ColorofChange.org: 36 companies have now dropped ads from Beck
August 24, 2009 6:26 pm ET by Media Matters staff
From an August 24 ColorofChange.org press release:
Facing increased pressure from ColorOfChange.org members, 16 new companies have pledged not to run additional ads on Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck Program. Thirty-six companies have now committed not to support Beck's show since ColorOfChange.org launched its campaign three weeks ago.
The defections come as ColorOfChange.org members mobilized last week against corporations who still refused to pull their ads from Glenn Beck by placing thousands of phone calls to company executives. By the end of the week, three of these companies - Clorox, Lowe's and Sprint - had pledged not to run additional ads; Red Lobster and Vonage have not yet responded.
The new companies distancing themselves from Beck include Airware Inc. (makers of Brez anti-snoring aids), Ancestry.com, AT&T, Blaine Labs Inc., Campbell Soup Company, Clorox, Ditech, The Elations Company, Experian (creator of FreeCreditReport.com), Farmers Insurance Group, Johnson & Johnson (makers of Tylenol), Lowe's, NutriSystem, Sprint, The UPS Store and Verizon Wireless. They join twenty other companies who previously pledged not to run additional ads on Glenn Beck. The moves come after the Fox News Channel host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" during an appearance on Fox & Friends.
Not quite as good as the one from Dr. Matt, but just as pathetic in that it shows Glenn faking tears yet again...
If it isn't a ploy then wow watch out folks he is truly scary and unstable and erratic soul. Send him off, out and gone.
Raise the bar. Most of what he said is provable.
you wanna pull this game at least admit that both sides are guilty of this
Does the whining Becky know you are stealing his material?
Mr. Obama was outside the Democratic Chicago political machine. Haven't you been reading the newspapers or watching tv for the past several years? The African-American/Hyde Park wing of Chicago's Democratic Party was not part of Mayor Daly's "machine."
Guess that's too much for you, huh? Go back to sucking the front teat of Faux Noise. Probably the most substantial nurishment your delicate body can sustain.
FOX takes care of their own.
how about vp dick ordering the leak of a cia agent? Valerie Plame anyone?
what about kkkarl rove and the purges of the us attorney's office that were his doing.
what about the torture and assassination program run by vp dick and hid from congress?
and lets not forget the sweetheart deals given to haliburton, kbr, and blackwater. (ya know the mercenary outfit that is on a Modern Crusade and is no better than a bunch of murders)
how about illegal wiretapping of EVERYONE in the country.
are you really gonna try and sit there and play this game....cause guess what. your gonna lose big. heck the party you support has already lost BIG. and will continue to lose BIG because they prove that they are willing to sell themselves for anything. ( Duke Cunningham comes to mind)
now far be it from me that there isnt corruption within the democratic party. i mean there is in all politics. but don't you dare paint one side as the saints and the other the sinners. they all are sinners or at least nearly all are.
Only three thumbs down? Disappointing.
MONDAY, AUG. 24, 2009
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,440,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,937,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,810,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,450,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,066,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,860,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,114,000
CNN KING 1,063,000
MSNBC MADDOW 885,000
CNN COOPER 827,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 640,000
enough said about this silly boycott
~Edward R. Murrow
Even with Becky's "ratings", 33 advertisers and counting are dropping him. Enough said about those silly ratings.
So, this is a fairly slanted view of the effect Color of Change is having.
That said, as a conservative, I have mixed feelings on this boycott. On one hand, I say that its crap that they are attacking Beck for his speech. He has a right to say that Obama is a racist.
On the other hand, they have the right to attempt a boycott... I've read hundreds of posts from folks that are pushing the opposite direction, telling folks like Wal-Mart they will no longer go because they pulled the ads.
Of course he can say that Obama is a racist. And they have a right to pull their advertising. No one is trampling Beck's right to free speech.
What have you read exactly and where? 36 is a "handful"? Fail.
What does a free market decision have to do with free speech? Are you really this obtuse that you can't see this has NOTHING to do with free speech. Do you know what free speech is?
