who Glen Beck is. The first time I've seen/heard Glen Beck is this video interview in which Katie Couric exposes his shortcomings just as she did Sarah Palin.
http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/2009/09/creepy-video-of-the-d ay.html
I watched that video and hurt for our civilization. That people take someone like Glen Beck seriously when they could turn to McNeil/Lehrer or The Wall Street Journal for news (or comfort) shows how weak we have become. If someone is/wants to be conservative, that's fine... it's only insulting when people take the Glen Becks and Ann Coulters (modern American ghouls) seriously (and choose them over the George Wills and David Brooks).
And then I turn to npr.org and see the front-page headline that William Safire has died. I've disagreed with Safire since he worked for Nixon, but I always was sure to read his conservative opinion pieces and his Sunday 'On Language' column in The New York Times Sunday Magazine is a week's highlight.
I may have disagreed with him about Watergate and Reagan's Star Wars, but he was a hero nonetheless. In a world where Rush Limbaughs and Bruce Tinsleys exist, William Safire was a treasure.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113255309
Posted: Sep 27, 2009 10:52 pm
 
Glenn Beck gets a little over the top sometimes and his sarcasm can get a bit annoying but he single-handedly got Van Jones run out of town on a rail, and I applaud him for that.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 4:47 am
 
Glenn Beck is like The Iron Sheik except the Iron Sheik actually believes in what he says
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 4:49 am
 
and I'd rather read 1,000 Glenn Beck tirades a day than anymore of your tired ass jive, newsie
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 8:46 am
 
McNeil retired about 15 years ago, btw
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 9:50 am
 
I'd rather read 1,000 Glenn Beck tirades a day than anymore of your tired ass jive, newsie

So don't read my posts or ,better yet, go gouge your eyes out.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 11:23 am
 
fuck this guy. worst thing to happen to news/ political commentary like ever.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 11:27 am
 
fuck his muppet voices. fuck his fat mom jeans.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 11:30 am
 
check out the three-part salon peice that came out last week. guy was a fucking coked up morning zoo douche for like 15 years before he discovered mormonism and conservative talk radio. it all starts making a lot sense...
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 12:12 pm
 
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 12:23 pm
 
I work with a guy who's a minister at Bellevue (giant fucking warehouse megachurch in Memphis) who is constantly talking about what Glenn Beck said on his show. Fucking nimrods.

It seems that George W. Bush's lasting legacy is that after 8 years of incessant, yet valid, attacks on arguably the worst president ever, now the conservatives feel it's their turn to do the same to Obama. Bush polarized America in the worst way and made us feel like it's the public's obligation to comment and criticize every move the president makes (no matter how well thought-out, informed or intelligent).
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 12:36 pm
 
after 8 years of incessant, yet valid, attacks on arguably the worst president ever, now the conservatives feel it's their turn to do the same to Obama.

Yup. If you ever make the mistake of dipping your foot into an argument with These People, this comment along with a nervous chortle will inevitably arise (when, within about 3 minutes, you have backed them into a very easy corner to locate):

"Well, you Liberals said everything horrible under the sun about Bush for the last 8 years, so now the shoes on the other foot and it isn't OK for us?"

Brilliant argument, Joe Six Pack.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 12:40 pm
 
I discovered Beck while driving through Missouri. Originally, I thought that he was either a satire, or a local hillbilly with a mic. I was shocked to discover that people actually take him seriously.

In this article from Time a couple of weeks ago, he basically says that he says shit just to get people riled up.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1924348,00.html

I've always wondered why the religious right always seem to prefer people who have fucked up royally (born agains) to folks who supposedly got it right the first time.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 12:53 pm
 

It seems that George W. Bush's lasting legacy is that after 8 years of incessant, yet valid, attacks on arguably the worst president ever, now the conservatives feel it's their turn to do the same to Obama. Bush polarized America in the worst way and made us feel like it's the public's obligation to comment and criticize every move the president makes (no matter how well thought-out, informed or intelligent).


