Q: Why Does the Left Hate Glenn Beck?

For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Democrats are socialist/communist/facist/marxist in training. Half of the democrat politicians already work for and are funded by the enemies of freedom, Soros, the CPUSA, anyone. Billions of dollars stolen from others is being spent to destroy the U.S., by those living within the walls. Too bad they’re power will be taken away, and most will be executed, by the same government they try so hard to force on the rest of us. Even a Facist knows who they’re enemies are and they are the traitors that pushed them into power.

Neo, I think they were paraphrasing Mark Levin, who often tells his Liberal callers to put on some clothes get out of the basement, stop mooching off their mothers and get a job. Of course getting a job now, is nearly impossible.

A lack of originality and creative thinking will plague this administration, if the Socialist haven’t tried it and failed, as they invariably do with all their programs, they aren’t interested in trying the program. Creative ideas that work, not from this bunch of dullards.

Maybe Timmy will get a good scoop from his daily long conversations with the harpies of Wall St., you say, they probably play him like a sap to know how to play the market with the latest Socialist scheme to ruin the country.

Scraprion, They don’t see themselves as Facist, Communist or even Socialists. They see themselves as “Free Thinkers”. In fact they are so free and openminded that if they stand right in the wind you can hear the wind whistle through their heads.

‘I happen to think that Glen Beck is a genius, not on Rush Limbaugh’s level but he’s getting there.’

Why do so many of you guys worship these guys that were former drug addicts??? Doesn’t it ever raise a red flag that individuals that can’t manage their own lives probably shouldn’t reign over others lives?

…drug addicts, not users.

Topps, I though liberals were tolerant, no? I judge people by who they are today, not who they were in the past. Calling Limbaugh a drug addict is insane. He didn’t smoke crack or shoot heroine or snort cocaine to the point of being non-functional. He was addicted to prescription pain-killers. He still functioned quite effectively and did his job better than any other radio host. Beck admits to having been an alcoholic. I don’t think alcoholics are lumped in with drug addicts as a general rule by people without a political agenda.

Just as I judge Obumble as the socialist/marxist/totalitarian narcissist that he is today, not the drug-using do-nothing poser he was yesterday.

@Jarhead68:

topps is nothing more than a sock puppet for herman who is a sock puppet for john, etc. etc. etc.

Who knows who the puppet master really is?

No need to respond to him any further, since we don’t allow the use of marionettes here.

Chihuahua: I suspect it’s David Axelrod’s consulting company who has hired the sock puppets using their ill-gotten prophets from the tax payers. They’re worse than Halliburton. LOL.

Make that PROFITS, not prophets…duh!!!

I’d say Mike’s got it covered. The liberals always idolize the individual who came back from extreme adversity to recover and make it big…. at least if they are liberals or progressives, anyway. If they are conservative, they are lesser individuals – unworthy of accolades.

Nice goin’, topps. Managed to portray yourself as the intolerant partisan mole that you are. Congrats. What can we add to your performance? Nothing. You have done the damage to yourself and your party all by your lonesome. With spokesmen like you, we can merely stand back and watch you do the forked tongue dance all by yourself. For you see, unlike Beck, you are surrounded only by either extreme leftists… or those you manage to convince of Beck’s evil with your misrepresentations.

But then… be careful. They may actually listen and find you’ve got it all wrong.

On the subject of the thread – Glenn Beck. Been listening and watching him for years – long before he was on the radar like he is today. Like Lou Dobbs, Beck’s been confident enough to take his own path on his analyses. And voices that do not cowtow to ratings always interest me.

Not long before he moved to FOX, I turned quite a few others (both parties) on to him. Not one is sorry.

I’ve heard some of his informational errors, but they are small potatoes with the overall presentation that focuses on the escalated corruption and seizure of governmental power. Frankly, he’s on a roll that would never have happened until he and CNN parted company.

However what the liberal leadership and talking points masters fail to understand (which is what makes them attack some goofy, unsophisticated nerd from Utah) is that those that are finding themselves nodding in agreement with Beck cross party and racial lines. Beck’s arguments aren’t about party or race. They are about Congressional spending, family control, and individual responsibility and choice. That is an American message… not a party message.

During the primaries and election campaign, many of us saw what Obama believed, and with whom he chose to surround himself. Others felt it was just pandering to get the vote, and excused it. Now that we have some history under our belts of Obama’s “leadership”, many are awakening. His massive czar selection of those with questionable backgrounds and beliefs echos the truth to Obama’s own words…. “if you want to know what I believe…” look at those with whom he associates.

Always did… nice to know others are finally looking. Thank you for that personal invite of scrutiny, Obama.

