why is glen beck on tv warghcbarglefh (in Debates)


QBOddBird January 27 2011 5:13 PM EST

why :(

Edit: moved to debates, flame on - novice

Lochnivar January 27 2011 5:17 PM EST

Not sure I follow.... isn't he the poster boy for 'fair and balanced'?

Lord Bob January 27 2011 5:18 PM EST

1. Stupid people watch stupid shows.
2. There are a lot of stupid people.
3. Profit!

QBOddBird January 27 2011 5:23 PM EST

flipping through channels, hit his and pretty much saw this:

"do you see this isolated incident of violence that i found on youtube? My voice is rising both in intensity and volume as I describe it! The state of our union is not good!" ~ as transcribed by me

I don't understand why anyone would watch this and take it seriously, and the dramatics are too excessive to really be funny

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] January 27 2011 5:40 PM EST

He has a show for the same reason Rush Limbaugh has a show. There is a demographic of people out there who like to hear people reinforcing what they already think, whether that is right or wrong.

If we had the internet and mass media on the scale that we do now back in the days before we understood the cosmos, I could have probably gotten a TV show talking about how the Earth is really flat, and how those evil American revolutionaries are secretly demonic helpers of the anti-Christ trying to overthrow the monarchy and bring about the end of the Church of England.

And I probably could have gotten a lot of listeners too. Would it have been ethical? Probably not, but making sensationalist and outright false claims can get you an audience, and make you money. We live in a capitalist society, some people are willing to do whatever it takes to make a buck. Don't be surprised by this. You should be surprised when someone has the opportunity to lie to make a profit, and they do not.

MissingNo January 27 2011 5:42 PM EST

Cause he's a genius.

Demigod January 27 2011 5:45 PM EST

The tea-bagger in the office next to mine absolutely loves him. He's even on Beck's text messaging list.

Beck's popularity appears to be a mix of wanting to hear someone agree with you, as well as a lack of critical thinking skills.

VsCountStrum [Black Watch] January 27 2011 5:51 PM EST

Is he any different than the Liberal Wackos on CNN or Headline news. The news shows regardless of if the cater to the right or the left are in business to make money. To do that, they make everything bigger and more sensational. The only difference is which spin do you get from which network. Neither is interested in telling the truth, just telling what they think that their viewers want to hear so they can sell more ads.

QBOddBird January 27 2011 6:05 PM EST

Is he any different than the Liberal Wackos on CNN or Headline news

hell, I'll add in Fox news and any other news organization, the answer is still

yes

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] January 27 2011 6:06 PM EST

Yeah, so the best way of finding the truth is by using a concept I am borrowing from calculus.

You find limits from the left and the right of the function (or issue in this case) as they converge on a point, but never actually reach it.

This function never hits the coordinate (4,5), but it gets really close.

The one thing I do get from this is that I know the function almost got me there, and even though the function evaluates to 2 (or the wrong conclusion) at this point, instead of 5, I know enough to be mostly informed about it.

What you have to watch out for are totally discontinuous functions (issues) like this:

Where one side approaches one point, and the other side approaches another point, In this case you get less information about the issue (you are approaching two different points) and everyone loses.

QBOddBird January 27 2011 6:07 PM EST

that is a super awesome visual aid to your post, Fex

QBRanger January 27 2011 7:59 PM EST

The tea-bagger in the office next to mine absolutely loves him. He's even on Beck's text messaging list.

Ah, I like to see the left wing of the US takes the presidents message of calm rational chat to heart.

Some things never ever change.

And now we know why people listen to Beck. To get a different point of view other than the main stream media's extreme left wing bias.

QBRanger January 27 2011 8:02 PM EST

And to the original post:

Why is Beck on TV?

For the same reason Olbermann, Maddow, or Matthews are on TV. Because a significant portion of society share their views.

O, my bad, Olbermann just got fired. Too bad, Boo Hoo!!!!