I agree 100%. However, I think the Obama-haters actually enjoy slamming Obama. I think they think we had fun attacking Bush. I dunno. Its all just sad.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 1:04 pm
 
see, i got the impression most folks left of center were willing to give him some slack, even though the legitimacy of W's "win" in 2000 was in question. I don't remember any extreme vitriol from independents, moderates, more conservative Dems until he started banging the war drums, and then when he spent the next 6 years taking a dump on the constitution.

the difference is the freaks have become the mainstream right, and have effectively run away the sober, prudent, fiscally responsible moderate wing of the party. it's a fucking freakshow now, with nitwits like Beck leading the charge. It's not like the Christopher Buckleys and the Christine Todd Whitmans and the Colin Powells stopped believing in God or the notion of limited goverment; they were chased away by a bunch of loons with "GOD HATES FAGS" signs.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 1:06 pm
 
fucking Colorado Springs, CO, you have so much to answer for.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 1:10 pm
 
anyway - if any of you folks have a '10 congressional race coming up, go get involved ASAP.

It's time to kill an evangelical for the constitution.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 1:31 pm
 
Beck is hard to take seriously. When will a non-christian conservative have enough balls to call bullshit on the new republicans? I equally hate the self-rightous msnbc cabal of Oberman and Maddow. As usual, both parties just regurgitate the same name calling and finger pointing, while common sense takes a back seat to grandstanding. To top it off, you have Jimmy Carter blaming racism for the Obama backlash? To bad that the legitimate debate over real issues is clouded by buffoons on both sides.

the difference is the freaks have become the mainstream right, and have effectively run away the sober, prudent, fiscally responsible moderate wing of the party.

The exact same thing can be said about the dems. Both sides have become much more extreme and sadly, intolerant.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 1:31 pm
 
however, I think the Obama-haters actually enjoy slamming Obama.

I agree. They are pretty angry people; alienated, racist and generally pretty uneducated and ignorant. They are the same people who enjoyed beating the shit out of people that were much smaller than them in school and the girls who thought those guys were cool combined with the guys that were getting their asses kicked on a regular basis and ended up as adults finding peace once they got a concealed carry permit.

At least that is what they always seem to sound like!
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 1:44 pm
 
At least that is what they always seem to sound like![/i]

There lies the rub...Sure, if you look at the way the average Obama protester is portrayed, its very easy to get that impression. There have been racist signs and nuts carrying guns, but that's really a small percentage compared to the average, frustrated citizens who don't like the direction we are headed. Think of it this way, an equal percentage of ACORN workers are portrayed on FOX in a similar manner.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 1:45 pm
 
i don't know. i'm a registered independent and have very little love for the Democrats historically, but imho they are much more a "big tent" party than the GOP's been since the mid-80s. which is why i guess they have such a hard time presenting a unified front ("herding cats" etc), the moderate left seems to running the show, though, whereas the moderate right is practically non-existent. or in hiding. it's high time for a 3rd party.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 1:59 pm
 
the moderate left seems to running the show, though, whereas the moderate right is practically non-existen

This is my perception too. I'm socially lib but rather moderate when it comes to fiscal policies. That being said, I'm not anti-Health Care Reform as I work in the field and see multiple sides of the issue. Something has to be done and even Conservatives who actually think for themselves admit that. I think many people "who don't like where this country is headed" automatically are against something that could very well ultimately benefit them and their families.

Caveat: I am not in full agreement with Obama or the initial House bill.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 2:11 pm
 
the right has gambled away their appeal for independents on the sure-fire show-up-at-the-polls religious right. The problem there is that those numbers are unlikely to ever grow. i would think it would be better to take the hit when the 10% of swing-voters (who ultimately decide POTUS elections) are against you and live to fight another day, than to seal your fate with a bunch of dicks who think the world is 6000 years old.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 2:43 pm
 
the right has gambled away their appeal for independents on the sure-fire show-up-at-the-polls religious right.
Unfortunately, in most cases, that is a winning strategy. Had Hillary won the nod, McCain would have probably won the election. Record numbers of black voters and college students helped push obama over the top. Despite what the pundits have said, Obama did not win by a landslide.