Obama is a man who does not like America as it was founded, nor as it is today. His message has consistantly been only he – and his adoring O’faithful army – are capable of changing it to the utopian dream.

Beck’s message isn’t racist. However Obama’s message is. The nuances have always been there with the quiet affirmative action, anti-capitalism approach. However it was as black and white as it could get when Obama immediately chose to side with a black professor prior having details and facts. He saw what he chose to see, as was indoctrinated from his childhood…. the professional victim because of race, despite his privileges and opportunities. To Obama, the black man had to have been abused by the white cop. There was no other possibility.

Obama’s racism is also evident when he backs away from American support for our long standing allies (Jewish or white European in Israel, Poland etal) in order to make nice with despots and terrorists. His bitterness towards capitalism and the white western European race is on display with his constant invocation of financial class warfare.

Yet so many choose to avert their eyes. That they could have misjudged one they thought would truly elevate the nation is something they can’t accept. Pity.

You can also add Obama’s method of mob-style governing. Tell me why a White House needs to personally assail and discredit an independent study of the fiscal repercussions of the Baucus bill? This is a Congressional offering. The White House is out of line playing Chicago defense on a study of a Congressional bill… no matter who was conducting the audit.

This Executive Branch assault on conservative media, individuals and or businesses, when they disagree with policy, is Alinsky Community Organizing 101 and contemptuous coming from our elected officials (or at least the few in Obama’s admin we did elect, or were confirmed). This admin speaks of harmony while they sow the seeds of class envy discontent. It is something we have not seen from the WH before in my lifetime.

I’ve since ceased to be angry. Just in shock and stun that the individuals in the nation cling to visions and dreams of what they perceive rather than clearly seeing what is before their very eyes. I shudder to think what the blow will be that will awakens them from their dreams.

I’ve said before what bothers me second about Obama… the first being his Euro-socialist visions for America… is the fact he thinks of himself as a black man first, and an American second. His policies, behavior and responses to events reflect my opinion. And I assure you, I take no pleasure in being correct.

If the truth hurts, hurl the “racist” crap all you want, oh resident and visiting progressives. You may sleep well, thinking you won some victory with your insults and misconceptions. But it does not alter the truth. My life, my friends, my working compadres, and my acquaintances all belie these false charges. Those around me in my lifetime have been equal in my eyes… regardless of heritage and race. And that included the opportunity to excel, or prove themselves to be bitter victims, blaming others for their own shortcomings as humans.

What Obama and his community that he organized will find is the sheer volume of citizens to which they attach the “racist” label – in order to further their agenda – will result in a backlash that will difficult to surmount. Yes, Obama will be a one termer. The damage he will incur to race relations, class warfare, economic destruction, and international relations with our allies will be hard to reverse.

And unless the nation has been raised to be suckling-at-the-tit socialists, we will again revert to who we were as an infant nation. We will find new energy to honor our individual Consitutional freedoms (which do not include having single payer health insurance) while battling down the power mongrels – both parties – that inhabit the halls of Congress. For far too many of them have decided to sell out our souls for individual wealth and power.

@Missy:

I think what you are referring to is Beck’s research into, and subsequent debunking of, the Interwebz rumors of FEMA internment camps.

The Left cannot be honest about things. They have to twist, lie, spin, and just plain make things up in order to gain/hold ground.

The current controversy regarding Limbaugh is a perfect example.

Another stellar example of why Wiki can never be trusted as a source for anything, even sky color.

Glenn is one of the few who doesn’t sugarcoat it, or get mealy- mouthed in calling these marxists out.
Glenn, unlike some others, calls it like he sees it- he doesn’t “give others the benefit of the doubt” when they have proven that they do not deserve that doubt, indeed they have removed all doubt about their agenda.
There are those who would stick their head in the sand, these people I call Denialists- they are good people, some of whom voted for Obama, who just think if they can hunker down, they will be OK.
Glenn exposes these administration hacks for what they are, and unfortunately, the Denialists are going to get caught in the crossfire of policies, and because they have chosen to be blind, are going to end up far worse than many who have kept their eyes open.
There are at least four Amendments to our Constitution that are under attack by this administration- the First, the Second, the Fourth, and the Tenth Amendments all are intrinsic to individual freedoms, and this administration wants to squash any ideas of individuality.
Oct, 19- 26 this admin is flooding the airwaves with ads and subliminal programming insertions designed to urge citizens to serve Obama and the government.
If this isn’t Marxist to the core, I do not know what is.