However, more share Becks' as his ratings far exceed the other 2 liberals. :)

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] January 27 2011 8:12 PM EST

All of this is why I am perfectly fine giving up my humanity.

Lochnivar January 27 2011 8:13 PM EST

Just out of curiosity Ranger, if many more people watch Beck et al then aren't they then, by definition, the mainstream media?

Anyway... on an unrelated note I had always assumed that Glenn Beck had some level of post-secondary education or at very least a solid business background.... According to Wiki he has one incomplete college course to his name and has basically just worked in radio/tv.

When did we as a species decide that listening to the smart people was bad?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] January 27 2011 8:21 PM EST

Around the time smart people started blowing things up

Lochnivar January 27 2011 8:33 PM EST

fascinating wiki read actually....

I especially enjoyed:

"During his time at Y-95, Beck cultivated a rivalry with local pop radio station KZZP and that station's morning host Bruce Kelly. Through practical jokes and publicity stunts, Beck drew criticism from the staff at Y-95 when the rivalry culminated in Beck telephoning Kelly's wife on-the-air, mocking her recent miscarriage."

Yeah, so no point in being surprised in his willingness to commit distasteful acts for ratings... and with that, my interest in him has waned.

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] January 27 2011 8:46 PM EST

In my opinion Beck is nothing more then a face for the propaganda machine that is fox news. Nothing that comes out of the man's mouth is news, and nothing he says even remotely shows signs of intelligence.

The man does nothing more then call people communists and nazi's every time I happen to catch him ranting on about something. I'm sorry I didn't realize we were still in the WW2/Cold war eras.

Demigod January 27 2011 9:28 PM EST

Ah, I like to see the left wing of the US takes the presidents message of calm rational chat to heart. - Ranger

That was in response to my quote of: "The tea-bagger in the office next to mine absolutely loves him. He's even on Beck's text messaging list."

Why do you assume I'm a Democrat? I'm socially liberal but economically moderate. I'm Independent. I don't support the Tea-baggers, but they don't speak for either major party. It's a large splinter group that occasionally amuses me by gathering social security recipients together on their government-paid Hoverounds to complain about social programs without a hint of intended irony. ::evil grin::

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] January 27 2011 10:05 PM EST

When a troll hands you a glass of kool-aid, don't accept, they'll come back with a pitcher. Whether you take a sip or not. ;)

Demigod January 27 2011 10:17 PM EST

I don't know if mine counts as trolling since I pretty much admitted I was doing it in the post.

Lord Bob January 27 2011 10:22 PM EST

However, more share Becks' as his ratings far exceed the other 2 liberals.
See my first post above.


Just out of curiosity Ranger, if many more people watch Beck et al then aren't they then, by definition, the mainstream media?
But Loch, you don't understand. "Mainstream media" is just a label the right used to brand the portion of journalists who lean left as "the establishment" in an attempt to demonize them. It has nothing to do with the actual definition of mainstream.

*waits for a troll to call him "socialist!"*

Lord Bob January 27 2011 10:25 PM EST

Through practical jokes and publicity stunts, Beck drew criticism from the staff at Y-95 when the rivalry culminated in Beck telephoning Kelly's wife on-the-air, mocking her recent miscarriage.
If you've ever watched his show and listened to the things he says about people he disagrees with, this shouldn't surprise you at all. I'd like to say that this revelation worsens my opinion of him, but he really couldn't have gone any lower already.

QBOddBird January 27 2011 10:50 PM EST

If you've ever watched his show and listened to the things he says about people he disagrees with, this shouldn't surprise you at all.

This is where I stand as well...it has nothing to do with whether I'm "left" or "right," because quite frankly very few people are polar left/right anyway. It's to do with his character, and I hate seeing the man on television. (yes, I exercise my right not to watch him, hence why this is one thread and not a daily occurance)

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] January 28 2011 3:38 PM EST

Recently e-mailed to me, in an impressive display of preaching to the choir:

"Glenn Beck's latest conspiracy theory target is a 78-year-old professor who, 45 years ago, published an article with her husband which posited that people overwhelming the welfare rolls could put enough stress on the system that it would force the need for certain reforms to help the poor.