You can post all of the ratings you'd like to post but the only rating that matters to them is that the majority of the voters elected Barack Obama as their president. Those who are working to bring about his downfall are making accusations that appeal more to the fringes than to the center.
Wal-Mart understands they won't continue to prosper by playing only to the fringe.
It's not that hard a concept to grasp.
Strange, but I always equated "news" with journalism.
With the exception of maybe Shepard Smith and Anderson Cooper, every show listed is an OPINION based show.
In other words 9 out of 11 of the listed "news" shows, are simply give THEIR take on things. Problem is, there are too many idiots watching, and thinking "well. if they said it on the NEWS, then it must be true?"
I googled the first 14 lines from your post, and got 656 hits. Your post matched most of the others including your punctuation and line breaks.
If you had any integrity or good will left on this site, you just blew it.
I would issue TS cards to all who boycott these stores, companies and not allow them to purchase anything from them, forever. When your speech is limited you will cry ATTACK. What has the minister been telling the congregation that Black Liberation is here and now. Am I confused. I really thought we were Americans and trying to better the nation not destroy it by class warfare. Which this is it and in your face.
You are guilty of a false equivalence here. Would you support some nut's "right" to recruit thugs to burn down churches and synagogues and temples?
On a more basic level, urging corporations to not financially support a person who calls the President of the United States a racist and hater of "white KKKKulture" is not a free speech issue. It's common sense.
Mr. Beck has a perfect right to say stupid things. He doesn't have a right to do so on the public airwaves (for which Faux Noise pays nothing). And he doesn’t have a right to corporate sponsorship.
This isn't the US Government censoring anyone, by the way. These companies are making a business decision - I think you'll find that covered in the Constitution in the commerce clause, not the First Amendment.
Take another look at the video of Barney Frank straightening out a woman waving a photo of President Obama with a Hitler mustache drawn on it. She had been in a closed loop of "thought" for so long, she honestly didn't understand how very wrong she is. Unfortunately, you are in the same boat. And its taking on water rather quickly.
And where did Black Liberation theology come into this? Do you really claim to understand that? Or are you satisfied to regurgitate the pre-chewed analysis of the right wing nutz ranting on radio and tv?
You just toss that in there because it's something you heard about from someone, it appears Black folks are working in Color for Change, you hate President Obama, so you just try to add that little bit.
It further shows you have absolutely no idea what you're writing about.
Thousands of hours of sermons distilled into a few soundbites (by definition, taken out of context). Actually, I agree with most of what I heard.
I do understand something about Black Liberation Theology, which I will venture to guess is a heck of a lot more than you do. But even granting the highly unlikely event that you do, what the heck does it have to do with Glenn Becks saying President Obama hates white people and white KKKulture?
If you can address how someone WITHOUT facts can provide a judgement while referring to racist issues (inferring that he himself believed it was racist in nature), I would love to hear it.
That said, Beck has a right to say what he did. Being on Fox News has nothing to do with it.
For the disgusting human Barney Frank...the woman in question is an admitted Democrat. From the Weekly Standard:
...
CNN's Larry King showed the above video of Barney Frank laying the smack down on a woman at a townhall meeting who compared Obama to Hitler. CNN left out the fact that this woman is a Lyndon LaRouche Democrat.
In the full video (via Allahpundit), the woman says, "This policy is already on the way out. It already has been defeated by LaRouche." She also underscores her crazy LaRouchite beliefs by claiming that the U.S. has "30% real unemployment". No one disputes that LaRouchites are on the fringe -- but it's indisputable that they are fringe Democrats. They oppose Obamacare because they want a single-payer plan.
...
And no, he didn't just "toss that in there" with Black Liberation theology. He is referring to the fact that Beck supported his argument by saying that it would be VERY difficult for someone to sit in a church pastored by a racist like Rev Wright for 20 years, even naming a book after one of his sermons that affected him personally...and not be affected. Rev Wright is a racist. He preaches racism. Would you sit in church for 20 years and listen to a hateful person if you didn't feel a connection? (assuming that you attend church).
No he didn't. Your point about LaRouche is bizarre and makes no sense, nor did you back up your wild claim that "They oppose Obamacare because they want a single-payer plan." LaRouche is a libertarian who would very much oppose a single payer plan.
