I think Glenn Beck Will Have a Real Breakdown Very Soon!!

[jasonk282]

Why do we need to be a Super Power? Where does it say in the Constitution that we are to lord over the world?

It is too expensive, today, to be the World's Policemen, and dictate to other countries how we think they should govern themselves.

When, as you point out, we have too many problems domestically to fix.

But, FIXES REQUIRE MONEY. You can't fix anything by simply tearing it down.

Money comes from either TAXES or SHIFTING BUDGET PRIORITIES. Or a combo of both.

Cutting the Defense Dept Budget by 50%, and shifting that money toward Domestic policies, would go a loooong way to FIXING our domestic problems.

If America's "Glory Days of Economic Power" were in the 1950s, we were a nation living under *FEAR* of nuke war by the Russians. Does that mean that our version of Capitalism only functions when we are under constant *FEAR* of annihilation? Does that seem like an America that you want to live in today?

I would also go a long way in weaking our already weaked military. We have not lived under the nuclear fear since the fall of the Soviet Union and only now our ecomony is suffering. What we also need to do is pull ovr military out of Iraq and focus on one front. No nation ever won a war fighting two fronts at once.

 

[titsrock]

We have not lived under the nuclear fear since the fall of the Soviet Union and only now our ecomony is suffering.

Hmmm. I seem to remember that it was George W Bush who gave a State of the Union speech about Iraq's nuclear capability....and we have believed since 2006, that Iran is on the hunt for nukes....etc.

If we actually leave other nation's alone, stop policies of rendition/*******, we restore our credibility, we save money....

and...

we focus our money/energy/assets on developing a Military that can ACTUALLY MEET 21st/22nd Century and BEYOND threats.

Do we really need tanks, aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, tank hunter aircraft...the list goes on, and on....:dunno:

 

[jasonk282]

Hmmm. I seem to remember that it was George W Bush who gave a State of the Union speech about Iraq's nuclear capability....and we have believed since 2006, that Iran is on the hunt for nukes....etc.

If we actually leave other nation's alone, stop policies of rendition/*******, we restore our credibility, we save money....

and...

we focus our money/energy/assets on developing a Military that can ACTUALLY MEET 21st/22nd Century and BEYOND threats.

Do we really need tanks, aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, tank hunter aircraft...the list goes on, and on....:dunno:

short answer is yes.

And there are plenty of weapons that are being developed to meet the new needs of the military. this is really the first war of the 21st century, look how long it took them to figure out fire and manuenver tactics during WW1. Most of the nuclear capabality in the middle east is aimed at Israel, which happens to be our only ally, there is no fear the North Korea, Iran, Iraq could EVER send a nuke on our shores. they just don't have the capability, so instead they go after our allies in the area, South Korea and Israel.

 

[CunningStunts]

Why do we need to be a Super Power? Where does it say in the Constitution that we are to lord over the world?

It is too expensive, today, to be the World's Policemen, and dictate to other countries how we think they should govern themselves.

When, as you point out, we have too many problems domestically to fix.

But, FIXES REQUIRE MONEY. You can't fix anything by simply tearing it down.

Money comes from either TAXES or SHIFTING BUDGET PRIORITIES. Or a combo of both.

Cutting the Defense Dept Budget by 50%, and shifting that money toward Domestic policies, would go a loooong way to FIXING our domestic problems.

If America's "Glory Days of Economic Power" were in the 1950s, we were a nation living under *FEAR* of nuke war by the Russians. Does that mean that our version of Capitalism only functions when we are under constant *FEAR* of annihilation? Does that seem like an America that you want to live in today?

There is ONE big flaw in this way of thinking... it is based on the assumption first, that the Federal government can fix something, and second that it's their place to fix it. In most cases, I disagree with both assumptions.