The result? City University of New York professor and longtime advocate for the poor and working class, Frances Fox Piven has been receiving repeated death threats on online message boards and has personally received angry and violent emails. (1)

...

Beck says that the Frances Fox Piven and her now-deceased husband's goal was to "intentionally collapse our economic system," and he traces every paranoid fantasy of liberal plots to destroy America and capitalism (the mythical "voter fraud" by ACORN, health care and financial reform, the Obama presidency itself) directly to what he calls the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" (Cloward being Piven's late husband).

In light of the escalation of violent, rage-filled comments directed at Piven by presumed Beck fans, groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights have been calling on Fox News to make Beck cease his personal attacks. But Fox refuses. According to the New York Times:

Joel Cheatwood, a senior vice president, said Friday that Mr. Beck would not be ordered to stop talking about Ms. Piven on television. He said Mr. Beck had quoted her accurately and had never threatened her.

"'The Glenn Beck Program,' probably above and beyond any on television, has denounced violence repeatedly," Mr. Cheatwood said.

Mr. Cheatwood, that is simply not true. Here's what we know:

Byron Williams, the would-be assassin of staff of the ACLU and the Tides Foundation in San Francisco, who was stopped by police in a shootout in July 2010, cited Glenn Beck as his inspiration, specifically singling out Beck programs from June of that year in which Williams said Beck had "been breaking open some of the most hideous corruption." It was on his Fox News show of June 10 that year that Glenn Beck said, "You're gonna have to shoot them in the head," in reference to Democrats such as then U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who he described as a Marxist "revolutionary" and "communist." "

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/media/22beck.htm

I'm all about the 1st Amendment, and voting with my feet/wallet. I request that FOX and associated nonsense be removed from any business that wants my money. When I have every TV in the gym/bar/TV store switched, no one has ever requested they be changed back while I'm there. Works great.

Shadow Ruler February 7 2011 4:12 PM EST

implying that America isn't socailist as of 3-23-10

lol

QBOddBird February 7 2011 6:57 PM EST

implying that America isn't socailist as of 3-23-10

implying that socailism is a thing

I almost responded as if you were talking about socialism, but then I realized just how far off your definition of socialism would have to be in order to associate America with socialism, so I figured it would be more respectful to assume you meant "socailism"

QBRanger February 7 2011 7:08 PM EST

America is far from socialist.

The 2010 elections certainly proved that. And thank God for that.

However, that will not stop the current administration from trying to move America in that direction. To pure socialism or a Democratic Socialistic country.

While Beck is a blowhard, he certainly has very valid and lucid points. Quite a few call out the corruption in the Obama administration and other point to the socialistic tendencies of said administration.

I personally can only watch Beck for a few minutes before his words start to grate on me. But considering his program is one of the top 3-4 on cable news, he mush have a following. Something that cannot be said of the liberals on MSNBC or CNN.

Hell, even Air America could not stay afloat.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] February 7 2011 7:16 PM EST

Maybe that's because liberals aren't all sheep, that flock to Wal-mart, and can use to internet moderately well outside of porn. ;)

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] February 7 2011 7:16 PM EST

Truthfully socialism is the better way to go for the future. As technology improves it renders more and more people unnecessary. Either you get rid of the unnecessary people, you give them fluff jobs or you implement more socialistic tendencies to keep them around.

Lord Bob February 7 2011 7:30 PM EST

But considering his program is one of the top 3-4 on cable news, he mush have a following.
And I'll again point to my first post on this thread.

QBRanger February 7 2011 8:12 PM EST

Truthfully socialism is the better way to go for the future. As technology improves it renders more and more people unnecessary. Either you get rid of the unnecessary people, you give them fluff jobs or you implement more socialistic tendencies to keep them around.

The day that happens society will basically fall apart.

Please tell me how someone would want to work just so someone else gets a "fluff job".