>>by a racist like Rev Wright for 20 years, even naming a book after one of his sermons that affected him personally...and not be affected.
That's total ridiculous speculation. If you want to make an outrageous claim like Beck did, you have to have strong proof--not mere speculation.
However that woman labels herself makes no difference. She is a nut and Barney Frank treated her as such. She lost any claim on respect when she started waving that doctored photo, and she got what she deserved.
President Obama's statement that the Cambridge PD actly stupidly was 100% correct. To arrest a man in his own home for creating a disturbance (after the cop was in the home for what - 10 minutes?) is stupid. Period. The fact that Professor Gates was at home was on the record. What else has come out since then? Nothing that changes the facts of the matter.
Yes, Mr. Beck has a right in the United States to say dumb things. I haven't read anyone claiming he does not.
But corporations have no obligation to support him in the endeavor, either.
And what exactly is the "white culture" (or, as I prefer, "white KKKulture") Beck says President Obama hates? Is Beck pushing White Liberation Theology?
I don't think Rev. Wright is a racist. I think he told the truth and that makes some people uncomfortable. I also don't think it is possible to judge a person who gave 3 one-hour sermons every Sunday for fifteen or twenty years by two or three 30-second soundbites.
And...National Socialists (aka Nazis) are in fact on the left side of the spectrum, not right. The right side is for those who believe in individual rights, the left side is for those who believe in collective rights.
Once again, you lack the facts on the Gates arrest. He was not in his home, he was in the front yard. He FOLLOWED the officer, berating him the whole time. He was warned to stop, he chose not to. The officer was responding to a reported break-in. Gates jumped STRAIGHT to racism as the reason, and no one in their right mind would say he acted properly. If you agree with Gates, then you are the racist. The facts, as you put it, completely backup my statement. Every officer on scene supported the action as 100% correct. Every citizen watching supported the action. So far, the only people who don't are racists (Gates), Obama, and the far-left zealots who won't admit it was wrong. Even the press dropped this hot potato.
Please, PLEASE get a dictionary and look up the word racist. You will see that it means favoring one group over another because of race, not merit. If you don't think Rev. Wright is a racist, you are intellectually dishonest.
On the left, you have dictatorship. On the right, you have anarchy. The US Constitution was written to place the country center-right, with some centralized function, but most power distributed to the people.
Nazis are the party of National Socialists. Socialists, by definition is state ownership of the means of production.
Quoting Wikipedia, "Nationalism refers to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation.[1] It is a type of collectivism emphasizing the collective of a specific nation."
So, its a state controlled philosophy focused on the collective of the nation.
That is the left side of the political spectrum.
The right side is focused on the rights of the individual, not the collective.
You're not only wrong, but your claims are completely opposite of the truth. You're either drastically uninformed or lying to make it look like neocons and Republicans are in favor of individuals rather than corporations and the wealthy, which is blatantly untrue.
The fact is that without liberalism, this country would not exist. Our entire form of government grew out of ENLIGHTENED LIBERALISM. Look it up. Pretending that Liberalism is unconcerned with individual liberties is absurd.
The left is ABSOLUTELY, undisputed NOT for the rights of the individual. You are so far off, its absurd to argue further...but I will. The left, for example Obama, are for the betterment of the community OVER the rights of the individual. Wealth re-distribution takes from the individual, and gives to the community to make it better for all. It is socialist in nature.
The Nazis were socialist. Read your history. Hitler centralized the means of production. Do a simple Google search on "volks", meaning people, and you wll see the facts. It is absolute BY DEFINITION! The definition of the word SOCIALISM, and the historical facts that Hitler centralized production in the government. What do you dispute?
I agree that words do not always reflect the true nature of the organization. Your example is appropriate. But, for this case, Nazis...you are wrong.
For you to say that fascism is right wing exploits your ignorance. By definition (again, those pesky definitions), the core tenants of fascism are:
1. Nationalism
2. Authoritarianism
3. Social Darwinism
4. Social Interventionism - Indoctrination, Abortion, eugenics and euthanasia, Culture and gender roles
5. Economic Policies - National corporatism, national socialism and national syndicalism, Economic planning, Social welfare
This is straight from wikipedia (though other sources have the same information). None of these are focused on the individual. This is about the collective...and that is the LEFT.