And as for the defense budget, you do know that the internet was created by DOD? No, it wasn't Al Gore, it was DOD. As were many of the technologies we all use, like microwaves, cell phones, jet engines, etc... I feel the same way about the space program... why cut that to give people free **** and create a new beaurocracy? :dunno:

 

[24788]

Why do we need to be a Super Power? Where does it say in the Constitution that we are to lord over the world?

It is too expensive, today, to be the World's Policemen, and dictate to other countries how we think they should govern themselves.

When, as you point out, we have too many problems domestically to fix.

But, FIXES REQUIRE MONEY. You can't fix anything by simply tearing it down.

Money comes from either TAXES or SHIFTING BUDGET PRIORITIES. Or a combo of both.

Cutting the Defense Dept Budget by 50%, and shifting that money toward Domestic policies, would go a loooong way to FIXING our domestic problems.

If America's "Glory Days of Economic Power" were in the 1950s, we were a nation living under *FEAR* of nuke war by the Russians. Does that mean that our version of Capitalism only functions when we are under constant *FEAR* of annihilation? Does that seem like an America that you want to live in today?

The world hates us. If we lose power over time well be running more of a risk of being attacked.

 

[titsrock]

There is ONE big flaw in this way of thinking... it is based on the assumption first, that the Federal government can fix something, and second that it's their place to fix it. In most cases, I disagree with both assumptions.

And as I've pointed out--there are many things which the Fed Gov't does well. If you take limit/restrict the Federal Gov't, then you shift responsibility onto the States, themselves. Did Louisiana do a great job of "protecting her borders" from Hurricane Katrina? How'd that go, btw? Do you really want to put your *trust* in the hands of States which you do not live in to protect you? You seem to have no faith in "Federal workers" but complete faith in "State" workers. :dunno: Or, are you okay with living in a US of "Rich States" and "Poor States" as long as you live in the "right one":dunno:

 

[titsrock]

The world hates us. If we lose power over time well be running more of a risk of being attacked.

So, we should keep meddling into other countries' affairs because, ultimately, they **** us anyway, because we meddle in their affairs...:dunno:

Is that circular, false logic?

 

[Hot Mega]

Beck is a hack, he losing sponsorship and will possibly blow a cog on the air one day (if he remains on the air). Case closed.

 

[Facetious]

Beck incorporates way too much of a preachy - religious like tone in his radio program, is that his normal style of delivery ? :dunno:
If so, he's an asset to the democratic party, IMO.

As you can tell, I'm a big fan of glen :rofl:

 

[Member2019]

Hmmm, revisionist history ...

There is never moment where it's only about what's in the best interest of U.S. citizens without any political calculation for them. They would argue Democrats are the same but after 9/11 EVERYONE was behind GWB and they gave him the benefit of every doubt and extended the widest possible latitude for a U.S. president since reconstruction...until he fucked that up.

Ummm, it only took a week after 9/11 for people to start criticizing him. Furthermore, I heard an endless stream of people claiming that 9/11 wouldn't have never happened if Al Gore won.

I'm sorry, but as much as I do believe W. really did fuck up, there were people completely against him both before and immediately after 9/11. And some of his policies were no different than many Democrats.

I 100% agree that W. shares the sole blame for making the call to invade Iraq. But it's not as if many Democrats didn't suggest it before and didn't have the same intelligence either and made very similar statements. W. just finally did it.

Everything else is revisionist history.

As far as Beck, it's Fox News people. It's designed to be purposely sensationalist to the extreme, and that's why they get the ratings. They don't candy coat it, or given their opinions between a smile and a "I'm right because this is the truth," they throw it in your face with absolute prejudice.

Until there is another outlet for the right-leaning media, Fox will continue to gather the ratings. Because there are enough people playing games on the left and competing with one another. Doesn't surprise me one bit that Glenn has "gone off the deep end" after joining Fox.

 

[Philbert]

Er no, he doesn't have "depth" on the subject he opines to millions of people about. Indeed he has not been educated beyond the high school level. In that respect he doesn't really have "depth" on any subject. (This would be an example of a very specific occurance not a generalization. Glenn Beck is academically a 30 watt bulb.) You wouldn't let him operate on your ****, do our taxes or build a bridge but you trust him to work out how to run the country. Now maybe he is one of those public intellectuals who has a natural brilliance that does not need to take the college route. There are many famous examples.