Give me the "fluff job" and let someone else do the hard work, go to college for 8+ years, become 200k in debt and then have to jump through excessive regulations to get paid.

There are plenty of people who could work, but choose not to due to the "safety nets" we set up.

As I stated, Beck has many valid points of which many people share a similar opinion. And to again call them "stupid" or "sheep" just shows how out of touch the left wing of the country is. Like trying to marginalize the tea party movement. We all saw how that turned out in November :))))))

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] February 7 2011 8:16 PM EST

Because eventually we can have a robot do your job with fewer mistakes, faster, more economically efficient than you ever could. Where does that put you then?

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] February 7 2011 8:33 PM EST

We already have fluff jobs. Don't pretend those fish in the safety net aren't suffering. The left wing has nothing to do with our hate of Beck. Those stupid sheep sharing his "valid points" are those in need of the safety nets and fluff jobs right now. Since they have no jobs the 3rd world party decided to turn their blind hate towards November and vote in uneducated republicans. Witches and Nazi-cosplayers need to be marginalized otherwise they won't be first in line for the FEMA death camps. ;)

Lord Bob February 7 2011 10:38 PM EST

And to again call them "stupid" or "sheep" just shows how out of touch the left wing of the country is.
People who watch Glenn Beck's show exactly how out of touch they are with reality. Sorry, but anyone believes that within the Obama administration lies an evil socialist / Communist / Kenyan / Muslim / terrorist / Nazi / Racist / Satanist plot to take over and / or destroy America, or any subset thereof, yes, that person is an idiot. And this is the kind of tripe Glenn Beck feeds his stupid, stupid followers every single day.

And in case I have to remind anyone:
1.) No, a few left-leaning reforms does not equate to an extreme socialist takeover.
2.) Far right extreme capitalism is just as terrible as far left extreme socialism.
3.) A capitalist economy tempered and regulated by socialist reforms is BETTER than either straight up capitalism or socialism, and is what we've had in the United States since the earlier half of last century.
4.) For the extra stupid, I am not a socialist. I am not a capitalist. If you call me a socialist, you have to call me a capitalist too, which is just as bad. I am in the dead center, and I despise both extremes. That does not make me a socialist. If you believe that my rejection of far-right capitalism makes me a socialist, you are a moron of the lowest degree.

Like trying to marginalize the tea party movement. We all saw how that turned out in November.
Yes. Very, very bad for the country.

QBRanger February 8 2011 10:57 AM EST

Yes. Very, very bad for the country.

Worse than the last 2 years?

Rising gas prices, 9+% unemployment with over 18+ underemployment, a health care law that will guarantee less access and rising costs, moratoriums on drilling without any basis in fact, a failed 1T stimulus, 14T national debt, Union bailouts, bailouts of a failed US auto industry among other screw-ups.

I will take my chances with people who believe in having the government get out of the way and let the free markets work.

You and most Democrats seem to believe, mistakenly, that Republican want a "wild-west" type of free market system. A free for all. That just shows the ignoramus of the other side. We believe in some baseline regulation that is not so excessive as to stifle innovation and competition.

Bob, ever try to start a business?

I did. And with all the regulations, I found it simpler to invest my money than try to build a business with all the regulations and taxes. And I am not alone in my frustration in this area. People I know with small businesses are not growing just due to the same over-regulations.

I would not call you a socialist but more of a democratic socialist. Someone who believes that there should be a free market, but the government needs to protect the innocent populace from the big bad corporations through excessive regulations and progressive taxation.

And that is nowhere near the "center" that you continue to state you are. Not even close.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] February 8 2011 11:12 AM EST

"The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis."

QBOddBird February 8 2011 11:13 AM EST

a failed 1T stimulus

Let's be fair. No.

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

Lochnivar February 8 2011 11:39 AM EST

I will take my chances with people who believe in having the government get out of the way and let the free markets work.

Wasn't the government getting out of the way what enabled the financial sector to implode?