It is you that have no understanding of politics. I have read a number of historical documents...including the writings of our founding fathers, that point out that left is dictatorship, and right is anarchy. Don't spew crap, read. Try, "5000 Year Leap" to start with. It focuses on the writings of Franklin, Adams, Washington...you know, the guys who founded this country.
That link you provided is some of the absolute worst garbage I've ever read. Look...I don't send you to right wing hate sites to prove my points. I say go read history books. If you read the crap on that site, you are an idiot. It was 100% garbage. Hell, not even wikipedia is that corrupted!
And again with your ignorance of history. You are NOT a liberal, you are a progressive. THAT is why the progressive CHANGED the term from liberalism to enlightened liberalism, because they believed that the rights of the individual do NOT overrule the rights of the collective.
People like you are ignorant of history, and have very shallow knowledge of this country in particular. Stop, STOP reading hate sites and open your mind!
In another post you claim to be surprised that Glenn Beck spews hatred and lies and you want people to take you seriously? Why? You can't even identify simple facts, you can't even accept that your own link on wikipedia states that the Nazis had more links to the right than to the left, and you pretend that you are in a position to lecture on history. You're not. You're fundamentally dishonest and have and either purposefully ignore facts you don't like or are unable to face them. Liberals have pushed through changes like civil rights laws, rights for the individuals; people like you have opposed them. You cry social engineering rather than facing the reality that institutionalized discrimination of any sort is the antithesis of individualism.
You're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Your comment about a Nazi wikipedia entry is incorrect. First, I did not refer to a Nazi wikipedia entry. Second, I have CLEARLY documented that the Nazi party is left. YOUR idea that political affiliation is a circle is nuts. How can you be left or right in a circle? Please...if that doesn't show ignorance of the facts, I don't know what does.
And again with the ignorance of history. Lincoln...Republican. Civil rights was pioneered by the right. While the legislation was signed by a Democratic president, it was a Republican senator who pushed to get it signed. Upon signing, the president said, "We will lose them for a generation", referring to his fellow DEMOCRATS. In fact, the founder of the NAACP was in fact, Republican. Oh...and let's not forget that the KKK was founded by Democrats, and was commonly associated with Democrats, with cartoons depicting donkeys with "KKK" emblazened on the side. Hmmmm....
But, sheeple like yourself have blindly followed progressives without questioning. I pity you.
Deliberate ignorance like yours isn't worthy of pity, it's worthy of disgust. You're wasting my time.
And, you show your ignorance in saying the Democrats left the party and became Republicans. It doesn't take a genius to see that the south has only RECENTLY started leaning left. Look at the elections. Don't take my word... Besides, what idiot would think that millions of people would completely switch ideologies over a single issue? That's like saying millions of Republicans switched to being Democrats because Reagan gave amnesty to illegals. Besides, the Democrats HATED the Republicans BECAUSE they pioneered the Civil Rights legislation. Johnson did not fear the Democrats would become Republicans, he feared they would fracture the Democratic party, AND THEY DID for a decade or more. Educate yourself.
I don't pretend that Republicans championed civil rights. READ THE HISTORY BOOKS FOOL! It's not my opinion, ITS FACT. Geez...talking to you people is difficult.
Socialism is not Liberalism. I explained that. The views you claim are not liberal, they are progressive. Period. Even Hillary said that during the debates when someone called her liberal. Did you ever wonder why the LIBERTARIAN party is on the right? Its because the REAL definition of liberal is for individual rights...which is opposite Obama, FDR, and you.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Beck is not being prohibited by the government regarding his free speech. This is a BUSINESS issue, not a free speech issue. Try reading the Constitution before you start citing it.
Generalizations like that don't benefit your argument.
link
What is wrong with you? Calling Obama a racist does NOT constitute hate nor lies. He believes it, and was able to provide proof. That is not hate.
