moonbattery.gif


« Obama's Socialist Doctors Photo Op: Fail | Main | Obama Uses UN to Attack First Amendment »


October 6, 2009

In Defense of Glenn Beck

Posted by Gregory of Yardale at October 6, 2009 8:51 AM

Liberal Fascism author Jonah Goldberg reminds us, the fierce burning hatred of the progressive left toward Glenn Beck is nothing new. The progressive left always attacks whoever is successful at getting a conservative message across to the public. Ronald Reagan was attacked as a senile warmonger who hated poor people. Rush Limbaugh has been called a hatemonger, a drug addict, and a pedophile (for some reason).

Much of the anti-Beck backlash (He’s an extremist! He’s paranoid! He’s hate-filled!) from the left is hard to take seriously. First, this is a crowd that lets Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo speak for them, and that celebrated the election of unfunny man Al Franken to the Senate. If you think it’s racist to oppose Obama’s health care reform efforts, it goes without saying that you’ll think Beck is an extremist. This is what liberals always say about popular right-wingers, including Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley. For over 20 years liberals, including Presidents Clinton and Obama, have insisted that Rush Limbaugh is everything from an unpatriotic hatemonger to an enabler of domestic terrorism. It makes sense that they’d give Beck the same business.

Granted, the Glenn Beck attacks have reached unprecedented level of vitriol. The left deliberately tried to promote an admittedly fabricated rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl. Bill Maher fantasizes about Glenn Beck eating his own feces, (the kind of sophisticated insult a three year old comes up with). Now, the left is cruelly dredging up the rumor that Glenn Beck's mother committed suicide --- presumably in shame over giving birth to him.

None of which has anything at all to do with refuting the information or opinions Glenn Beck expresses daily on his highly rated radio and television programs.

This level of vitriol can partly be explained by the left's cult-like devotion to their leader, a man they worship with messianic fervor. Obsessed cultists do not respond well when their beliefs are challenged. But mostly it's because progressive fascists are just bad people who are not interested in debating policy, but in destroying opponents through any means necessary.

128832930266973099.jpg

Hat Tip: Teh Blogmocracy


Comments

The more effective they are the more the left hate them. TRUTH to the left is like holy water to a vampire. GO GLENN!!!

Posted by: TED at October 6, 2009 9:29 AM


Posted by: TED at October 6, 2009 9:36 AM


Gregory, are you seriously trying to put Beck and Limbaugh on the same level of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and/or William F. Buckley?

And are you seriously trying to suggest that Bill Maher speaks as a representative of the Democrat Party? Considering how elected Republicans have taken on a reputation of squatting on Rush's command, I can somewhat see your confusion.

Posted by: Andy42302 at October 6, 2009 9:50 AM


As usual, I've totally missed the point of the post, but I'm going to comment anyway. Gregory, are you seriously trying to put Beck and Limbaugh on the same level of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and/or William F. Buckley?

And are you seriously trying to suggest that Bill Maher speaks as a representative of the Democrat Party, or am I just too stupid to understand the more obvious interpretation that Bill Maher is a popular left-wing media figure attacking Beck with toddlerish potty humor? Considering how the Mainstream Media have taken on a reputation of squatting on Obama's command, you can see how I have to strain to make some insipid potty humor of my own.

Posted by: Andyisaretard at October 6, 2009 10:01 AM


Actually, they were "investigating" Glenn Beck's version of his mother's death - which was officially listed as an accidental drowning, but which the Beck family has always considered suicide due to her drug and alcohol problems.

In other words, they are attempting to make the case that he has "misrepresented" himself and his family history. For sympathy, one presumes.

Posted by: Kathleen at October 6, 2009 10:08 AM


Who cares? The left attacks people who tell the truth, the harder they strike, the more obvious it is that Glenn is actually on something.

Posted by: Jay B at October 6, 2009 10:11 AM


And all the hoopla about his advertisers abandoning his show in droves...bullshit. I watch the previous day's show at 5 am, and I FF thru all kinds of commercials; same amount as any other show. Oreck is the newest sponsor.