There is honestly nothing that saddens me more (which in itself is sad) than the constant realization of Glen Beck’s influence over the population of the USA. I could understand giving him some credit if he were literally the only source of news you were aware of. To everyone else, he is a delusional zealot who is ever convinced of his righteousness. However, if you read any right-leaning publications, none extrapolate situations as far or stoop to stories so low as Glen Beck does. He simply slings mud, with no creative or intelligent input.

One of his most irritating devices is dehumanizing the subjects of his ignorant tirades usually through utterances of “these people!” or “the democrats” or “the moderates. There have been more books citing his flagrant self-righteousness in the face of tremendous stupidity, than books supporting him.

Last sunday (after thanksgiving), I was waiting in the airport terminal when I saw a young teenager reading his book. Although he seemed relatively bored with it, putting the book down every ten minutes or so, the symbolism of such an impressionable person getting ANY information from Glen Beck’s book was frightening and deeply worrisome at the same time. If GB’s motivations were in actually revealing the truth as opposed to earning attention and better ratings, I would feel much comforted by an outsider expressing his opinions.

I’m not arguing either way for left or right, I’m just astounded that someone of Beck’s attitude and intelligence is allowed to play with people like O’Reilly who at least researches his topics and argues with lucidity.

There is no doubt the world would be better off without GB

See – thats what i’m talking about. I’m sorry I have a particular disdain for someone you like but its this type of response to criticism that makes GB exceptionally unfortunate.

First of all, I’ve never heard of the publication you mentioned. I’m not “the left”. Like his program last night, Glen Beck polarizes Americans by stating such a huge difference between Liberals and Conservatives again using the phrase “these people”. You know we’re really not that different, and if you’re going to devote your political beliefs to one person, choose a unifier not a segregator.

I am a liberterian and I just don’t understand why there’s so much animosity. I’m not saying Barak Obama is the absolute best president because he’s only been in office for a year, but at the same time, its irresponsible for GB to act like Obama is basically a terrorist with the sole agenda of enforcing his own beliefs. Conservatives act like he and his party are furnishing some grand conspiracy against the american people. What the hell? Show me a specific incident of truth on that one. Let’s not forget, Bush left the office with the highest debt of any president, not to mention starting two wars.

There’s all this talk about Marxist ideas going around the left. I now live in Utah by way of NYC and Boston. Living in some of the more liberal areas of the country (although NYC is home to the highest contributors to both parties), I have never heard any celebration of Marxist ideas.

If you’ve ever read Marx, its simply about the disassociation of workers from their work, glorifying people like farmers who have a personal relationship to their work and support their community as well by producing food. I’m sure Glen Beck wouldn’t criticize the American Farmer.

To be honest, my preferred sources of news are Forbes, Economist and the Washington Post. I like to learn about impressive businessmen and world politics as well as the inner workings of American politics. Its only Glen Beck’s program that takes such a narrow focus on the faults of the “liberals” and the proposed conspirator agenda of Barak Obama and the democrats.

Again GB prefers to polarize the American people so much so that if I voice my displeasure with GB’s program and tactics, you think i’m some rabid liberal trying to make all of you eat your compost and bike to work. If we could just discuss our differences and unite under the common goal of the benefit of the American People.

Do you just want to hate another side? or are you willing to accept that you’re being manipulated so that people keep watching GB’s show. Fox News has a higher responsibility for this as well, as they feature many commercials explaining how mudslingers are “standing firm” against the rising tide of liberalism. Why can’t people see that its soooo much easier to criticize something as fallible as a government of 300 Million people, as opposed to making it better. Is someone a hero cause he can say how bad something is? NO the man who builds a better country than he was born into is the Hero. GB is not that man. Glen Beck is the opposite of that man.

Please consider my thoughts and if you have any questions I will gladly point you towards articles by prominent men of both parties who consider Glen Beck an extremist.

Ian, you say that you are libertarian, and so is Beck, but I fail to see in any of your comments, that you would be in favor of SMALLER government, and LESS curtailment of our liberties, which is what GB is for- following the Constitution, and not doing an end- run around its intent with bogus regulations, as is now being done with the EPA- since Cap & Rob is not going to be passed- and if they cannot get HealthScare passed, they will use regulations to do the same thing- restrict our freedoms, and tax us into oblivion.
There are AT LEAST four of our Amendments that are under siege by this administration- the first, the second, the fourth, and of course, the tenth- all very ESSENTIAL components to our liberty.
Everyone seems to want to give Obama a break, because of the color of his skin, but that would be an “affirmative action” racist gesture.
As someone who listened VERY CAREFULLY to all of his speeches, I can say without a doubt that he does indeed want to change America into a socialist country, where our standard of living has to necessarily drop, in order to match the standards of the rest of the world, instead of showing the rest of the world how to rise to ours.
You rail against GB, but as has been pointed out above, you must never have watched him- he has asked, no- begged the White House to correct him if he is wrong on the facts, but other than saying that “technically” Van Jones was not a Czar, they haven’t the facts, or the guts to contradict him, therefore the smears.
You might not like him personally, that’s OK- I absolutely LOATHE and detest the Resident, Barry Soetoro, but that’s just me- and about 150- 175 million other people.
The man’s policies suck like a wind tunnel, Ian- and if you were truly libertarian, you would understand this.