I'm so tired of criticism of Obama resulting in being called a racist. It won't stop me, but I tire of it. Your "Rules for Radicals" book must be worn out.
why hasnt WND and human events been shut down?
why are ann coulter and michelle malkin still churning out books?
if what you have said were true then all of these people would be shut down. sadly....they aren't and continue to be around.
good try but you have failed. its funny that your crying foul now when your chosen ones aren't in power anymore and cannot use fear to shred the constitution.....which they had done mercilessly and now it seems are the seeds of calling them to account for it. wish you buddies luck for dodging the torture prosecutions.
I certainly support free markets and the decision for a company to drop their ads from Becky's hate machine is a free market decision. Apparently you don't believe in free markets because you hate the fact that companies are exercising their right to drop Becky like a fart in the wind. Adios. Will you start crying next like Becky?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Beck is not being prohibited by the government regarding his free speech. This is a BUSINESS issue, not a free speech issue. Try reading the Constitution before you start citing it.
How could he possibly back that stupid statement with FACTS?
The issue of freedom of speech has already been answered. Sorry if you missed it.
Don't say anything about blacks or you will be ridiculed beyond belief.
This must be why the birthers, the mini-mobs, etc., are being silenced and cannot get any air time (/sarcasm).
However, on the other hand, their little "pet" in the white house can do or say anything he wants to do or say.
He's our president, you pathetic little buffoon. If you want to see a "pet" in office, check out the previous administration of Bonzo's. Furthermore, what has Obama said and done that you find objectionable, on the order of what has been said about him? Shall we cue the crickets now?
He reminds me of the time when I was a small child and my parents would take me to the circus. The thing I wanted to see was all the side shows, such as men swallowing swords or the half man-half snake.
That explains some of your psychological make-up, to be sure.
Of course, I had no idea at the time, it was all fake. However, I soon found out, it was not real at all, only someone faking the act.
There are still freak-shows in existence. Today they're called neocons and trolls and right-wingnuts, and they display their inhuman oddities with their bizarre mind-sets on boards like this one.
That to me is what O'bama [sic--is a five-letter name too hard for you?] is doing since he was elected to this office.
Since Obama has been in the public eye since 2004, we all knew what we were voting for. No one ever thought he was flawless (that "messiah" nonsense was an invention of your side). But guess what? The country as a whole decided they preferred him to the alternative, and elected him handily. Why are you in denial about the legitimacy of his presidency?
However, since people are finding out just what a "fake" he is, things are changing and his pwople [sic] don't like it.
No, the people who opposed him for irrational reasons are conjuring up more reasons to oppose him.
I say, "more power to Glen Beck" and keep up the good work, my friend.
You're such a friend that you don't know how to spell his name. How convincing. And if you honestly think that Beck's calling Obama a racist is an example of "good work," then I'd hate to see what Beck would have to do to actually earn your disapproval.
You know all to [sic] well what you're talking about and someone will support your show, I know I will, Glen.
That will sure make up for all those sponsors, huh? Frankly, I'm glad to see you here, because there's a chance you might actually learn something. But if all you can do is applaud Beck when he's performing at his idiotic best, and weigh in with frankly insane ideas about Obama, then I don't hold out much hope.
When was that exactly? What was said? Who "answered" it and what was the question?
"This must be why the birthers, the mini-mobs, etc., are being silenced and cannot get any air time (/sarcasm)."
No, but he has a point. You can't criticize the president without being accused by at least a dozen people of racism, even with no evidence of such a thing.
"He's our president, you pathetic little buffoon. If you want to see a "pet" in office, check out the previous administration of Bonzo's. Furthermore, what has Obama said and done that you find objectionable, on the order of what has been said about him? Shall we cue the crickets now?"
Wow, you can't be serious. This president is practically immune to criticism except for a few rouge "crazy right-wingers" like Glenn Beck, apparently. What has Obama done that is objectionable? How about almost everything? I don't have enough space to list them all here.
"Since Obama has been in the public eye since 2004, we all knew what we were voting for. No one ever thought he was flawless (that "messiah" nonsense was an invention of your side). But guess what? The country as a whole decided they preferred him to the alternative, and elected him handily. Why are you in denial about the legitimacy of his presidency?"