Anyway, Revolution Cat looks like he means business.

Posted by: Karin at October 6, 2009 11:35 AM


To me, that photo implies that Glenn's listeners are all paranoid gun nuts who are ready to launch a violent 'revolution' on Glenn's command.
This portrayal of Beck Glenn as an instigator of violence is totally inaccurate.
Beck isn't calling for people to take up arms. Anyone who actually listens to him knows that is the last thing he wants to see happen. He constantly warns the listeners to keep it peaceful and explicitly describes the disaster which will ensue if people take to violence.

That's just my take.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 6, 2009 12:03 PM


Andy, Zipcode just shut the fuck up, you useless fucking puke.

Posted by: SK at October 6, 2009 12:23 PM


Why do leftists think this is a story? It is entirely possible that Beck's mother killed herself by jumping overboard and that her boyfriend died in an effort to save her. If that's what Beck believes happened, nothing in the official autopsy rules it out, because the official cause of death for his mother was listed as "PROBABLE accidental drowning".

Posted by: Judith M. at October 6, 2009 1:14 PM


the opposition is 2 fold:
a. he doesn't know anything. he doesn't know the basic facts of history that most historians agree on, so his attempts at interpretation and synthesis are, well, laughable.

b. he's simply a partisan in populistic clothing. how can he, w/ Bush in office, be FOR the Patriot Act and TARP, then become a libertarian who opposes gov't power and is quoting Thomas Paine just a couple of months later? Just change the letter next to the POTUS's name, that's how. It's beyond disingenuous and evinces no cogent worldview or convictions, which is supposedly his whole schtick. He's a political carnival barker.

I'm sorry, but I don't think Paine was saying that big centralized gov't was OK so long as the RIGHT political party was in charge.

This is why you have to be an idiot to take Beck seriously. It's not like you don't have intellectuals on the right. YOu just push them away for Glenn Beck.

Posted by: brs at October 6, 2009 1:44 PM


...and I'm just waiting for Glenn to say the word.

/sarc off

Posted by: FREE at October 6, 2009 1:45 PM


"how can he, w/ Bush in office, be FOR the Patriot Act and TARP"

Specific examples of how he was for it, please. Reliable quotes and/or video/audio if you don't mind also. Thanks.

Posted by: Anonyrat at October 6, 2009 1:51 PM


Not everyone likes to listen to intellectuals, brs. People have a right to watch whoever they want, don't you think? Personally, I don't get cable, so I rarely see Beck, unless I'm somewhere that has cable, which is almost never, but all this vitriol from the left under the banner that they are only concerned about the well being of the conservative movement smells like a steaming pile of BS to me.

Posted by: Judith M. at October 6, 2009 1:59 PM


That would be "whomever" they want. Damn, I hate this laptop keyboard!

Posted by: Judith M. at October 6, 2009 2:04 PM


Will in his own words do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6C6E6ayh4U

I'm not a big Ron Paul guy, but I do think he has conviction - he's got integrity and isn't just there to get himself power.

Beck makes both of the points I made above, and carries water for Bush to boot to show what a good little political animal he is.

YOu guys have elevated a morning man DJ into being your intellectual leader. Sorry, but this guy just doesn't have it

Posted by: brs at October 6, 2009 2:04 PM


"Not everyone likes to listen to intellectuals, brs."

Fine - but then what's wrong with me calling them what they are?

"People have a right to watch whoever they want, don't you think?"

Who said you shouldn't have the right to listen to whomever you want? Twist arguments much?

"Personally, I don't get cable, so I rarely see Beck, unless I'm somewhere that has cable, which is almost never, but all this vitriol from the left under the banner that they are only concerned about the well being of the conservative movement smells like a steaming pile of BS to me."

They don't speak for me, and I spoke for myself above. I suggest you read that, becasue you adressed literally nothing form my post.