@topps
You have disdain for a recovering alcoholic and a man that sought relief through pain medication. Now I’m not saying that alcoholism and prescription drug abuse are virtues that should be emulated but you seem to overlook, in your desire to worship at the alter of the messiah Obama, the fact that Obama is an admitted cocaine and marijuana abuser. Cocaine addiction has a recovery rate of less than 2% and Obama weilds power on a magnitude of which Beck and Rush could only dream.

Is that just bad breath or are you talking outta your arse?

@Ian Fitzgerald:

Reading your posts I cannot escape the conclusion that, based upon your ill informed bashing of Beck, and your tone of condescension and all-knowingness in doing so, that yes, we really ARE that different.

I have listened to, debated with, and tried to reason with people like you that, regardless of whether you read Forbes and Economist or Rolling Stone and Time, just can’t differentiate facts from what is shoved down your throat by the alleged news media and the Hollywood leftist entertainment cabal.

You aren’t right, and for you to even momentarily pretend that a libertarian could even remotely find anything Obamao has done or proposed to be other than pure statist totalitarianism only shows your glaring bias.

Tell us again how much Bush sucked, dude. Its what you’re good at.

@Ian Fitzgerald:

As for both of your insinuations on facts and my lack of attention to his show: The last two days he’s been talking non-stop about this convicted felon in the White House. First of all, I don’t care and neither should you. Second of all, this guy was not the architect of the Health Care bill and its just stupid and irresponsible to claim that he was.

You might want to actually read the book, listen to Creamer’s words, and consult your pal David Axelrod for the truth of the matter before you run yourself too far out on that limb.

The last two days he’s been talking non-stop about this convicted felon in the White House. First of all, I don’t care and neither should you.

We shouldn’t care that convicted felons are allowed access to the White House and allowed in proximity to the President?

We shouldn’t care that the book that this convicted felon wrote while in prison is now being used to restructure 1/5 of the American economy?

The guy was convicted of fraud….yet we shouldn’t care?

Really?

At first, I was extremely upset by the enormous loans to the car industry and AIG (especially the crooks at AIG), however, I see now that the loans made to the car companies will reap more than five times the loaned amount in the next 30 years. That means that the government, like any bank does, will be profiting severely off of the sustained auto industry.

Really? Really?

Sect’y Geithner needs to hear from you right away cuz somebody is about to testify before Congress:

Washington — The Obama administration will tell Congress Wednesday that it expects to lose about $30 billion of the $82 billion government bailout of the auto industry.

Gene Sperling, senior counsel to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, confirmed in an interview late today that the administration’s forecast is that it will lose $30 billion on its auto investments

Umm…..what was your point again?

you…don’t understand the difference between an adjective and a noun

Hmmm…it seems that you need to brush up on your knowledge of the English language. Just add that to the list of things you are lacking wisdom in.

This invalid, inaccurate criticism is especially amusing coming from a fellow who doesn’t have a command of basic spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.

Heh!

Nice rebuttal! didn’t think you had it in you. The point your missing here is that when you have two sides unfortunately bound by party lines (although especially the health care issue no so much) these two sides state facts that are opposite one another. Maybe one of them is lying, maybe the subtext justifies an alternative view point. Politics are riddled with this behavior.

Ultimately I don’t care if you see me as a snarling liberal or what. And I will admit, as an avid hater of GB, I most certainly do not have as much information on his “facts” or show as you guys. Now I have probably seen maybe 7 whole shows. My issue with him is not his beliefs, and its not his arrogance. Its simply that he takes situations and facts and distorts them to his ends.

You may disagree, however I’m confident I could spend some time coming up with several examples of GB’s errors (as any tv host would have), but its honestly not worth my time. I didn’t start posting on this site to prove anybody wrong. I was hoping to appeal to a higher reason.

When masses of people get into their head that a hugely socialist bill was created by a felon while in prison and that the president fully supports this felon and his writings so much so that he would base a bill around it; thats a bad situation.

You get upset when the president wants to spend billions on a bill that provides an option for every legal resident of our country to receive health care (which is less of a burden on our economy than most think because it reduces huge debts incurred by ineligible persons inevitable medical expenses). Thats fine, I understand that your pissed because the government is spending your money in a way that you find outrageous.