Caveat: I am not in full agreement with Obama or the initial House bill.
The current plan is as bad as doing nothing at all. There needs to be both tort reform and insurance reform before any national health care debate. Also the option of shopping for insurance out of state is crucial.

think many people "who don't like where this country is headed" automatically are against something that could very well ultimately benefit them and their families.

Actually, I think the majority of people "who don't like where this country is headed" probably have health insurance. I fall into that category. Mandating that one has to buy something they already can't afford doesn't make sense. To put that burden on employers is also going to have a drastic impact on he creation of jobs. I would argue that health care is a right, but health insurance is not. Thing goal should be to bring down the cost of health care and insurance so that a person with a job can afford to buy it themselves while at the same time providing services for those who cannot afford it. This approach saves jobs and saves money. We don't need taxes on sodas to pay for basic health care for US citizens.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 3:23 pm
 
Unfortunately, in most cases, that is a winning strategy. Had Hillary won the nod, McCain would have probably won the election. Record numbers of black voters and college students helped push obama over the top. Despite what the pundits have said, Obama did not win by a landslide.

You are completely wrong.

1. McCain woulda beaten Hillary? Really? How'd you know that?
2. Obama won, and it was not due to blacks and the youth. "Exit polling suggests that there was no statistically significant increase in voting among either group. Black voters made up 11 percent of the electorate in 2004 and 13 percent in 2008, while young voters comprised 17 percent of all voters in 2004 and 18 percent four years later." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008 111303287.html
3. Obama didn't win by a landslide? WHAT!??! I don't need no pundit to tell me that. Obama crushed[u][/u] McCain 365-173 in the Electoral College.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 3:23 pm
 
Yes, but we have insurance through our employers. At least the vast majority of us do. The costs keep rising and the employers (no matter the size) are expected in this country to provide their employees with this as a benefit. Why? This is a reason the middle class hardly ever gets a raise of any consequence and often works at a salary that is hardly more than they would have earned 20+ years ago.

You obviously agree what something needs to happen. One of the catches with your proposal is that the more uninsured individuals have to (and will) rely on the ER for anything from basic health care to catastrophic care, our health care costs and insurance will not be going down anytime soon. So, there needs to be some provision for more people to afford insurance while enacting some of the things you mentioned to begin driving down costs.

I still have issues with employers being responsible for providing health insurance. This is just a bizarre thing to me that we take for granted.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 3:28 pm
 
George McGovern, still one of the smartest and most decent men on politics, solves the health care dilemma:

Medicare for All

Shh. Don't say "single payer." Just say "Medicare" and maybe no one will notice...
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 4:01 pm
 
You are completely wrong.
That is debatable. Remember I said "probably" in response to McCain over Hillary. Hillary is even more polarizing than Obama. I voted for Obama, my political biases are not coloring my perception of events. Obama's victory is not just due to the youth and black votes, but they certainly helped. The fact that the highest number of people voted since '68 should tell you something. Crushing McCain in the electoral college is one thing (well the most important thing seeing how that's who casts the real votes), but Obama's victory by popular vote was only by a 7 point margin. He only had 52% of the popular vote. Enough for a clear victory, but hardly a landslide.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 4:08 pm
 
One of the catches with your proposal is that the more uninsured individuals have to (and will) rely on the ER for anything from basic health care to catastrophic care, our health care costs and insurance will not be going down anytime soon.

No, the uninsured should receive regular medical treatment at govt expense ala medicaid. Those who can afford insurance (which could be most everyone that is employed if there was insurance reform) should be able to shop around and choose their own plan. Allowing the insurance companies to operate unchecked is not working.