Posted by: brs at October 6, 2009 2:10 PM


"They don't speak for me, and I spoke for myself above. I suggest you read that, becasue you adressed literally nothing form my post."

Your comment was a cobbled up mess of nonsense accusations as was your YouTube evidence. Can you give us something that has a clear context so we have something to work with?

Posted by: Judith M. at October 6, 2009 2:31 PM


"Your comment was a cobbled up mess of nonsense accusations as was your YouTube evidence."

a. my comment is that he has no convictions - the same acts are OK when Bush does them, but it's not OK when Obama does.

B. Someone asked me to produce evidence that he was for TARP and the PAtriot Act. The Youtube video unambiguously does that.


" Can you give us something that has a clear context so we have something to work with?"

If these ideas are not clear, I'd beg your indulgence to reread with care.

Posted by: brs at October 6, 2009 2:42 PM


carries water for Bush

Who's this "Bush" you people keep talking about?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at October 6, 2009 3:29 PM


Jay, Bush is the guy that got a daddy bought presidency that was restored by the Clinton Administration and then he promptly broke it.

Posted by: andy42302 at October 6, 2009 3:53 PM


I'm getting really annoyed with the people on the right who are biting at Beck's ankles.

Beck is a bit weird and silly, but not nearly so much as he is made out to be by the spiteful Left. He is an articulate spokesman of small-government libertarianism, in between his occasionally odd crying sessions. And he is the ONLY person in the media on EITHER side who is doing genuine research, putting things in historical context, framing the current issues of the day in American historical terms, and refusing to swallow the mainstream line on things like ACORN, Van Jones, etc.

I understand why the Left despises him - he is very dangerous. A thousand times as dangerous as O'Reilly prattling nonsensically about how both the left and the right have their extremists. I just can't grasp why the right is after him.

Posted by: mega at October 6, 2009 4:07 PM


"He is an articulate spokesman of small-government libertarianism,"

When the POTUS is a Dem. When he's a Repub he's for TRAP and the Patriot Act


"And he is the ONLY person in the media on EITHER side who is doing genuine research"

Jeremy Cahill. And what "research" is he doing? Picking one party and selectively finding skeletons in their closets while ignoring the other's transgressions? Is that really research?

"putting things in historical context, framing the current issues of the day in American historical terms"

He thinks HITLER is a better historical match for Obama than FDR. There goes any understanding of history.


"...and refusing to swallow the mainstream line on things like ACORN, Van Jones, etc."

No, I think being anti-ACORN and anti Van Jones IS the mainstream. Congress (majority Dems) passes emergency legislation to cut their funding, but the mainstream is with them? Well they did hold onto Van....wait a second.

Maybe you need a new definition of mainstream? I think Lance Bass is hot.

Posted by: brs at October 6, 2009 4:22 PM


b. he's simply a partisan in populistic clothing. how can he, w/ Bush in office, be FOR the Patriot Act and TARP, then become a libertarian who opposes gov't power and is quoting Thomas Paine just a couple of months later?

You don't even know what his position on the Patriot Act is, brs. He's made it clear for a long time that he thought it was largely a terrible piece of legislation, and his support for it was because certain parts were needed, and he only supported it so long as it had a sunset.

If you're going to argue against someone, argue against them based on what they actually believe.

Posted by: Evil Otto at October 6, 2009 4:47 PM


It's ridiculous to say Beck thinks Hitler is an historical match for Obama. He's said nothing of the kind. That is just slander, nothing more.

Actually, it was Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" that kind of got a weird meme going about liberals, Hitler, and fascism. The book has been misused, misinterpreted, and misunderstood. His basic point was that fin de siecle statism led to all sorts of offshoots, from Wilsonian idealism to socialism to fascism, Hitler, etc., and continues to be a dominant political force, having at its core in every instance the growing power of the state and supression of individual liberties toward the liberal project of making a new, better world through social engineering.

That is a very different thing (and a much more meaningful discussion) than comparing Obama to Hitler, which is a totally ridiculous comparison, and damaging to the right every time it comes up.