Lets tear the band-aid off, I do not hate President Bush, but i disagreed strongly with many of his policies. I, for example, hated that his administration spent so much on our war in Iraq. Beyond feeling deceived by the information provided (i know CIA), I couldnt’ believe that we spent so much money and life on the war in Iraq. I don’t care about any other reasons for going there, i’m not going to assume anything. I’m just saying I would have preferred the money i give to the government to not be used on war.

See you’ve kinda pinned me into supporting Obama on this. I support him because he took charge of a very very tough situation that all started in the previous administration. I respect people that take responsibility.

I am, however, of the mind that nobody is doing their job as best as they possibly could. We have an amazing nation with fantastic resources and we should be ahead of the world because of our business practices and technological ability. We are not however. We have back slid below our standard and should fight hard to regain our place as the solely predominant nation in this world. That means questioning ideas. However, (as per my initiation to this post) people like Glenn Beck don’t build anything. They don’t make the world a better place, they just point out all the flaws in it. Its the same with Stewart and a handful of these people who’s jobs it is to have a new topic every day. Imagine if one of these spin hosts spent a month solving the problem of the health care bill. What if this host got every expert they could find to come up and build upon an idea of the perfect bill until they have a refined, sophisticated idea. They would lose ratings all over the place from day 4 to day 29 but they would actually be doing a service to this country by utilizing their fame and ability.

Instead, not one can be credited with this sort of action. I just happen to dislike GB the most. Cause, he looks like a ****ing moron when he speaks and you all believe everything he says. You should line up behind a dignified individual who doesn’t care about selling himself or his network. This person should only care about advancing our nation like we all want.

Unfortunately that man or woman will never be on tv because people support entertainers like GB.

Trust me, I understand your frustration. I’m not trying to belittle you or tell you that your frustrations don’t matter

Ian is a totally gay lefty…hes so lefty hes left-handed i bet…and he probably wears pink clothes, like a pinko commie. If you dont like glenn beck get out of america, and go to timbuktoo or germany where you commies can have some gay orgy.

I initially found the link to this piece of commentary while seeking some sort of insight into why so many on the political right find inspiration in Glenn Beck and why so many on the left, frankly, completely ignore him. Thankfully, I may have found my answer.

First, I’m not surprised to find that the perpetual (misguided) confusion some people have between fascism and socialism/Communism is alive and well on this board. According to Merriam-Webster (that’s a dictionary, for those of you who might need the clarification), fascism is a political [philosophy] that “exalts nation and often race above the individual.” Barack Obama, the most prominent black politician in American history, is definitely not the first name that comes to mind when I envision an explicitly racist political philosophy. Fascism was also traditionally defined by virulent opposition to (surprise!) socialism and Marxism. The Nazi party of Germany found an ideological home alongside Mussolini’s fascists in Italy; neither dictator was known for their close friendship with the Communists in Soviet Russia. In other words, please remember that “fascism” and “socialism” should not be used interchangeably.

I am not calling Glenn Beck a fascist. Good ol’ M-W.com… also points out that fascists believe in severe “economic regulation”, which certainly doesn’t sound like Glenn’s viewpoint. Furthermore, fascist philosophy took a good deal of time and intellectual effort to develop, which is probably why an entire nation fell for it. Glenn Beck’s rhetorical technique involves talking over and attempting to marginalize viewpoints that don’t closely match his own. This kind of response is more akin to that of an angry child blocking his ears and shouting “lalalalala!” than that of a political commentator/journalist with a nationwide audience.

Furthermore, many of you posters are adopting the same technique as your idol. Ian’s posts were intended to constructively engage the rest of you in a discussion, not to piss you off. Instead, you picked up on the fact that he hails from NYC and chose to interpret something that academics call “debate” as a personal affront from some city elitist.

In conclusion, I know full well I’m not going to convert anyone here with a moderate discussion, as Ian has obviously failed despite making some very reasonable points. So instead, I’m just going to point out that all the rage that you and the likes of Glenn Beck have stored up inside really has no point whatsoever. So as you beat your wives in front of the cookstove in your trailer’s kitchen, just keep in mind that America’s class structure has made you second-class citizens. You, and your descendants, will ALWAYS be working crap jobs for some liberal elitist with an Ivy League MBA who votes Democrat and funds political activity. Liberal bias? Yes, but at least I can admit my prejudices.

How’s that for a reasoned discussion?

Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike…

No, Sherlock, that’s not what I call reasoned. That’s what I call “sarcasm.” My whole point was: why should I attempt reason when it has already been attempted, to no effect? I’m not at all above sarcasm and irony. In fact, in that previous post I adopted the persona of Glenn Beck, but turned it to supporting obnoxiously leftist viewpoints…and you didn’t like it ONE BIT. You can’t have your cake AND eat it too, Mike.

I actually just checked out the Media Matters website, for the first time in my life. It appears to be an unabashedly partisan operation, with no constructive function except to point out the failings of its counterparts on the right, and absolutely no legitimate “research” (despite the claims on the homepage). It doesn’t appear to be something I’ll return to quickly.

Enjoy your evening.

Gooooood catch, Chihuahua. The first post was meant to be flippant and was before I became engaged in this lovely pissing match we have going here. So as much as you’d like me to be embarrassed, I’m really not. If it discounts me in your eyes, oh well. Its not as though I were convincing you of anything in any case.

Also, unless you’re a moderator of this site, I have a minor beef with the assertion on the comments sign-up that email addresses will not be published. Somewhat disingenuous, that is.

They get stranger as our days grow shorter. Obamapompousass certainly brought them to the edge. Weird.

Haha, well this got a bit more fun.

Brent’s method of dealing with the inalterable opinions of this group was probably the best yet. and funnily enough I AM LEFT HANDED!!!!! OH NO!!!!!

But he did do something important which is to bring up the issue of defining communist, marxist and fascist ideas. GB mis-uses the terms all the time and without perspective. For example, saying that universal health care is a benchmark of the leftist agenda is just one side of the issue. Having a national health care saves hospitals and patients from tremendous debt that could easily effect the national economy and infrastructure dramatically (again Papa Bear readily admits this).

My only intention was for you guys to understand that there’s is good and bad on both sides. While certainly more right leaning, Glenn Beck has bashed the Bush and Obama administration alike.

If you’re going to take a page from GB its that both sides can be stupid, selfish and corrupt.

I highly stress to try to see it from the opposite side as well!!!!: there are good and unbiased opinions on both sides too. Not everybody in politics is a complete moron. To insinuate that there is no good in the Obama administration is just uninformed and possibly completely delusional. Just as the same would be said about the Bush administration.

I’ll be honest here and say this is not my forte, my initial engagement in this was in response to my distaste for GB methods for a relatively patriotic endeavor: questioning the government of the United States. I just hope you can all be honest about how deep your knowledge is of every political goings on. You may still form as strong opinions as you’d like but please admit that there is always room for more knowledge and perspective on the subject. That is where we can grow and improve ourselves and our nation.

Well with that i’m out. Enjoy the rest of your ignorant life in your myopic state of mind. You neither address, read or understand any of my posts because you have acted directly against the possibility of a discussion. Again, look at the title of this post you gigantic loser. This isn’t about arguing political belief. In fact your point of view is 100% irrelevant to this discussion.

Find a healthier way to express your frustrations with your obviously miserable life. You have managed to ignore every point made to display your ignorance-infused hatred. You have made zero salient points. You are obviously a mental child.

One of my favorite phrases, and i don’t know the origin, is “the best revenge is living well”. Well while you’re stuck in your frustrated unintelligent life, I will sit, at least partially comforted that I’m living a whole lot better than you.

There’s a reason you’re in the losing party, you piece of ignorant shi*t

See again, where am i being intolerant of your ideas? Show me one instance in which someone has tried to make a point and i’ve dismissed it. You only seem to be able to comment on my comments. I do not appreciate your tactics of ignoring any point made and replying with hatred. However that’s not intolerance. I lump you all together now because not one of you have had a problem with anything someone on your side has said, regardless of how mis-informed or unhelpful it is.

The agenda of this forum as proved itself to be about reaffirming your point of view instead of asking a question and discussing like the TITLE of the forum. You are consistently proving yourselves incapable of raising issues that you are willing to discuss, meaning accepting (not agreeing with) other point of views.

[COMMENT DELETED BY POST MODERATOR]

Ian Fitzgerald, if You are so unhappy with FA just go elsewhere. Getting surly with Moderators is really a very bad idea. Go pick a fight You can win, Ok Laddie?

If You don’t like Glenn Beck don’t watch him. I’m a fairly tolerant man but I think you demand too much attention here and come across like an over indulged and very spoiled child. If You don’t like what You see here go away.

I believe that You have worn out Mike’s sense of humor and hospitality.

Ian, the “points” you have made that stand out:

#31: Last sunday (after thanksgiving), I was waiting in the airport terminal when I saw a young teenager reading his book. Although he seemed relatively bored with it, putting the book down every ten minutes or so, the symbolism of such an impressionable person getting ANY information from Glen Beck’s book was frightening and deeply worrisome at the same time.

