Opinion of Glenn Beck

[Sam Spade]

Glenn Beck is one of the few, if not the only reason to watch Fox News.

You see, the "bat**** insane" thing is a gag - its purpose is to throw people who want to go after him seriously off the scent and back onto Rush Limbaugh's large hiney.

Personally, I try to watch because Beck talks about stories that no one else does and gets certain guests that no one else does.  For example, I've been ranting for a month about the QE by the Fed as being the most important economic action of our time.  Who's the only person that's talked about it multiple times?  Not to mention that back in February of 2008, he was the only one talking about a huge economic disaster heading our way, which means he had done his reading (unlike me - like an idiot I focused too much on the elections)

There is something in what Al says about him being a "Howard Beale"-type character, however.  Keep in mind what that means.

I do find the emotional crap he often does annoying.

well if its a ruse it just means hes a HP then and i dont deny that hes somewhat intelligent, and as px pointed out he wasn't the only one predicting it unless you mean people with TV shows.

I do mean those with TV shows - sorry for not being specific.

As for those mentioned:
- Roubini has been right, generally, but he's also been much too conservative in his predictions about how bad it will be (and still is).  Especially compared with some of the economic writers I've read on the Internet, who've gotten the feel of the size and scope much more quickly (for example - they were saying $3-4 trillion in toxic assets in the US when he was still at $1 trillion)
- Krugman gets the *problem* correct to a certain extent, but he is also highly disingenuous in many of his writings (hypocrite too).  I can point out specifics if asked.  We do agree on Geithner's plan - so there.

Most importantly, neither of them have the correct solution that will limit the damage to the greatest extent possible (and the damage will be great, regardless of what happens) because they're still relying on this Keynesian fallacy (and if you want me to lambast also those who are relying on the Friedman/neo-classical fallacy, I'll do so too  )

Beck doesn't get it right either, but he's not an economist so I wouldn't expect that.

[Purple State]

Glenn Beck really needs to be taken off the air. It has only gotten worse since this. He upsets me as much as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. None of them realize that they are harming their party and the ideals they represent. It's incredible.

[Lunar]

Glenn Beck really needs to be taken off the air. It has only gotten worse since this. He upsets me as much as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. None of them realize that they are harming their party and the ideals they represent. It's incredible.

Really?  All three financially profit more by having the liberals take power and hurting their own party.  Moore and Franken and others too, for the record [for the inverse]


I'm pretty sure Coulter has realized that being negatively controversial and hated by the majority of the country helps her sales, for example.

[Rowan]

Glenn Beck really needs to be taken off the air. It has only gotten worse since this. He upsets me as much as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. None of them realize that they are harming their party and the ideals they represent. It's incredible.

If he needs to be taken off the air then so do Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, no? It's called changing the channel buddy, no one is forcing you to watch.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Glenn Beck really needs to be taken off the air. It has only gotten worse since this. He upsets me as much as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. None of them realize that they are harming their party and the ideals they represent. It's incredible.

If he needs to be taken off the air then so do Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, no? It's called changing the channel buddy, no one is forcing you to watch.

I have never seen Rachel Maddow frothing from the mouth or stoking paranoia.

[Sbane]

Glenn Beck really needs to be taken off the air. It has only gotten worse since this. He upsets me as much as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. None of them realize that they are harming their party and the ideals they represent. It's incredible.

If he needs to be taken off the air then so do Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, no? It's called changing the channel buddy, no one is forcing you to watch.

Did you seriously just compare Rachel Maddow to the freak that is Glenn Beck. Wow.

[Lunar]

they aren't that different, one is more populist-crazy and the other is more partisan-hacky-juvenile.  Both lower the overall tone of discourse.

But her negative effects on discourse, I would argue, are lesser and less extreme than Beck's.  However, if the Republicans were surging into power, it's possible that there would be a liberal equivalent of his silliness on-air today.  We'll have to wait a couple years for that.


That said, I can watch Maddow for more than 10 seconds and not have my eyes bleed and soul crushed, as much as I enjoy watching grown fat men pretend to cry on-air to sell their cable-show antics

[Landslide Lyndon]

I'm not in love with Maddow, like many others.
But to compare her with that hyperpartisan lunatic is the ultimate act of intellectual dishonesty.
It's like comparing Ron Howard to Ed Wood.

[Lunar]

Well, both are hyper-partisans that distort your news information, one does it in a far more lunatic  way than the other, but the other, she has her flaws too

[Landslide Lyndon]

Well, both are hyper-partisans that distort your news information, one does it in a far more lunatic  way than the other, but the other, she has her flaws too

Lunar, you are a clever guy.
What you are doing now reminds me of the media's atempt to impose an artificial ''balance'' during last fall's campaign.