I wish there was some way to get a group agreement going that nobody will use the word "Hitler" anymore. It prevents having what would otherwise be a very useful discussion, the 120 year effort to get people to trade in their individual liberties for an elite bureacracy's vision of a Perfect World made up of Better People as led (and controlled) by bureaucrats.

Posted by: mega at October 6, 2009 5:10 PM


In reality, Glenn Beck expressed doubts about TARP, and was brutally critical of Bush on the deficit and the lack of border security. It doesn't fit into the meme of Beck as a partisan, but there it is.

Posted by: V the K at October 6, 2009 5:23 PM


Jay, Bush is the guy that got a daddy bought presidency that was restored by the Clinton Administration and then he promptly broke it.

Oh, that is terrible. He should have had George Soros and the Reds buy it for him, as President ACORN did.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at October 6, 2009 5:41 PM


Quote in reference to the Patriot Act:

Beck makes both of the points I made above, and carries water for Bush to boot to show what a good little political animal he is.

And, yet, we'll never see brs condemn the hundreds of Democrats who voted for the Patirot Act and both of the Afghsanistan and Iraq wars. In his eyes, people like Hillary Clinton can change opinions (and accents) from speech to speech but nobodyon the right can ever reconsider anything.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 6, 2009 5:43 PM


But let's look on the bright side: Jimmy Carter must be thrilled. Obama is making Carter look strong and competent. I never thought I'd type those words.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at October 6, 2009 5:46 PM


The question is what are the Reds going to do when we suffer another terrorist attack? (And we will.) Obama's already on his own tab; anything that happens from here on out is 100% on him, and he's on record as soft on terrorism.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at October 6, 2009 5:48 PM


Posted by: candyandy the Marxist Obama fluffer who like little boys and masturbates to kiddy porn42302 at October 6, 2009 3:53 PM

HEE HEE HEE................

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH did it!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH I say!

You are pathetic.

What a freak.

Hey! Do you hear that!? It....It....It's banjo music candy andy!

Are you having the inbred family HO down in
Kentucky?

LOL! Sorry candy. juuuuuust kiddin'. I know you lefties have the sense of humor of a pair of shoes.

Posted by: Dave at October 6, 2009 6:14 PM


Posted by: Jay Guevara at October 6, 2009 5:48 PM

Correct sir!!

The idiot left will still blame BOOOOSH for any attacks. They don't want anything to tarnish The Dumbo Earded Emperor.

Posted by: Dave at October 6, 2009 6:23 PM


Of course you'd blame Obama for an attack Jay. Just as you blamed Clinton for the attack on Bush's watch. You've repeatedly praised Bush for "no attacks in 8 years" yet give no regard to the fact that Obama has kept us safe for the 8 months he's been in office. If you follow what seems to be the mindset of the Republican Party today, I'm sure you're praying for such an attack only to lay more blame on the present administration. People are starting to read you loud and clear. Checked any recent polls?

Posted by: andy42302 at October 6, 2009 6:43 PM


Posted by: candyandy the desperate Marxist in denial42302 at October 6, 2009 6:43 PM

This is one desperate troll we have here. Obama has kept us safe for 8 months?

Under BOOOOSH policies still in place that have yet to be torn down by the idiot in chief.

Posted by: Dave at October 6, 2009 6:49 PM


What policies Dave? Name them.

Posted by: andy42302 at October 6, 2009 6:55 PM


Posted by: andy42302 at October 6, 2009 6:55 PM

will have to look them up.

Posted by: Dave at October 6, 2009 6:59 PM


And while you're naming those policies that kept us safe dave (which you won't) that are still in place, explain how another attack will suddenly be Obama's fault.

Posted by: andy42302 at October 6, 2009 7:00 PM


The patriot act which was signed into law by BOOOSH in October 2006 is still in effect.

It's easy to explain another attack would be Obamas fault. First he is an appeaser and second just like you dip shits blamed BOOOSH for 9/11 because it was on his watch the same would apply for your messiah.