I'm curious Ranger, where do you stand on the fact that some of the same financial geniuses who collapsed the economy are now becoming obscenely wealthy due to the inevitable economic recovery?

I mean, purely from a capitalist stand point, if you can swing it right, tanking the economy is very profitable... sure the people who aren't in on the plan are screwed, but hey, if the market decides they don't cut the mustard who are we to argue?

Soxjr February 8 2011 11:49 AM EST

Just starting to wonder why people even try to discuss this type of thing with Ranger. His mind is made up. Just like most republicans I have heard speak they want to blame everything on the new administration. Most of our problems which we are dealing with today started well before this administration took office. They are trying to fix and correct things started by previous administrations. If you can't admit that then there is no point in talking anymore.

QBRanger February 8 2011 12:07 PM EST

TARP was different from the stimulus.

http://whatifpost.com/tarp-vs-the-stimulus.htm

The stimulus was basically a bunch of money to the states to help them patch the holes in their budgets (short form). Of which the states did without making the cuts needed for long term solvable.

All those "shovel ready projects" Obama talked out? Even he admitted they are just talk.

I have huge problems with TARP. One of my biggest is the lack of accountability. The banks made bad deals and got off Scott Free. Nothing happened to prevent the same bad behaviors from occurring again and again. Even with the new Fin-Reg bill that still have thousands of pages and regulations unwritten.

I'm curious Ranger, where do you stand on the fact that some of the same financial geniuses who collapsed the economy are now becoming obscenely wealthy due to the inevitable economic recovery?

I utter despise it. 100%. However, to sum things up quick, it was Fannie and Freddie, and their bad loans, along with the forced loans the banks had to make under the HUD rules to increase minority home ownership, that screwed things up. The Democrats insisted that home ownership was a right and that started all the bad loans.

Remember all the commercials for buying a house with 0 down and 105% mortgage? I do in the last 90s and early 00s.

Which is why I stated we need baseline regulations to stop abuses. And to prosecute the abusers forcefully. And those in Congress like Barnie Frank who insisted Freddie and Fannie were fine to be thrown out of Congress.

Any Democrat want to give Bush some credit for asking Congress over 15 times to check into Fannie and Freddie, with all his inquires rejected? Anyone? Cricket sounds abound from all the Democrats who refuse to give Bush any credit.

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/

We can be fair OB, however with the stimulus unemployment went up to almost 10% even though we were promised 8% maximum. So all we got was a payout to the unions and deeper in debt. It kept public sector union jobs for a year or 2, and now states are in the same exact situation they were before. States like Ill or CA are bankrupt and now have no federal funds to patch the holes. And thankfully, with the new House, will not be getting another bailout.

I mean, purely from a capitalist stand point, if you can swing it right, tanking the economy is very profitable... sure the people who aren't in on the plan are screwed, but hey, if the market decides they don't cut the mustard who are we to argue?

See my above discussion about baseline regulations. One of the differences between Democrats and Republicans can be summed up as follows:

Think in simple terms that life is a race. Democrats want everyone to finish at the exact same point. Republicans want everyone to start at the same point and due to your abilities, luck and other factors, finish where you can.

I know that is very simplistic and fails to address such factors as social-economic factors from birth, but in a country with as many people as we have, one can do so much before you strip the incentives to succeed. And without those incentives, society will just stagnate.

As I stated before and will state to my last breath, why should I sacrifice to succeed when the government will just take it away and give to those who do/contribute nothing. That probably reads as being very cruel. But if you think about it, incentives to succeed lead to things such as mobile phones for all, color TV for all, new antibiotics, new chemotherapeutic drugs, etc... If there was no way to profit, with a true socialistic society, why would any drug company come out with a new drug? The government doing research as Obama now wants? Please! What has the government done correct, on time and under budget in the last 100 years?

QBRanger February 8 2011 12:13 PM EST

Just starting to wonder why people even try to discuss this type of thing with Ranger. His mind is made up. Just like most republicans I have heard speak they want to blame everything on the new administration. Most of our problems which we are dealing with today started well before this administration took office. They are trying to fix and correct things started by previous administrations. If you can't admit that then there is no point in talking anymore.