I completely agree with John Mackey's op ed piece on insurance.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 4:13 pm
 
You're not completely wrong. You're just really, really wrong. Sorry to mischaracterize you.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 4:19 pm
 
i'm afraid that partisanship has gotten so entrenched that we are unlikely to see a landslide on par with say Reagan's drubbing of Mondale in a POTUS election any time soon. but Obama's 52.9% to McCain's 45.7% is nothing to sneeze at. it's significantly better than W's technical loss in 2000 (47.9% to 48.4%) and his 50.7% to 48.3% in '04 when he claimed a "mandate" to roll over any Dems making appeals to bi-partisanship. classy dude, that one. (numbers courtesy of Wikipedia)

one thing I agree with the GOP on health care is tort reform. it's the one place I think them Dems could stand to give a little. it's going to piss off their dirtball trial attorney contingent something fierce though. fuck em.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 4:28 pm
 
It's all conjecture at this point, who knows? My opinion is just that, my opinion. Merely disagreeing does not make the other point of view wrong. Half the country agrees with me, half agrees with you. I'm no more wrong than you are. I just don't quantify how wrong you may be.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 4:28 pm
 
No, the uninsured should receive regular medical treatment at govt expense ala medicaid. Those who can afford insurance (which could be most everyone that is employed if there was insurance reform) should be able to shop around and choose their own plan. Allowing the insurance companies to operate unchecked is not working.

Carney, so you do agree with Federal government intervention/regulation with the insurance companies and an inevitable increase in the Medicaid or Medicaid-waiver programs % of Federal Poverty Level to cover more citizens?

It looks as though Mackey believes that We the People out of the goodness of our hearts should be left to determine the availability of heath care for the "less fortunate" (via tax deductions) from contributions to a big Whole Foods Family Style healthcare pot. I am sorry, but that right there is wishful thinking and extraordinarily naive. Most people in this country who are vociferously anti-government health care are also convinced that all poor people are lazy and they don't deserve anything as long as they keep eating pork rinds and birthin' all those criminal babies. I wish I was kidding.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 4:35 pm
 
one thing I agree with the GOP on health care is tort reform. it's the one place I think them Dems could stand to give a little. it's going to piss off their dirtball trial attorney contingent something fierce though. fuck em.

Fuck you too.

Tort reform is not the answer. Everybody is for tort reform until they get injured. Insurance companies are whores and will charge whatever the market will bear.

We trial attorneys work on a contingency basis. I don't take meritless cases, cause if we lose, I get no $. I turn down shit all the time. Even if I did file a meritless case, it would get thrown out of court. The judicial system works just fine. Tort reform is an easy target. Everybody hates lawyers till they need one.

More here:

http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/tort_reform/myths-and-facts.html
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 4:43 pm
 
Carney, so you do agree with Federal government intervention/regulation with the insurance companies and an inevitable increase in the Medicaid or Medicaid-waiver programs % of Federal Poverty Level to cover more citizens?
Yes. Those who cannot provide for themselves should be taken care of. We are the wealthiest and most prosperous nation in the world, not to mention it is in our best interest as a country.

BUT, while not all poor people are lazy etc, I do see a problem when people who have no means have kid after kid with no plan on how to support them. This does create a tremendous drain on society and is not fair to those kids. How do we fix this problem? Who knows? Start with education and birth control.

Mackey's on point for most of his piece, but your point about the kindness of our hearts brings up this question: If you believe that the govt should pay for health care, why it that any different than voluntarily checking the box and giving your tax money to the uninsured? The result is the same, but in Mackey's scenario you have a choice where your money goes. He is a little misguided, but overall, he makes a lot of sense, especailly in the area of reform.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 5:10 pm
 
whoa take er easy... i realize not ALL attys are dirtbags. (i'm not an attorney, but i wouldn't have a job without big pharm and big tobacco lawsuits). just a little populist rabble-rousing, that's all.

malpractice is malpractice, and those harmed should be able to redress their grievances in a court of law, etc., but honestly i do think there is a sue-happy culture, and one of its unintended consquences is some of the insurance insanity we see. and have to pay for. just a little persepctive is all i'm asking.

i appreciate the link and i will take it under advisement. but considering the source (not you; the site), i will also take it with a grain of salt.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 6:18 pm
 
Just so you know, Glennnn was a frequent visitor to Stall No. 3, Minneapolis Airport Men's Room.