Posted by: Dave at October 6, 2009 7:06 PM


I don't think Obama's kept us safe for 8 months, his policies are destructive and dangerous to the established democracy.

Posted by: Jay B. at October 6, 2009 7:12 PM


Dave,

Doesn't seem like there's much point in detailing the myriad of Bush policies that are still in place as Candy Ass thinks history began around noon on January 20th.

Go back under the bridge, troll.

Posted by: Richard C. at October 6, 2009 7:14 PM


I know Richard C that is why I mentioned the patriot act. That was my point anyway. It's obvious that BOOOSH policies are still in place.

This is how candy andy operates.

Posted by: Dave at October 6, 2009 7:23 PM


Hey Candyandy,

Can you name any Obama policies that have kept us safe?

Posted by: Dave at October 6, 2009 7:27 PM



Oh Dave, "The Patriot Act" saved us. You're a researching wizard. That's a bill with how many pages? And how long did it take to voted on it after it was presented? I'll give you that answer--> 5 minutes.
I would ask that you go back and research what provisions you think saved us so but obviously that would be foolish. If you honestly believe the Bush Patriot Act provides us security, let me suggest the perfect security haven, prison. When you assault the Constitution, security can be acquired.

Jay, what policies are destructive?

Why do people here not understand or acknowledge the definition of the word "troll". Are you in denial or just plain stupid? Is modern English just that complicated? Can you not learn and/or except what simple words that have very simple definitions mean? It's not a trick question. Seriously!

Posted by: andy42302 at October 6, 2009 7:29 PM


Dave, I do know that we've not been attacked under his watch. That's what you guys gave Dub credit for without a realistic rationale.

Posted by: andy42302 at October 6, 2009 7:31 PM


Posted by: andy42302 at October 6, 2009 7:31 PM

Hey Mr. "tea" man. Is that all you have? Can you produce anything that suggests that Obamas policies have saved us from another attack. Seems to me that Bush policies are still in play here. Seems to me that you need to do some research as well lefty idiot hypocritical condescending ass wiping dipshit.

"The Patriot Act" saved us." That was you acknowledging that the patriot act saved us.

I rest my point. Thanks for the victory, candy.

Posted by: Dave at October 6, 2009 7:40 PM


http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0930/p02s09-usju.html

Read the first paragraph Andy. Case and point, it is a Bush policy that allowed us to stay safe, even under Obama's watch.

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at October 6, 2009 7:58 PM


Also, Obama is looking to RENEW these policies.

So, if you had a problem with Bush on this policy, you surely are upset with Obama about it... right?

Consistently inconsistent.

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at October 6, 2009 8:00 PM


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/01/renew-the-patriot-act/

"... in 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama supported a Patriot Act reauthorization that contained only minor modifications to the original law."

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at October 6, 2009 8:04 PM


Just as you blamed Clinton for the attack on Bush's watch.

Absolutely not true. I have repeatedly opposed any and all attempts to allocate blame for 9/11 for a simple reason: none of us – none of us – knew that we were under threat at the time. Not Clinton, not Bush. We got sucker-punched.

Now, however, is a different story. We know we're under threat. Getting attacked the second time (as we perceive it) is totally different than getting attacked the first time. Agreed?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at October 6, 2009 8:39 PM


Good ones, AttC!

I sure wish I felt equipped to defend Beck, but I haven't seen enough of his programs to know his positions on anything. I do have this sneaking suspicion that anyone the left puts this much energy into trying to destroy must be REALLY good, though.

Posted by: Judith M. at October 6, 2009 8:39 PM


Otto:

"You don't even know what his position on the Patriot Act is, brs. He's made it clear for a long time that he thought it was largely a terrible piece of legislation, and his support for it was because certain parts were needed, and he only supported it so long as it had a sunset.

If you're going to argue against someone, argue against them based on what they actually believe."