…..snip…

There is no doubt the world would be better off without GB

#33: Do you just want to hate another side? or are you willing to accept that you’re being manipulated so that people keep watching GB’s show.

#43: Ultimately I don’t care if you see me as a snarling liberal or what. And I will admit, as an avid hater of GB, I most certainly do not have as much information on his “facts” or show as you guys. Now I have probably seen maybe 7 whole shows. My issue with him is not his beliefs, and its not his arrogance. Its simply that he takes situations and facts and distorts them to his ends.

Mata Musing… he sez after admitting he doesn’t have much info on the facts and has only seen maybe 7 shows….

more from #43:

Instead, not one can be credited with this sort of action. I just happen to dislike GB the most. Cause, he looks like a ****ing moron when he speaks and you all believe everything he says.

#58: Look even if you think you’re making a clever point. Even if you completely defeat me, your ignorance on these subjects will effect many actions that you take and people around you. Don’t spread bad information because you don’t want to look something up. If you have questions i’d be happy to help out.

In between the usual libertarian volume of babble (I know, I used to be one….) is the unmitigated hatred for a nerdy pundit from Utah after watching a few shows…. peppered with how we are all mindless idiots for watching or agreeing with some or all of what he says… topped off nicely with an arrogance that you, Ian, will set us on the right path to truth and we’ll all “unite” and get along.

News bulletin. The US was not founded on a “united” mentality, but on dissent. Not interested in your form of America, Ian. Not if it means accepting notions you espouse, i.e. the “world is better off” without people like Glenn Beck. An thought shared by many a despot, BTW.

Now, my amusement here is done. Maybe, if you have the patience, your sphincter muscle will loosen enough for you to go back and read your own posts with an open mind. If you were intending to be provocative, stimulating debate, you failed and presented yourself badly. Instead you came across exactly as how Old Trooper described you… a spoiled, overindulged child trying to convince everyone to share your emotional hatred.

Ian- You say above, that you respect someone who takes responsibility for the situation, but you SURELY cannot be talking about Nobamma- this is the same person who keeps pointing back at the Bush administration as the one that is at fault, when it was Pelosi and the Dems that precipitated this calamity.
Barney Frank, Dodd, Shumer, Maxine Waters, and the rest of the Dems on both the banking and Senate finance committees caused this by OPPOSING regulations BUSH AND OTHER REPUBLICANS sought to put in place to slow the fall of Fannie Mae et al, beginning in 2000, and again in 2004.
The fact that Republicans had a “majority” in Congress is a fallacy- yes, they had a razor- thin majority (50+1, Cheney) as atie- breaker, but not enough of a majority to forestall a filibuster by Dems, so that argument is weak to non- existant.
Once the Dems had a majority, they changed their strategy from “deny Bush ANY CREDIT, to a more aggressive policy and socialist agenda.
Enter Barry Soetoro- a novice with really no guts, and someone the left can manipulate to their heart’s content, and they are doing this now- putting felons and criminals in charge of parts of the government that should be off- limits to them, and making end- runs around the constitution and its intent- witness the Cap and Trade fiasco- if they cannot pass it, the EPA has threatened to pass regulations that will be more onerous than the unconstitutional cap and trade legislation- so they threaten- now that might be a great tactic if you are some goomba in Chicago, but not Washington- and it’s never a good idea to threaten the American people- just ask the Japanese or the Germans.
You rant against GB, and Praise O’Reilly, but lets face it- they both are really saying the same thing, O’Reilly is just a little slower to condemn Barry’s administration, but he is coming around- and I will bet you that by next summer, they are both on the same page entirely- because the facts are there, and there truly is no time to waste in countering this socialist agenda- one I will never be a part of, or kowtow to, and if you are a true American, neither will you.

wow, I have been following this website for a long time now and you guys are relentless at dismantling any 2-way conversation. something like post # 45 goes right under the radar, but you attack, name call, misrepresent, discredit, and insult anything that may be considered just left neo-con. Ian hasn’t said anything wrong whatsoever to invoke the mob-mentality treatment here. Intelligent, thought provoking rebuttals have no place on these forums, because the poster gets abused and ultimately his posts are blocked (like many of mine in the past) by our most righteous moderators.

My favorite, is the completely unfounded “sock-puppetry” accusation, to justify privacy violations (announcing where I work) and comment blocking…

poser/Mr. Gray: something like post # 45 goes right under the radar, but you attack, name call, misrepresent, discredit, and insult anything that may be considered just left neo-con. Ian hasn’t said anything wrong whatsoever to invoke the mob-mentality treatment here.