Hey Glennnnn, why don't you "hang out" with us anymore? Cat got your tounge?
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 7:20 pm
 
whoa take er easy... i realize not ALL attys are dirtbags. (i'm not an attorney, but i wouldn't have a job without big pharm and big tobacco lawsuits). just a little populist rabble-rousing, that's all.

Okay. I love you.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 9:28 pm
 
Both sides have become much more extreme and sadly, intolerant.

I don't think the left has become anymore extreme, in fact I think they've moved more to the center. And I think the intolerance stems from the fact that America elected W and the Republican party sought to get Palin elected. There's just no fucking excuse for either of those people being political figures.
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 10:02 pm
 
shouldnt be able to qualify for welfare without being sterilized
Posted: Sep 28, 2009 10:32 pm
 
shouldnt be able to qualify for welfare without being sterilized

good point.
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 1:23 am
 
I am no fan of either, but there is absolutely no comparison between them. Safire was an erudite, educated, intellectual establishment conservative columnist and Beck is goofy, nonsensical, phony-populist oaf that could not complete a semester of college nor a chapter in his crummy book without a ghostwriter. Beck has the analytical skills of a dullard.

His job is to make conservatives look like reactionary idiots, and his fan base is mostly the same low-hanging fruit attempting to make a certain unfit mother from a Alaska the standard bearer of the Republican party.
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 1:20 pm
 
Tort reform is an easy target. Everybody hates lawyers till they need one.

I have a mother (attorney for the last 35 yrs) who would kiss you for that sentence.
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 1:31 pm
 
why it that any different than voluntarily checking the box and giving your tax money to the uninsured?

The operative word in there is "voluntarily". Even in the best of times, not enough people would choose to give money to the government or another big faceless corporation, for that matter, for a social welfare reform idea. This is why Whole Foods is well, Whole Foods and Kroger is Safeway is Publix et al. Only someone operating in an elitist fantasyland such as Mackey could casually toss off that sort of comment. It is a sweet idea, but its success is completely dependent on the emotions of the public at any time. Say in another economic depression (which will happen), that sweet idea would go bye-bye fast.

That being said, I think free sterilization for women and men, out of those big hospital health vans should be done all over every town in the USA. Also all birth control and condoms should be free and easily accessible and explained to children at a very early age. How Socialist is THAT?
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 2:50 pm
 
There lies the rub...Sure, if you look at the way the average Obama protester is portrayed, its very easy to get that impression. There have been racist signs and nuts carrying guns, but that's really a small percentage compared to the average, frustrated citizens who don't like the direction we are headed. Think of it this way, an equal percentage of ACORN workers are portrayed on FOX in a similar manner.
sorry carney,
but they ignore facts. all of them. mainly, the one about republicans being the party who fucked up the country.
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 3:07 pm
 
why it that any different than voluntarily checking the box and giving your tax money to the uninsured?
I don't think it will work either, I was just throwing that out as a philosophical question. Letting the general population go by line by line on a budget is not something that will ever happen, nor should it. But the idea is valid. If everyone who voted would take a look at the current budget, they would be shocked to see where our money goes. the pork in the stimulus package is enough to fund a lot of health care, same goes for military spending and any other appropriation bill. Mackey is a rare bird, a leftist who understands capitalism and uses it to his benefit.