It seems that the high school graduate level is in your future. Now obviously that is something for you to shoot for and I applaud your ambition. You are right though, when you say I am not too familiar with his work. If you could just supply me with one essay of his from a respected political journal where he lays out a coherent argument and backs it up with clear, objective data from checkable sources (That would be what I would refer to as a mark of "depth.") I would be most thankful.

Failing that could you just point me to another respected journal related to the area of political and socila theory where his work is cited as a source.

Really shouldn't be too hard.


As an unrelated aside you appear to have some intimate knowledge of my personal life. Have we met? Or are you that vagrant that was recently caught exposing himself outside my property? The one that went on to confess at his arraignment that he had sexual congress with a Yorkshire Terrier as his tiny genitalia were unable to exite a woman.

Please don't respond to this until you produce the said article. Reading your missives makes me think of pustules exploding onto a bathroom mirror and I could do without that.

Cheers.

That was a very pathetic response...got your little girl going though, huh?
Are those supposed to be crushing insults and put-downs? Like I am so worried what size you think my dick is...or if I have acne, etc.
You are so low on the scale of intellectual thought and yet you want respected journals publishing Glenn Beck before he merits respect...like I said, pathetic.

You reveal your thought processes through your postings, very sad and not real deep. If you need reassurance look to someone else, I feel no sympathy for your lack of personal development. Don't hang with grownups if you can't compete.
Glenn Beck is way beyond your level, if you can't see or hear what he is talking about...not deep philosophy but what is going on in the immediate world around us.
If he has said something outright wrong or straight up dishonest...that should be easy to pinpoint. What is it he has said that is a lie or flat out wrong? Maybe I missed it...
Obama has said specific things I can see are A) a lie and B) are wrong.
It seems you can find a few such examples of Glenn Beck lying or being 180 degrees wrong, as much as it seems all you Lefty haters keep track of him...I look forward to the revelation.
I have met many college grads (many working at labor jobs to actually make a good living) and most are mid level lame with no real grasp of anything outside what they were spoonfed by someone else...sounds like you went to college. Not a great recommendation for a life of academic endeavor.
Recalling the many frat parties and sorority whores from those years of University brings to mind the huge numbers of the educated mindless...I much prefer those who have reached out and touched something, learned about things out in the real world, and figured out how things really fit together...not measuring each part and putting it in a catalog to be filed at a later date.:rofl:
Please spare us your sophomoric take on Glenn's ability to think and comment...your attempt at academic snobbery is not working.:*****:

 

[Philbert]

Beck is a hack, he losing sponsorship and will possibly blow a cog on the air one day (if he remains on the air). Case closed.

Your case is closed, ok that's true.
Glenn is not losing anything if sponsors don't go with his show...Fox isn't losing them just some want to be on a non politically polarizing show. This has been the case for a long time, and Glenn's show will have sponsors as long as he's a big winner...it's telling how you and Tits quote and refer to an article that not only gives the basic info you quote but also refutes your conclusions and makes ya'll basically liars.
Glenn is fun to listen to, he makes as much fun of himself and his pretentious attitudes as does anyone else, he's funny and does his homework.
If he gets stupid or extreme he'll lose his listeners...it's that simple.
Many of his audience are fellow travelers, not clones. I have my own take on things but like to hear his points, he makes some good ones.
You wouldn't know any of this since you only "hear" Glenn the Clown in your fabricated world; you watch the Rachel Van Dyke show and madman Keith, I have to assume, from your description of Glenn.
Like living underground and thinking it's midnight, when it's really noon.:rofl:

 

[Hot Mega]

If he gets stupid or extreme he'll lose his listeners...it's that simple.