It is posts like this that make me just cringe. This is someone with no knowledge of what got us to this recession. An utter lack of understanding of the financial factors that brought the collapse of 08. And a lack of understanding that more taxes brings less revenue.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

Another Bush blamer who thinks Obama is the messiah who is going to fix everyone given enough time. Instead of realizing that Obama's policies are just getting in the way of a recovery. Especially his moratorium on gulf drilling with the steep rise in gas prices.

Sox, have you noticed the rising costs of gas? I certainly have. While I can afford 20 cents more, can you?

The true housing bubble started with Clinton and his orders to HUD to increase minority home ownership.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] February 8 2011 12:26 PM EST

please do not let the discussion degenerate into personal attacks & insults. the thread will be closed if that happens.
Or edited... why use an axe and not a scalpel eh dude? ~ Loch

Soxjr February 8 2011 12:40 PM EST

I never said I thought the new president was a the savior I just stated the problems started well before his time here. Nothing more, nothing less. You assumed something based on my statement. That normally doesn't get people far when they assume. Oh and this isn't the first time gas prices have gone high. If I remember correctly the last time was when a Republican was in office. Just another observation.

QBRanger February 8 2011 12:46 PM EST

If I remember correctly the last time was when a Republican was in office.

With a Democratic Senate and House. Just for accuracy. Very little a President can do with both the Senate and House on the other side.

Now with Obama and his executive Banitorium order on Gulf Drilling, prices will go above 5 bucks a gallon soon. That combined with his botching of the Egyptian situation.

Lochnivar February 8 2011 12:57 PM EST

Looking at inflation adjusted gas prices for the US is interesting:

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

... at least I found it interesting...

And, out of curiousity, how is Obama 'botching' the internal workings of a sovereign nation?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 8 2011 1:15 PM EST

Hold up here. What exactly do you mean by botched the Egyptian situation?

QBRanger February 8 2011 1:35 PM EST

Hold up here. What exactly do you mean by botched the Egyptian situation?

Simplifying things:

When the riots first broke out our VP stated Mubarak was not a dictator and should not resign.

Then as the riots gained momentum, the administration first behind the scenes and then publicly threw him under the bus. Seems best to be an enemy of the US than its friend given how Obama treats his closest allies.

And now, the administration welcomes the Muslim Brotherhood, even thought that organization calls for the destruction of Israel, and fails to condemn terror organizations such as Al-Quaeda.

Just amateur hour.

Of course this can be debated that Obama is just doing fine with the mid east, but I hope against hope that another Iran does not occur. Radical Islamic clerics taking over.

Just Carter with Iran in 79 and now Obama in 10.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] February 8 2011 1:56 PM EST

From what I understand, corporate profits are through the roof. (Source) Corporations are sitting on something like 1 trillion in cash. (Source) The stock market is approaching 12k. (Source) For everyone with a couple hundred thousand dollars, this is a smashing good time to be alive. Everyone is making money.

Also, last time I checked there was no singular reason for the economic crisis, it seems practically pointless to argue about that. One the great things about the economic crisis is that it was caused by so many things, and it is such a complicated and hard-to-wrap-your-head-around thing, that just about anyone can come up with their own ideas and they would be right! (Would you like to know more?)

One of the points that Ranger makes about oil drilling is less surprising. The largest oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry has happened (source), and he would like to go back to business as usual. This is probably because Ranger believes in baseline regulations for all businesses, and since there are regulations in place in the petrol business, why should the largest oil spill ever warrant us taking a closer look at those regulations? We can continue to drill and do business as usual while the regulations work themselves out, that is effectively what he is saying. Lets hope you want to clarify what you said further. The process of stopping drilling for new oil wells while regulations can be examined more closely is wise thing to do.