Proposing sterilization does not make you a socialist, but in some liberal circles they would brand you a facist. I'm all for voluntary sterilization, but since these services would be targeted at the poor, you know what the arguements against it would be. I just watched a few minutes of an Alex Jones piece on eugenics (I am not a fan, but he can be entertaining) and any talk of sterilizing poor folks (who end up being disporportionally black or hispanic) would send the anti govt folks and the far left into a tizzy.
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 3:16 pm
 
sorry carney,
but they ignore facts. all of them. mainly, the one about republicans being the party who fucked up the country.

The Repubs did the heavy lifting, but there is plenty of blame to be spread around. Our current financial decline has roots that go back to the 80's. It is very easy to place all the blame and anger on Bush, he is an easy (rightfully so) target. Just as Obama is an easy target for the right wing nut jobs. Anytime you have to vilify an opponent it usually means that your side doesn't have much to say. That of course goes both ways (you listening Sen Craig?).
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 3:45 pm
 
I just read Sarah Palin finished her "book" --- four months early.
Writing goes a lot quicker when you don't use any multi-syllable words
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 4:48 pm | Edited by: rich riggler
 
Writing goes a lot quicker when you don't use any multi-syllable words

You barely got through that sentence yourself, Genius.


shouldnt be able to qualify for welfare without being sterilized

Should have started this with you, Brad.
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 6:29 pm
 
i imagine it goes a lot quicker when you have a ghost-writer handling everything you do outside of your fucktarded Facebook and Twitter updates.
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 7:21 pm
 
I'm definitely not behind the "Sterilized=eligible for TANF" argument. But I am certainly OK with free sterilizations and birth control for anyone taking the offer, poor or otherwise. Throw in education regarding sex, family planning, child development, parenting etc etc etc and that is even better. Sure some Libs may label it "facist" but just as many Conservatives might also.
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 8:01 pm
 
I have a mother (attorney for the last 35 yrs) who would kiss you for that sentence.


yeah, but it'd be a 300 dollar kiss
Posted: Sep 29, 2009 9:10 pm
 
. But I am certainly OK with free sterilizations and birth control for anyone taking the offer, poor or otherwise. Throw in education regarding sex, family planning, child development, parenting etc etc etc

agree 100%
Posted: Sep 30, 2009 1:49 pm | Edited by: Uptight White
 
How Socialist is THAT?

Very National Socialist. Most Malthusians are big Human BioDiversity advocates like Science Czar John C Holdren. I'd be satisfied with preventing procreation for anybody incarcerated or receiving public assistance. Most people are glad to help the downtrodden, they just are not thrilled with funding dysgenics in or pretending the War on Poverty is working any better than the War on Drugs.
Posted: Sep 30, 2009 2:26 pm
 
Unwed Teenage Mothers for Palin!

Empower teenage pregnancy NOW!

Mongoloid babies are GOOD! Special Needs Rule!
and so are snowmobiles
Posted: Sep 30, 2009 3:46 pm
 
Posted: Sep 30, 2009 4:51 pm
 
I definitely see the scary Orwellian aspect of sterilization, but I can't see the harm in
1) proper sex ed (fuck a bunch of fundamentalists) and
2) incentivizing contraception (fuck a bunch of fundamentalists, again).

Let's still defer to free choice... it's just time to dismantle the stigmas of sensible birth control. and probably time to pay for it. it's an investment that will pay off ten-fold.
Posted: Sep 30, 2009 5:15 pm
 
I like Glen Beck myself. I dont agree with eveything he says but he is not as extreme as Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.
Posted: Sep 30, 2009 7:46 pm | Edited by: Dutchman
 
I don't know about sterilization, but I think the legal child-bearing age should be the same as the drinking age--if you're not mature enough to drink a beer til you're 21, you shouldn't be allowed to have a child until you're 21. Also both parents should have to be high school graduates or the equivalent and felons aren't allowed to reproduce--hell we don't let them vote, why do we let them repopulate the prisons every 20 years? Oh yeah, I watched Glenn Beck's show once for about 10 minutes--he struck me as trying to be the conservative Jon Stewart. Made my skin crawl.