''Yes, McCain accuses Obama of being a naive, radical, terrorist sympathizer, socialist who hates the troops, will surrender to Al Qaeda and Ahmedinejad, and wants to teach sex-ed at kindergarteners. But Obama said that McCain will tax your health care benefits so they are both equally guilty''.

[Lunar]

well, I'll let this thread continue on the subject of that crying populist crazy guy, but if you want my opinion on Maddow's intelligence and contributive content, I would agree 100% Frum's comment here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1uj2c0l9fA

And if you think Maddow is responsive, then you don't understand how responsive debate works [I used to do national competitive debate and non-responsive knee-jerk platitude/"attitudes" annoy the crap out of me].

she doesn't understand, whatsoever, about what he means about her and John McCain's "kill him Bomb Obama" supporters having a symbiotic relationship of negativity, she assumes that any comparison is a direct comparison and can't seem to figure out an indirect one

[Scam of God]

Lunar's always been a Mindless Middle idiot. Pay him no heed.

"What's that, you say? The Christian Jihadi Front brownshirts are storming the White House? Bah, we'd better not say anything, or else the voters in Georgia might respond negatively."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you tool, that's not it at all. She's disagreeing that there's any corollary between her negative statements towards McCain and Mr. "Bomb Obama". If I say that George Bush was a pompous jackass, and a Bush supporter says that Obama is a towel-headed sandn who needs to be shot (his hypothetical words, not mine), then it would be absolutely stupid of you to equate the two. That is, in fact, a defined logical fallacy: the fallacy of equivocation, a standard one in the arsenal of cowardly 'moderates' too afraid to take a stand.

Even more than the social conservatives, nitwits like you are why America is doomed. "By good gosh, the truth must be somewhere in the middle! Golden mean! Golden mean!" When, in fact, it doesn't work like that at all. It is possible for me to be partisan, and, say, Phil to be partisan, but that certainly doesn't mean we're equally partisan.

[Rowan]

Glenn Beck really needs to be taken off the air. It has only gotten worse since this. He upsets me as much as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. None of them realize that they are harming their party and the ideals they represent. It's incredible.

If he needs to be taken off the air then so do Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, no? It's called changing the channel buddy, no one is forcing you to watch.

I have never seen Rachel Maddow frothing from the mouth or stoking paranoia.

Except her 13 minute rant about "tea-bagging" the other night. Is she like 5?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Glenn Beck really needs to be taken off the air. It has only gotten worse since this. He upsets me as much as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. None of them realize that they are harming their party and the ideals they represent. It's incredible.

If he needs to be taken off the air then so do Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, no? It's called changing the channel buddy, no one is forcing you to watch.

I have never seen Rachel Maddow frothing from the mouth or stoking paranoia.

Except her 13 minute rant about "tea-bagging" the other night. Is she like 5?

So, making fun of some nutjobs and laughing with their pathetic ''resistance'' scheme is the same thing as spreading rumors about government-run concentration camps, talkling about the imminent ''Obama gun ban'' and other assorted paranoid nonsense.

You know, when even Michael Savage mocks you, perhaps it's time to visit a good psychiatrist.

[Psychic Octopus]

My dad's hero. crazy loon. Although I don't hate him, he seems insane.

[Daniel Z]

The shame of Washington State.

[Beet]

The new Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh 1993 = Beck 2009. I love how it only takes the conservatives a few weeks to become crazy mad. The Democrats acquiesced to Bush for years before people like Olbermann started to become popular in 2006 and 2007.

[Rowan]

Some guy just passed out live on the show.

[Lunar]

Lunar's always been a Mindless Middle idiot. Pay him no heed.

"What's that, you say? The Christian Jihadi Front brownshirts are storming the White House? Bah, we'd better not say anything, or else the voters in Georgia might respond negatively."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you tool, that's not it at all. She's disagreeing that there's any corollary between her negative statements towards McCain and Mr. "Bomb Obama". If I say that George Bush was a pompous jackass, and a Bush supporter says that Obama is a towel-headed sandn who needs to be shot (his hypothetical words, not mine), then it would be absolutely stupid of you to equate the two. That is, in fact, a defined logical fallacy: the fallacy of equivocation, a standard one in the arsenal of cowardly 'moderates' too afraid to take a stand.

Even more than the social conservatives, nitwits like you are why America is doomed. "By good gosh, the truth must be somewhere in the middle! Golden mean! Golden mean!" When, in fact, it doesn't work like that at all. It is possible for me to be partisan, and, say, Phil to be partisan, but that certainly doesn't mean we're equally partisan.

[ignore]

I didn't even get 25% through your post before I decided you rely on personal insults as an argumentative crutch and thus are not actually capable of a legitimate discussion

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well, both are hyper-partisans that distort your news information, one does it in a far more lunatic  way than the other, but the other, she has her flaws too

Lunar, you are a clever guy.
What you are doing now reminds me of the media's atempt to impose an artificial ''balance'' during last fall's campaign.