Now for Bush vs. Obama. During the Bush years, the house and senate were controlled by Democrats, obviously the President is completely powerless and we can't hold him responsible for anything that happened during his tenure. That is ridiculous, if you are president and you are purposefully being obtuse because you don't like who you need to work with, then you are a terrible leader.

Obama was elected during a popular uprising against republican leadership, regardless of what Ranger will tell you, the popular vote was for progressive change. (Country swinging from right to left) This caused some libertarians and republicans brains to explode and thus the Tea Party movement was born. (source)

By the time he was elected, a full-blown economic crisis was in the works. Trying to fix this problem and failing is not the same as CAUSING the problem. This subtlety is where Ranger places the blame on Obama (and probably somewhat rightly) in hopes you won't remember that Obama didn't actually cause this problem. Because Obama wasn't able to bring the economy up to par by the time the midterm elections came around, people got pissed and voted for the other party. In some cases the other party happened to be the "tea party".

As far as Obama being blamed for Egypt, that's some pretty amazing mental gymnastics required to get there.

Demigod February 8 2011 2:02 PM EST

Well written, Fex. And the last source made me smile.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 8 2011 3:13 PM EST

So if a Muslim Brotherhood candidate is democratically elected in Egypt you'd have a problem with that?

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] February 8 2011 9:09 PM EST

I would.

Lord Bob February 8 2011 10:00 PM EST

Worse than the last 2 years? ... Rising gas prices,
Are you kidding me? Gas was way, WAY more expensive when your guy was in office. It went way, WAY down when the Democrats won in 2008. Now that the Republicans took the House, they're going right back up. If you're going to blame the price of gas on who is in office, look to your own party first.

a health care law that will guarantee less access and rising costs,
Still waiting to see the Republicans prove this. So far, not so much.

moratoriums on drilling without any basis in fact,
*stares in disbelief*
Were you watching the news last year?

a failed 1T stimulus,
Wrong.

14T national debt,
Which your side drove up further, including another $420 billion to China, by insisting on another round of tax breaks for the ultra-rich. (To be fair, I blame Obama for this too.)

Union bailouts, bailouts of a failed US auto industry
Thankfully.

Worse than the last 2 years?
Yes. Way, way worse.

And that is nowhere near the "center" that you continue to state you are. Not even close.
Actually it is. The problem is that the conservative media has redefined "center" as "leans heavily toward our side" in an attempt to make the REAL center look like radical socialists. You seem to have bought this, hook line and sinker.

Think in simple terms that life is a race. Democrats want everyone to finish at the exact same point. Republicans want everyone to start at the same point and due to your abilities, luck and other factors, finish where you can.
No, you have it wrong.

The Democrats want what you think the Republicans want. We START with the same opportunities. Thus, Trust-Fund Tommy doesn't get an easy ride to an ivy league education, and all the perks that come with that, because of daddy's money and influence.

Republicans want some people to have a head start, which is why they support eliminating the estate tax, all the while eliminating programs that help poor people catch up. "Hey, why work for success? You were born rich! You're in a better class than those chaff! You get a much, much better opportunity than those beneath you. Or, just wait for daddy to croak and you'll inherit millions!"

As always you confuse Democrat with socialist, and thus you think they want equal wealth distribution across the board, or in your words "finish at the exact same point". Attempts to correct you on this have proven futile, and I doubt you'll learn anything this time around either.

It is posts like this that make me just cringe. ... Another Bush blamer who thinks Obama is the messiah who is going to fix everyone given enough time.
Ah, the typical Republican counter point. "You're just an Obama worshiper!" If I had a nickle for every time a Republican said that to me when they were wrong... well, I might be a Republican.

It is posts that this that make ME cringe.

And as always, Verifex rocks the house down.