Wow, his experience stretches back THAT far? Amazing. I have more experience than him and I'm almost 20 years younger. The "messiah nonsense" was created because you worship this man as a god for some reason. The country decided this because little to nothing was known about him before the election and people are easily distracted by this "hope and change" BS. When people think the president is going to pay for their gas and mortgage, you know they've gone of the deep end.
"No, the people who opposed him for irrational reasons are conjuring up more reasons to oppose him."
So, in your opinion, is it possible to oppose him for rational reasons?
"You're such a friend that you don't know how to spell his name. How convincing. And if you honestly think that Beck's calling Obama a racist is an example of "good work," then I'd hate to see what Beck would have to do to actually earn your disapproval."
I'm trying to see if I understand this correctly. People are racist for simply opposing Obama's policies, but he's not one for attending a racist church for 20 years. Is that correct? Would you consider Reverend Wright a racist or is it impossible to be black and be a racist?
"That will sure make up for all those sponsors, huh? Frankly, I'm glad to see you here, because there's a chance you might actually learn something. But if all you can do is applaud Beck when he's performing at his idiotic best, and weigh in with frankly insane ideas about Obama, then I don't hold out much hope."
If you should be worried about anything, it should be the combination of Obama's approval ratings dropping below 40% (which they will soon) and Olbermann or Maddow losing 1 of their 3 advertisers.
"If you should be worried about anything, it should be the combination of Obama's approval ratings dropping below 40% (which they will soon) and Olbermann or Maddow losing 1 of their 3 advertisers."
WD6 Sez: I don't care who you are, now thets funny!! (mostly cause it is true) Hahahahaahha....
Semper Fi,
get a dictionary and look up hypocrisy please.
You make me sick, no respect, none. That is what is wrong with America, not the President pal.
You must have been really upset when Anti-Bush protesters would be limited to "free speech" zones by the police (government) or when someone wearing an Anti-Bush T-Shirt is thrown out of an event where Bush is speaking.
Let's see, America's Days are numbered because an advocacy group asks corporations not to support racist, hateful and divisive speech, but are not when the government actually does interfere with free speech as was done at so many Bush rallies during the 2004 campaign?
At Obama Town hall meetings people are allowed to carry signs comparing Hitler to Obama and even allowed to carry firearms? Yet America's days are numbered?
I do agree that " It is a sad day when intimidation, threats and harassment is driven by hate, discontent and class warfare by special interest groups". Which precisely describes the Anti-Obama/Anti-Health care reform people who appear at town hall meetings simply to disrupt the meetings, shout people down when asking a reasonable question, and are then organized by the Health Care industry.
By the way you keep referring to "class warfare". Which classes are at war here? The corporate class and a pro-civil rights against the Hate mongering wingnut class?
Or are you simply using "class" as code for race?
"Mussels speech?"
Aah - you're just being shellfish!
Why support President Obama? Well, the first reason is that he's the President of the United States. He won the election and deserves our support until someone else is elected.
Second, he has some excellent ideas. He did inherit a huge mess. President Bush underfunded the Federal government and the Republican House and Senate grossly overspent. "No tax and spend" was their motto.
Third, President Obama has considerable executive experience - far more than Gov. Bush when he ran for President, for example.
President Obama has done the best he can to reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans. Weak, disorganized, shell-shocked and isolated by the poverty of their lack of new ideas (the Republicans' idea of health care reform was to pass a law that poor Terri Shavio was still alive) the only thing the GOP can do is say "No." They would rather see this nation do nothing than participate in any success for which Mr. Obama might receive a shread of credit.
No wonder the Republican Senators are leaving the sinking ship like the rats they are.
So instead of actually trying to help craft legislation, they've become the party of death panels, pull the plug on granny, death books, fear, lies, and most of all, NO.
Party over People.
I agree that we should support the President of the US. Now...that did NOT happen from the left during President Bush's terms. I can point to THOUSANDS of articles and video clips that prove it. But, supporting the position does not mean we support the policies. I absolutely cannot support Obama's policies. I believe they are extreme and very bad for our country.