Ohhhhh - he was for it before he was against it, ha? Not that your nitpickingto defend your boy. It's a terrible bit of legislation, and it did not come in pieces. THis is vintage Becj, though. He pretends he's sort of for and sort of against, but in the end he knows where his bread is buttered.

No real libertarian was for the Patriot Act. And any student of history knows that power given rarely isn't abused or comes back. Go read the Church Committe findings.

I love it when history repeats itself to the surprise of all....

Posted by: brs at October 6, 2009 8:45 PM


"LOL! Sorry candy. juuuuuust kiddin'. I know you lefties have the sense of humor of a pair of shoes."

Yeah, most good comedians are conservatives. Like Dennis MIller, and...Dennis MIller. Did I mention Dennis Miller?

Posted by: brs at October 6, 2009 8:48 PM


"It's ridiculous to say Beck thinks Hitler is an historical match for Obama. He's said nothing of the kind. That is just slander, nothing more."

OMG, really? Really?

The guys sits there every other night and compares Obama et al. to Hitler. Ya know, you don't have to say "I think Obama is like Hitler" to do this. When you say over and over that the dem's policies are like Nazis, it's not really implication any longer.

Don't play dumb. You know what he's doing. Lance Bass has a tight, hot ass.

Posted by: brs at October 6, 2009 8:55 PM


Liberal... Dane Cook...

'nuff said.

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at October 6, 2009 8:55 PM


I get the feeling that BRS has never actually watched Beck and, if he hears Beck "say over and over that the dem's policies are like Nazis," wouldn't that inherently mean that he watched Beck a lot?

Beck's never said such things and I still believe that BRS either turns on Beck for a minute and develops his own interpretation, or gathers his talking points from the liberal community. Just huffing and puffing... no substance.

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at October 6, 2009 8:59 PM


Anonymous:

"And, yet, we'll never see brs condemn the hundreds of Democrats who voted for the Patirot Act and both of the Afghsanistan and Iraq wars. In his eyes, people like Hillary Clinton can change opinions (and accents) from speech to speech but nobodyon the right can ever reconsider anything."

How would you know this? I find it particularly funny in that I will not vote for anyone in congress who voted for Iraq, I think the Dems are convictionless pussies who couldn't be an opposition party and certainly can't get anything done as a majority party, and I think Obama's broke almost all of his campaign promises and perpetuated the worst of Bush's policies.

So don't go around telling me what I think. Douche. Or my boyfriend, Lance Bass, will totally kick your ass.

Posted by: brs at October 6, 2009 9:01 PM


I'm a big fan of GB, watch him every chance I get. The only people who hate and fear him are the corrupt crooks who are trying to put the wool over people's eyes.

The things that Beck has revealed I would have never known about. Why else did Van Jones and Acorn get thrown aside? GB exposed them for the corrupt cockroaches that they are.

I really think Beck is sincere. O'Reilly and Hannity for the most part are a lot of fluff anymore.

I'm not big fan of the Neo-Cons or the Repubs either. They've had their hand in the taxpayer kitty jar as well.

Posted by: SurferChick at October 6, 2009 9:02 PM


Is anyone more douchey than people who end stuff "nuff said"?

Dane Cook sucks. He stole all of his material from Louis C.K.

Posted by: brs at October 6, 2009 9:04 PM


Louis C.K. Garbage.

Posted by: AmericanToTheCore at October 6, 2009 9:10 PM


Beck is an idiot. Anyone with a brain can see that.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 7, 2009 3:21 AM


What a compelling argument, anon! You should go into law.

Posted by: Judith M. at October 7, 2009 4:05 AM


Is that all I have Dave? WTF are you talking about? You throw a half assed answer out there, evaded my other questions, thin spin in asking me to defend Obama (although we haven't been attacked), and then ask me if that's all I've got. I don't need anything.
But it does appear that you, Jay, and the others (assuming an outside shot that there's actually 2 different identities here) hope and pray for another attack so you can blame the Obama Administration, or as Jay puts it "anything that happens from here on out is 100% on him".
All and all it makes no sense that Jay can dismiss 9/11 as just a happening, assign credit to Bush for 7 safe years afterward, and then not only denying Obama credit for an additional safe year but says he's to blame if we get hit again. Considering the content of these post point out that Obama hasn't changed the policies, how can that be? Yet Jay states "I don't think Obama's kept us safe for 8 months, his policies are destructive and dangerous to the established democracy". What policies?