PUHHHH-LEEEEEEEEEEEEZE!!! The more stupid, extreme, hyperbolic and idiotic the GOPer talking head the bigger GOPer following.

If recent history has shown us ANYTHING it's that there few things so stupid, extreme, hyperbolic or idiotic that GOPers will not assert, insinuate or speculate if they can semantically do so in order to incite a fringe.

In fact, there is virtually no "mainstream" to GOPerism as the opinions and writings of the most extremist of liars and nutjobs are the must see, must listen and must read material relied upon by the base of GOPers.

GOPertv (aka Fox) is a fucking tabloid...ratings (a commonly used criteria for defending Fox) has ZERO to do with quality of content. Hell, William Hung had great ratings on American "Idle". So too did Jerry Springer and Maury Povich.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Hmmm, revisionist history ...

Ummm, it only took a week after 9/11 for people to start criticizing him. Furthermore, I heard an endless stream of people claiming that 9/11 wouldn't have never happened if Al Gore won.

I'm sorry, but as much as I do believe W. really did fuck up, there were people completely against him both before and immediately after 9/11. And some of his policies were no different than many Democrats.

I 100% agree that W. shares the sole blame for making the call to invade Iraq. But it's not as if many Democrats didn't suggest it before and didn't have the same intelligence either and made very similar statements. W. just finally did it.

Everything else is revisionist history.

I believe you're engaging in a little revisionism. Who in the mainstream criticized Bush in the **** of 911??? IN FACT, the criticism if any came from the "mainstream" of the "right" as many laid the blame at the feet of Clinton in spite of numerous efforts to avail the Bush administration of the threat level facing the US.

I heard NO ONE claim 911 wouldn't have happened under Gore....some have asserted Gore wouldn't have invade Iraq which is quite likely and has proven to be a monumental policy failure no matter what happens with Iraq.

The problem you're ALWAYS going to have with me and the so called intelligence is the fact that we along with the British, we spent years creating the phony intelligence that we then later claimed we had no alternative but to use (see Operation Rockingham). It would literally be like a police dept. framing a suspect then claiming they were only going where the evidence lead them.

"W finally did something"??? So if Clinton ignored threats, attacks, allow fugitives to stay on the lamb, etc. Why wasn't Bush's first order of business to invade Afghanistan??? Clearly he would have done so if his eyes saw things differently from Clinton...

The conspiracy in the Iraq invasion doesn't begin with W it begins a decade earlier with the cabinet members and advisors he stacked his administration with. Many of whom's sole purpose was to facilitate an American military effort to oust the Baathist regime. That is near factual as possibly can be...not because of what I say but because of their words and actions.

 

[jasonk282]

Er no, he doesn't have "depth" on the subject he opines to millions of people about. Indeed he has not been educated beyond the high school level. In that respect he doesn't really have "depth" on any subject. (This would be an example of a very specific occurance not a generalization. Glenn Beck is academically a 30 watt bulb.) You wouldn't let him operate on your ****, do our taxes or build a bridge but you trust him to work out how to run the country. Now maybe he is one of those public intellectuals who has a natural brilliance that does not need to take the college route. There are many famous examples.

It seems that the high school graduate level is in your future. Now obviously that is something for you to shoot for and I applaud your ambition. You are right though, when you say I am not too familiar with his work. If you could just supply me with one essay of his from a respected political journal where he lays out a coherent argument and backs it up with clear, objective data from checkable sources (That would be what I would refer to as a mark of "depth.") I would be most thankful.

Failing that could you just point me to another respected journal related to the area of political and socila theory where his work is cited as a source.

Really shouldn't be too hard.


As an unrelated aside you appear to have some intimate knowledge of my personal life. Have we met? Or are you that vagrant that was recently caught exposing himself outside my property? The one that went on to confess at his arraignment that he had sexual congress with a Yorkshire Terrier as his tiny genitalia were unable to exite a woman.

Please don't respond to this until you produce the said article. Reading your missives makes me think of pustules exploding onto a bathroom mirror and I could do without that.