''Yes, McCain accuses Obama of being a naive, radical, terrorist sympathizer, socialist who hates the troops, will surrender to Al Qaeda and Ahmedinejad, and wants to teach sex-ed at kindergarteners. But Obama said that McCain will tax your health care benefits so they are both equally guilty''.

Yeah, I have to agree with you.

I love ya Lunar, you know that, but you're being a little ridiculous. You don't always have to try and act "fair."

[Rowan]

Lunar's always been a Mindless Middle idiot. Pay him no heed.

"What's that, you say? The Christian Jihadi Front brownshirts are storming the White House? Bah, we'd better not say anything, or else the voters in Georgia might respond negatively."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you tool, that's not it at all. She's disagreeing that there's any corollary between her negative statements towards McCain and Mr. "Bomb Obama". If I say that George Bush was a pompous jackass, and a Bush supporter says that Obama is a towel-headed sandn who needs to be shot (his hypothetical words, not mine), then it would be absolutely stupid of you to equate the two. That is, in fact, a defined logical fallacy: the fallacy of equivocation, a standard one in the arsenal of cowardly 'moderates' too afraid to take a stand.

Even more than the social conservatives, nitwits like you are why America is doomed. "By good gosh, the truth must be somewhere in the middle! Golden mean! Golden mean!" When, in fact, it doesn't work like that at all. It is possible for me to be partisan, and, say, Phil to be partisan, but that certainly doesn't mean we're equally partisan.

[ignore]

I didn't even get 25% through your post before I decided you rely on personal insults as an argumentative crutch and thus are not actually capable of a legitimate discussion

You're just noticing this now? He does it to everyone.

[Scam of God]

Lunar's always been a Mindless Middle idiot. Pay him no heed.

"What's that, you say? The Christian Jihadi Front brownshirts are storming the White House? Bah, we'd better not say anything, or else the voters in Georgia might respond negatively."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you tool, that's not it at all. She's disagreeing that there's any corollary between her negative statements towards McCain and Mr. "Bomb Obama". If I say that George Bush was a pompous jackass, and a Bush supporter says that Obama is a towel-headed sandn who needs to be shot (his hypothetical words, not mine), then it would be absolutely stupid of you to equate the two. That is, in fact, a defined logical fallacy: the fallacy of equivocation, a standard one in the arsenal of cowardly 'moderates' too afraid to take a stand.

Even more than the social conservatives, nitwits like you are why America is doomed. "By good gosh, the truth must be somewhere in the middle! Golden mean! Golden mean!" When, in fact, it doesn't work like that at all. It is possible for me to be partisan, and, say, Phil to be partisan, but that certainly doesn't mean we're equally partisan.

[ignore]

I didn't even get 25% through your post before I decided you rely on personal insults as an argumentative crutch and thus are not actually capable of a legitimate discussion

As opposed to a faux-moderatism designed not to step on too many toes? Right.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Some people deserve it, RB. Lunar certainly doesn't, but you definitely do.

[Scam of God]

Lunar's always been a Mindless Middle idiot. Pay him no heed.

"What's that, you say? The Christian Jihadi Front brownshirts are storming the White House? Bah, we'd better not say anything, or else the voters in Georgia might respond negatively."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you tool, that's not it at all. She's disagreeing that there's any corollary between her negative statements towards McCain and Mr. "Bomb Obama". If I say that George Bush was a pompous jackass, and a Bush supporter says that Obama is a towel-headed sandn who needs to be shot (his hypothetical words, not mine), then it would be absolutely stupid of you to equate the two. That is, in fact, a defined logical fallacy: the fallacy of equivocation, a standard one in the arsenal of cowardly 'moderates' too afraid to take a stand.

Even more than the social conservatives, nitwits like you are why America is doomed. "By good gosh, the truth must be somewhere in the middle! Golden mean! Golden mean!" When, in fact, it doesn't work like that at all. It is possible for me to be partisan, and, say, Phil to be partisan, but that certainly doesn't mean we're equally partisan.

[ignore]

I didn't even get 25% through your post before I decided you rely on personal insults as an argumentative crutch and thus are not actually capable of a legitimate discussion

You're just noticing this now? He does it to everyone.

And yet none of you who whine about by use of the ad hominem - and I use it frequently, for stupidity must be punished - ever seem to try to refute me logically. It's more convenient for you, I think, to shrivel up and whine about it so as to seem like I'm not treating you fairly to outside observers. Then you can defuse my argument without actually arguing.

[Rowan]

Some people deserve it, RB. Lunar certainly doesn't, but you definitely do.

And why is that? I never personally attack anyone.