Lord Bob February 8 2011 10:03 PM EST

So if a Muslim Brotherhood candidate is democratically elected in Egypt you'd have a problem with that?
I second Gun's response. However, they have been demonstrating that they are at least less radical than the leadership in Iran (who they recently rebuked), and more tolerant to diversity, so I'm a wee bit less nervous about it.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] February 8 2011 10:30 PM EST

The prisons of Egypt served as a catalyst for terrorist regimes, namely Al Qaeda, so while muslims will be nicer. There will be that sect of hate to come within the next staff we probably can't avoid. That is of lesser note.
My resentment will subside with intervention from Team America! ;)

AdminNightStrike February 8 2011 11:39 PM EST

On the topic of gas:

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

It's 3.11 right now, which is what it was May 20th 2007. Aside from a short (as in, several month) spike and plummet around the 2008 elections, there's no difference in gas prices before or after the administration change.

For those that think that gas prices have anything to do with who's in office, you might want to look into something called the commodities market.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] February 9 2011 12:37 AM EST


Ignoring NS's gas, for the present.

Think in simple terms that life is a race. Democrats want everyone to finish at the exact same point. Republicans want everyone to start at the same point and due to your abilities, luck and other factors, finish where you can.

Or Democrats think people should do what they will, given the real definition of human will, and Republicans want some people to make money off the backs of everyone else. The second model _requires_ have-nots.

I know that is very simplistic and fails to address such factors as social-economic factors from birth, but in a country with as many people as we have, one can do so much before you strip the incentives to succeed. And without those incentives, society will just stagnate.

Why assume that financial incentives are the only ones appropriate to growing a society? Human beings do need personal reward on some level, there's no question about that, and this is why a 'pure' communism doesn't work, not that anyone (even Marx) actually proposed such a thing. But why would money be the all-&-only thing capable of motivating you?

As I stated before and will state to my last breath, why should I sacrifice to succeed when the government will just take it away and give to those who do/contribute nothing. That probably reads as being very cruel.

No, just extremely self-serving.

But if you think about it, incentives to succeed lead to things such as mobile phones for all, color TV for all, new antibiotics, new chemotherapeutic drugs, etc... if there was no way to profit, with a true socialistic society, why would any drug company come out with a new drug?

Because we can. Because we as humans can learn and apply those learnings to the alleviation of the human condition. For the same reason we figured out the Earth was round and not the center of the Universe. For the same reason we figured out "lever" and "wheel" and "fire". For the same reason someone figured out "chocolate" and "iambic pentameter".

Give me the "fluff job" and let someone else do the hard work, go to college for 8+ years, become 200k in debt and then have to jump through excessive regulations to get paid.

Maybe you'd be a somewhat less angry little person if you'd followed your bliss and become a pro tennis player or a truck driver or a ditch digger and worked simply for pride and love of family. But no, you had to do the work and take the debt and put in the time. So? Really. So what? That will not a society make.

You keep saying everyone should just be willing to work as hard as you, but if we were and did, and the playing field was really as "equal" as you perpetually claim, everyone would be a Dr. and nobody would be making any money. Also we'd all be plucking our own chickens, changing the linens in our hotel rooms, cleaning our own pools, doing a lot less flying, and there would be no American porn.

(So it's all really down to hard work? and everyone ideally is an interchangeable unit? separated only by character? Marx would have approved! Except for the part where character = willingness to sacrifice for the green. Take that libertarian meritocracy!)

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] February 9 2011 8:32 AM EST

I thought most new drugs were developed through publicly funded research.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 9 2011 9:20 AM EST

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science
http://www.aei.org/outlook/24431
http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/govrnd.html
LMGTFY

The last two entries seem to be of a more conservative perspective, for fairness. It does appear some public funding of research does exist.

It also appears like big pharma doesn't like it, because that takes great scientists away from making the next patentable wonder palliative.

Lord Bob February 9 2011 12:21 PM EST

and there would be no American porn.
Aww.

Lochnivar February 9 2011 12:26 PM EST

fear the causality:

no porn > no internet > no CB!

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] February 9 2011 1:04 PM EST

Considering how far the Real nazi and commies went with secret government labs back in good old WWII, this evil liberal uprising might not be so bad. ;)
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0039rV">why is glen beck on tv warghcbarglefh</a>