Cheers.

Is respected political journal an oxymoron?

 

[Lust]

to be honest, i don't really like ANY of those type of pundits, (be they left-wing or right-ng) in their way of thinking. all they seem to do is coddle to people who already agree with them and further alienate people who don't. I throw Beck, O'Reily, Olberman, Matthews and the lot of them in the same mix: annoying, loud mouthed, self righteous, narcistic and completely uninterested in a logical presentation of something that may go against their current rant.

i prefer a more objective delivery but i don't really know of any out there, so fuck em all, i'll just decide for myself and hit closer to the mark than the ratings motivated shlop they dish out.

oh and the gasoline theatrics in that vid......geez....that was just....well....wow, never thought I'd see a display that made Michael Bay or Uwe Boll look like entertainment gods. but ... i was wrong.

 

[Mrs Jolly]

That was a very pathetic response...got your little girl going though, huh?
Are those supposed to be crushing insults and put-downs? Like I am so worried what size you think my dick is...or if I have acne, etc.
You are so low on the scale of intellectual thought and yet you want respected journals publishing Glenn Beck before he merits respect...like I said, pathetic.

You reveal your thought processes through your postings, very sad and not real deep. If you need reassurance look to someone else, I feel no sympathy for your lack of personal development. Don't hang with grownups if you can't compete.
Glenn Beck is way beyond your level, if you can't see or hear what he is talking about...not deep philosophy but what is going on in the immediate world around us.
If he has said something outright wrong or straight up dishonest...that should be easy to pinpoint. What is it he has said that is a lie or flat out wrong? Maybe I missed it...
Obama has said specific things I can see are A) a lie and B) are wrong.
It seems you can find a few such examples of Glenn Beck lying or being 180 degrees wrong, as much as it seems all you Lefty haters keep track of him...I look forward to the revelation.
I have met many college grads (many working at labor jobs to actually make a good living) and most are mid level lame with no real grasp of anything outside what they were spoonfed by someone else...sounds like you went to college. Not a great recommendation for a life of academic endeavor.
Recalling the many frat parties and sorority whores from those years of University brings to mind the huge numbers of the educated mindless...I much prefer those who have reached out and touched something, learned about things out in the real world, and figured out how things really fit together...not measuring each part and putting it in a catalog to be filed at a later date.:rofl:
Please spare us your sophomoric take on Glenn's ability to think and comment...your attempt at academic snobbery is not working.:*****:

Apologies to Alan Coren................



Woz it not Alexandra Pipe what wrote a little learning is a dangerous thing.


Now you were set a simple task of collecting one item of supporting evidence. This you have failed to do. That will get you an F. As in fail. A failure. There is no way round it. I still await the tangible evidence of credible in depth analysis from Glenn Beck. Given that this man seeks to influence the national debate on a host of very serious issues, I do not think this an outrageous request. In respect to this issue, put up or shut up.

Perhaps I should, at this juncture, remind you that it was you who applied the label of "in depth" to Mr Beck. I see that in your latter post you mention that his public philosophy is not "deep." At you a little muddled over how deep and depth might be related? Oh, for ****** out loud.

In place of said evidence you offer up some rambling discourse designed to, well, I'm not sure what? Apparently a critique of college social life will suffice in place of actual evidence. Even by the standards of "the dog ate my homework" school of lit crit, this is **** poor. Look, I'm happy that you are not intimidated by people who can do hard sums. That, however,is not a jumping off point to celebrate ignorance.

So, in conclusion, please produce some evidence of in depth analysis from Glenn Beck. He has lived a life of shameless self promotion across several media for years. If he is half the man you think he is then there should be a mountain of the stuff. Get to it. You don't want two F's, it is dragging your GPA down.

 

[jasonk282]

Apologies to Alan Coren................



Woz it not Alexandra Pipe what wrote a little learning is a dangerous thing.