Posted by: andy42302 at October 7, 2009 5:08 AM


I expect all politicians to lie. What bothers me are the commentators like Beck who set themselves up as altruistic vendors of "the truth" for the masses who can't find it for themselves. However, his facts are not always acurate. He doesn't retract when he's proven wrong. We already have all these people who won't read or listen to anything unless it already meets their mindset and Beck doesn't inform, he inflames. People like him are dangerous. The people who follow him have all kinds of names for liberals and the charge that they are blindly following Obama. I see no difference. Beck and his contemporaries are making fools out of their viewers,as far as I'm concerned. He's making tons of money off of the hysteria he creates, just like Michael Moore on the left.
Ignorance is a terrible thing. If you have to get your information from somebody else, make sure it's correct.

Posted by: mejamom at October 7, 2009 9:00 AM


Having scrolled thru most of the trollery, I did glance past brs's comment on comedians.

brs, it's a different kind of funny. On the cons side, P.J. O'Rourke, Mark Steyn, Florence King, and Rob Long come to mind. It's a thoughtful, thought-provoking kind of humor, not jokes about Sarah Palin's daughter getting raped and stuff.

Posted by: Karin at October 7, 2009 10:21 AM


Ohhhhh - he was for it before he was against it, ha?

That's it? That's your response? Unimpressive.

Not that your nitpickingto defend your boy.

No. I'm telling you what he said. Which you had no idea about. You seem to think Beck is just some generic right-wing walking cliche, and that's really what you're arguing. Hell, it doesn't even matter who we're arguing about. We could change the word "Beck" to "Limbaugh" or any other talk show host and you'd be absolutely sure you knew what their position on any given subject was.

It's a terrible bit of legislation, and it did not come in pieces. THis is vintage Becj, though. He pretends he's sort of for and sort of against, but in the end he knows where his bread is buttered.

What? In your world, it's apparently not possible to be somewhat for something, or somewhat against something. It's not possible to think something has good points and bad points at the same time.

No real libertarian was for the Patriot Act.

First, Beck doesn't claim to be a "real Libertarian." He's a libertarian, small-l, and has repeatedly said he's tending more towards libertarianism in recent years... "tending" does not mean he's suddenly become Ron Paul. In other words, he's been changing his mind about Republicans, and has openly said this. But then, you didn't know that either. Personally, I'm happy that Beck is moving towards libertarianism.

Second, who are you to decide what a "real Libertarian" believes? Libertarianism, like all political belief systems, is not an on/off idea, but a spectrum.

Posted by: Evil Otto at October 7, 2009 2:27 PM


Oh, and for the record, even though he's occasionally annoying, weepy, and emotional, I like Beck's show. Of all the shows out there, he's the one who puts the most effort in, and his show is the funniest and most entertaining right wing talk show out there. Limbaugh (while he's clearly having fun) is mostly just phoning it in, and seems to spend more and more time each show talking about which media sources are talking about him. Hannity is a lightweight who can't even handle Michael Moore. Savage is... well... ugh.

Beck is doing something that no right-wing talker has done before. He's not just giving commentary and providing a place for pissed-off right-wingers to vent... he's investigating, digging into the ugly swamp of the progressive movement and exposing its corruption and evil to the public. He's giving publicity to others who investigate. He's organizing people, providing forums for them to meet.

And I think that's what pisses the left off so much. They may hate Limbaugh, but he basically just sits behind the EIB microphone and talks. Beck is a community organizer. He's actually changing things, targeting the progressives, and exposing them. He's doing the job the media should be doing but isn't. And he's doing it in an entertaining way.