First of all, “The Truth”, aka Brent, did not go “under the radar”, but was addressed by quite a few, and outed by Aye Chi. That cyber-schizoid would have been better to be ignored since his comment was devoid of substance, and long on worthless insults.

In your opinion, Ian “hasn’t said anything wrong whatsoever”.

I, too, am allowed an opinion, and I disagree with you… @pointing out what specific comments I found offensive.

Ian, apparently, is a fan of 1st amendment genocide…. ala the world would be “better off without GB”. Certainly silencing dissenting voices of all calibres would result in a “unified” world. It would also be an oppressive world, with repressives as the dictators.

Other than that, I’m with Patvann. Worst comment thread ever.

I’m not looking to win any battles any more but two quick comments:

First of all, Ive never posted from a different name…notice my spelling errors.

Second: I think what “Mr. Gray” is saying about comment #45 going under the radar, is that it was a completely ridiculous post aimed to be slanderous and irrelevant to any pre-existing discussion. Thereby, i believe his point is that you guys have no limitations in what is written here as long as it either supports your cause or trashes your opposition’s. ‘

A term like 1st Amendment Genocide doesn’t make any sense. Genocide cannot relate to one entity. Second its not against the first amendment to say that the world would be better off without someone. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, something not allotted by our hosts. I did not say, nor do i believe that Glenn Beck doesn’t have the right to do what he does, i just think his influence is a danger.

As far as this Obama/Bush thing of Blake’s: First of all again, I prefer to think of myself as a libertarian so I don’t trust Obama’s administration any more than I did Bush’s. I just happen to prefer the things Obama is doing to the things Bush did. I am of the belief that regardless of any perceived present value to a war in Iraq, we had legitimate reason to go in the first place and we will have spent more than 3$ Trillion dollars before we are out (Wash Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html). That compared to saving hundreds of thousands of jobs and protecting one of Americas largest industries from moving to foreign countries at a time in which America is losing its grip as the premier economic power of the world.

I’m not saying that Obama’s actions are perfect or even the direction I would go. But (from the perspective stated in the above paragraph) I would prefer what Obama has done, than what Bush has done.

And i’m not sure from what info Blake you make your comment. As far as I’m concerned Bush left office with the highest national debt of any president and America was loosing a hundred thousand jobs a month. Im really not sure what could be worse than that from a completely objective stand point. Additionally, how is it that you can blame a democratic house for the debt caused by Bush’s war?

Anyway go a head with terms like sock-puppets as you all espouse the same views.

Whats really interesting about all this is my persistent desire to engage this bunch. Since there was some obvious confusion over the posts of Mr. Gray, I felt i needed to respond. Since I have been ousted for my heresy, i’m writing from another address of mine.

I’m not looking to win any battles any more but a few quick comments:

First of all, I have never posted from a different name. Notice I have no problem displaying my full name because I have no intention of hiding from any of my points… also notice my spelling errors.

Second: I think what “Mr. Gray” is saying about comment #45 going under the radar, is that it was a completely ridiculous post aimed to be slanderous and irrelevant to any pre-existing discussion. Thereby, i believe his point is that you guys have no limitations in what is written here as long as it either supports your cause or trashes your opposition’s. ‘

Third. A term like 1st Amendment Genocide doesn’t make any sense. Genocide cannot relate to one entity. Second its not against the first amendment to say that the world would be better off without someone. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, something not allotted by our hosts. I did not say, nor do i believe that Glenn Beck doesn’t have the right to do what he does, i just think his influence is a danger.

Fourth. As far as this Obama/Bush thing of Blake’s: First of all again, I prefer to think of myself as a libertarian so I don’t trust Obama’s administration any more than I did Bush’s. I just happen to prefer the things Obama is doing to the things Bush did. I am of the belief that regardless of any perceived present value to a war in Iraq, we had legitimate reason to go in the first place and we will have spent more than 3$ Trillion dollars before we are out (Wash Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html). That compared to saving hundreds of thousands of jobs and protecting one of Americas largest industries from moving to foreign countries at a time in which America is losing its grip as the premier economic power of the world.

I’m not saying that Obama’s actions are perfect or even the direction I would go. But (from the perspective stated in the above paragraph) I would prefer what Obama has done, than what Bush has done.

And i’m not sure from what info Blake you make your comment. As far as I’m concerned Bush left office with the highest national debt of any president and America was loosing a hundred thousand jobs a month. Im really not sure what could be worse than that from a completely objective stand point. Additionally, how is it that you can blame a democratic house for the debt caused by Bush’s war?

Anyway go a head with terms like sock-puppets as you all espouse the same views.

ROFLMAO!!!!