Now you were set a simple task of collecting one item of supporting evidence. This you have failed to do. That will get you an F. As in fail. A failure. There is no way round it. I still await the tangible evidence of credible in depth analysis from Glenn Beck. Given that this man seeks to influence the national debate on a host of very serious issues, I do not think this an outrageous request. In respect to this issue, put up or shut up.

Perhaps I should, at this juncture, remind you that it was you who applied the label of "in depth" to Mr Beck. I see that in your latter post you mention that his public philosophy is not "deep." At you a little muddled over how deep and depth might be related? Oh, for ****** out loud.

In place of said evidence you offer up some rambling discourse designed to, well, I'm not sure what? Apparently a critique of college social life will suffice in place of actual evidence. Even by the standards of "the dog ate my homework" school of lit crit, this is **** poor. Look, I'm happy that you are not intimidated by people who can do hard sums. That, however,is not a jumping off point to celebrate ignorance.

So, in conclusion, please produce some evidence of in depth analysis from Glenn Beck. He has lived a life of shameless self promotion across several media for years. If he is half the man you think he is then there should be a mountain of the stuff. Get to it. You don't want two F's, it is dragging your GPA down.

Look for yourself www.glennbeck.com. Glenn Beck, Keith Oberman, Rachel Madow, Sean Hannity etc..... are political commentators nothing more. Do people believe in what they say yes but people also believe in what Jon Steward and Steven Colbert say also. They are basicly commentating on the current events and giving THEIR opinions on the subject. Same can be said about sports analysis, they are giving thier opinion on the matter at hand.

There is a mounatain of stuff from Glenn beck on his website and on Fox's website, it's your choice if you don't want to look their.

Just because Beck never went to college does not make him stupid as you so put it. I would bet that a majority of the people that post on this website have zero to little college education IMO. Guess they are stupid as well.

And who is this Alexandra Pipe person, I can't seem to find anything on the internet about her?

 

[Hot Mega]

Just because Beck never went to college does not make him stupid as you so put it. I would bet that a majority of the people that post on this website have zero to little college education IMO. Guess they are stupid as well.

Beck is stupid because of what he says and does. No amount of education can fix stupid. Being stupid is a choice.

 

[Mrs Jolly]

Look for yourself www.glennbeck.com. Glenn Beck, Keith Oberman, Rachel Madow, Sean Hannity etc..... are political commentators nothing more. Do people believe in what they say yes but people also believe in what Jon Steward and Steven Colbert say also. They are basicly commentating on the current events and giving THEIR opinions on the subject. Same can be said about sports analysis, they are giving thier opinion on the matter at hand.

There is a mounatain of stuff from Glenn beck on his website and on Fox's website, it's your choice if you don't want to look their.

Just because Beck never went to college does not make him stupid as you so put it. I would bet that a majority of the people that post on this website have zero to little college education IMO. Guess they are stupid as well.

And who is this Alexandra Pipe person, I can't seem to find anything on the internet about her?

No, the point was that Glenn Beck was cited by somebody on here as "in depth." To be taken seriously in any field your ideas will eventually make their way into respected journals. You don't need to be an academic. (see Gore Vidal etc) Academics will pick up on what you write and cite you as a credible source - if you have something to say. A good example would be "The Economist" which, although only a magazine is widely used as a source material. I just want one example where Beck has actually thought something through at a college level. (DEPTH!) I hear him going on about communism and socialism ad nauseum. I don't believe he understands those terms. I doubt he has read a book on political theory. My point was you can't exhibit depth without delving into the subject. If the poster had just said that Beck was an infotainment blow hard then no problem. When these goons are given the gravitas of a true intellectual then all sorts of alarm bells go off.

On the point about Alexandra Pipe, the clue is in the apology to Alan Coren bit. Coren wrote a short story (30 years ago) about what happens when Joe the Plum types get carried away and start mangling up their learning. Alexandra Pipe is in fact Alexander Pope - who in fact did say that a little learning is a dangerous thing. It is a lovely joke in the original and I do not do it justice - hence the apology.