Posted by: Evil Otto at October 7, 2009 2:44 PM


Posted by: candyandy the weak ass Marxist Obama fluffer 42302 at October 7, 2009 5:08 AM

Hey condescending pecker cheese! I answered both question you put before me and I am not going to spend time going through 1000s of pages of The Bush Doctrine and Bush's National security programs.
Idiot!

Oh and by the way candy why don't you show some of Obullshitter's programs that will keep this country safe. That would be easier to do than Bush's programs because your jet setting dip shit in chief has DONE NOTHING!

Posted by: Dave at October 7, 2009 3:46 PM


What is that behind the cat...an AK-47?

Posted by: Cylar at October 7, 2009 11:41 PM


Of course you'd blame Obama for an attack Jay. Just as you blamed Clinton for the attack on Bush's watch. You've repeatedly praised Bush for "no attacks in 8 years" yet give no regard to the fact that Obama has kept us safe for the 8 months he's been in office.

Ooooh. 8 whole months you say? Isn't that about the length of time Bush had been in office before the 9/11 attacks? A little less?

If 9/11 had occurred in 2009 instead of 2001, we'd never have heard the end of how "Bush" didn't do enough, because clearly it wasn't Obama's fault. There was NO WAY he could have prevented an attack only eight months into his term.

We went after Clinton when the dust from the Twin Towers had settled, because not only did he do nothing substantial about terrorism in HIS eight years, we could (and can) also give specific examples of things he did to undermine any American anti-terrorism efforts. The Gorelick memo, the refusal to accept Bin Laden from Sudan, on and on.


If you follow what seems to be the mindset of the Republican Party today, I'm sure you're praying for such an attack only to lay more blame on the present administration.

Don't you dare suggest that we're waiting with bated breath to see more innocent people die in a terrorist attack, you sick bastard. As usual, you've missed the point.

The concern on our side is simply that Obama is making such an attack more likely with his dismantling of the intelligence apparatus, his failure to deal effectively with Iran (the #1 state sponsor of terrorism) and his refusal to secure the borders or do anything else which would help protect our country.

Geesh, why do I bother with you? You're like every other left-winger I argue with - a damn parrot.


People are starting to read you loud and clear. Checked any recent polls?

Yeah, and if they're accurate, I'd say Congress is in for a major housecleaning next year, along with Obama and Co in '12.


Posted by: andy42302 at October 6, 2009 6:43 PM

Nitwit.

Posted by: Cylar at October 7, 2009 11:51 PM


Dave, I do know that we've not been attacked under his watch. That's what you guys gave Dub credit for without a realistic rationale.
Posted by: andy42302 at October 6, 2009 7:31 PM

Okay, we'll call your bluff, douchebag. This country goes 8 years without another attack, I'll concede the point...IF you can demonstrate that any attempted attacks were thwarted by policies or procedures that were initiated by Obama. No credit for simply continuing something Bush started.

I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: Cylar at October 7, 2009 11:55 PM


Absolutely not true. I have repeatedly opposed any and all attempts to allocate blame for 9/11 for a simple reason: none of us – none of us – knew that we were under threat at the time. Not Clinton, not Bush. We got sucker-punched.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at October 6, 2009 8:39 PM

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, Jay. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed 6 people and injured 1000 more, should have told us all we needed to know. Especially since it was carried out by the same people who orchestrated 9/11.

That doesn't even consider at least 20 years of terrorism around the world prior to 9/11. We've known at least since the 1979 Iranian revolution that terrorism was on the rise. I grew up in the 80s, and I have clear memories of Reagan dealing decisively with these fanatics.

It's nothing new. All 9/11 did was remind us that our "holiday from history" was over. You know, that decade during which we thought everything was going to be rainbows and lollipops just because the USSR was gone?


Posted by: Cylar at October 8, 2009 12:00 AM


All people are asking for is answers to questions.

There are people asking questions about whether Glenn Beck was involved in raping and murdering a young girl in 1990.

All people want is answers.

Posted by: M at October 8, 2009 2:36 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)