-Ryan
Posted: Sep 30, 2009 9:45 pm
 
legal child-bearing age should be the same as the drinking age

I think that you should at least be able to drink if you could possibly be drafted to die for your country.
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 1:08 am
 
i watch beck and oreilly from time to time. dont want to get brainwashed by some liberal agenda. i think they are cancelled out by other dumb motherfuckers like michael moore and that attack dog rachel maddow.
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 12:03 pm
 
i watch beck and oreilly from time to time. dont want to get brainwashed by some liberal agenda.

Second sentence proves the first.
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 12:18 pm | Edited by: Will
 
moore's a gasbag, but maddow, while mildly annoying, actually does a little fact-checking before spouting questionable innuendo and baseless claims.

i could go forever and not hear her or olbermann's sanctimonius blather again, but non-partisan fact-checking usually favors their rhetoric over Beck and that three-input gal Hannity.
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 2:07 pm
 
I knew my dad had been living in Florida too long when he told me in all seriousness during his last visit that he "kinda liked" Sean Hannity and thought that he "really was his own man." Noooooooooo...
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 3:01 pm
 
see that's so weird to me. O'reilly and hell, even Beck break ranks with the GOP (tho Glenn's breaks are more or less from reality), more than Hannity. It's always seemed to me that Sean was a straight up Repub talking points-only sorta douche. At least O'Reilly would sometimes criticize W. Not Hannity though, he wants Bush Jr's babies real bad.
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 3:16 pm
 
Sean Hannity
olbermann

I have equal disgust for these two pathetic douchebags. Olbermann may have an edge, just because I have to put up with him on Sundays if I want to tune in to the 3 hr pregame show of Most Ridiculously-named football game in the USA...

waiting for the gay sex scandal to sink these two homos' careers...
Sen Craig?
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 4:53 pm
 
I can understand being irritated by gasbags of the left or right, but is it possible that maybe, just maybe, one side makes a lot more sense than the other? The alternative seems to be to throw your hands up in the air and say, "Well, they're all assholes and I don't believe anything any of them say!" That seems kinda simple-minded.

Just sayin'...
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 5:07 pm
 
I can understand being irritated by gasbags of the left or right, but is it possible that maybe, just maybe, one side makes a lot more sense than the other? The alternative seems to be to throw your hands up in the air and say, "Well, they're all assholes and I don't believe anything any of them say!" That seems kinda simple-minded.

Just sayin'...


They say the more education a person gets, the more liberal they become.
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 5:45 pm
 
They say the more education a person gets, the more liberal they become.
My mom says that is because college is a plot by the left to brainwash all the students into radical leftists. She loves Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin a whole bunch too.
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 6:53 pm
 
I can understand being irritated by gasbags of the left or right, but is it possible that maybe, just maybe, one side makes a lot more sense than the other?
NO

the Dems couldn't pass a health care plan with a public option with a super majority but could approve 50 million a year going to abstinence only sex ed

You dance the same and dress the same
Won't be long (till) you are the same
You look the same you act the same
There's nothing new and you're to blame

This is Goner, Not Salon
This is Goner, Fuck Salon

EATING BLOODY VAG IN THE 09s
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 6:56 pm
 
the Dems couldn't pass a health care plan with a public option with a super majority

Thanks to Blue Dog Dems! Fuk 'em!
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 7:20 pm
 
Thanks to Blue Dog Dems! Fuk 'em!

and their own fucking ineptitude

"Public Option just doesn't sound right. We should call it the government option"
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 8:00 pm
 
NO

the Dems couldn't pass a health care plan with a public option with a super majority


True, but the Democrats are not "the left." Moore may be a gasbag, but he's every bit as critical of the Dems as anyone on this board.
Posted: Oct 1, 2009 8:17 pm
 
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$!
Top
Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message
 

 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
  Goner Message Board Powered by PHP Forum Software miniBB ®