For your second point...you have a partial point. Bush was not a fiscal conservative. He did a very poor job with the budget. BUT, Obama and his supporters have used that excuse for 6 months. I know that economies don't turn on a dime...But, this is Obama's policies now. Take responsibility.
But...he has NOT had excellent ideas. He has had Progressive ideas, yes. But, they have been met with extreme partisanship, which let's me know they are not in the best interest of the country.
Your third point...what the hell? Obama had NO executive experience. NONE. A GOVERNOR is the highest executive office for a state. Obama has ZERO, and sure as heck not at a state level.
Obama has not reached across the aisle. He has layed out a mandate, and told people to follow. EVERY single policy has been the same. According to nearly every poll, this is the most polorizing politician in history.
The GOP, and more importantly, conservatives like myself, say HELL NO to Obama's ideas because they are BAD ideas, not because they came from Barack Obama. NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN has said we should do nothing...every one agrees that some change is in order. Just not this change.
Which Obama in no way has ever endorsed.
>>But, they have been met with extreme partisanship, which let's me know they are not in the best interest of the country.
Yes, they have been met with partisanship--from the right, which simply wants to weaken and defeat Obama. You can't be bipartisan when the other side refuses to act in the same spirit. How else can you explain the bizarre claims from the right that Obama is setting up death panels and promoting a death book?
>>According to nearly every poll, this is the most polorizing politician in history.
Oh please! Obama is polarizing in the same way that Clinton was--not because of his policies, but because of a deep hatred from the right that refuses to accept the fact that a Democrat deserves to rule.
Prove it.
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Beck is not being prohibited by the government regarding his free speech. This is a BUSINESS issue, not a free speech issue. Try reading the Constitution before you start citing it.
Which is why poor puppienrainbows never gets to write anything here. Wait a minute....
because most of us here disagree with the hate speech beck has perpetuated?
no government entity got involved in this. it was people like yourself and me and everyone who did not like what beck had said and decided not to patron his sponsers anymore. its as simple as that. and by the way. as free speech as you could wish for.
problem is when you abuse that in trying to stoke fear and paranoia saying untrue things for the sake of one's own profit
there is no government involvement with beck and fox losing advertisers. this is other americans and businesses acting on their own accord.
the first amendment prohibits the government from stifling free speech.
Don't you want your country to be more intelligent than a bunch of morning zoo high school drop-outs?
Were you trying to make a point? (if so, you failed)
The neocon in a nutshell, folks.
again trying to drag the old rush limbaugh line about michelle obama being an angry black woman?
i think you have a little problem LTL.
though one thing i do agree with you is beck should be stopped. if he would be honest and comment on the news truthfully....then i would have no problem with him.
Color of Change made Glen Beck Cry.
Twinkle, Twinkle little Star.
Tell another lie and watch the Advertisers go Far.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
This boycott of Beck is a futile effort and Im glad to see liberals wasting there time with this crusade. For every advertiser that leaves there are 10 more that want those time slots because Beck is one of the highest rated programs on one of the highest networks. Simple supply and demand.
That being said, it would be a much smarter choice to advertise on... the shows which reach more of the population.
Apparently not since 33 advertisers and counting have dropped becky. oops.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/179815-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Still_Tops.php
Beck is a liar who stupid, ignorant people like you refuse to research. You just buy his shtick without question. You wrongly believe that you are a conservative because you watch Fox and agree with what is being said. Fox doesn't represent true conservatism. True conservatism isn't hatred and lies.
Why you're bringing Van Jones into this is beyond me. First, I didn't even know who he was until people like you started bringing him up, nor did I know what ColorofChange was. I wrote my letters to the advertisers on my own because I'm SICK of the lies and hate which are being cloaked under the guise of "news" on Fox. Beck is one of the worst offenders. It's not news or truth, it's propaganda. I simply asked if they really wanted their products associated with this man's mouth. They apparently do not. Second, Van Jones has had nothing to do with CoC for over two years. If you researched Mr. Jones, you'd know that, but it's just easier for stupid, ignorant people like you to just believe EVERY SINGLE THING you hear Beck say.
Go back to freerepublic, you'll be more comfortable there. They don't use a lot of big words and their posts are easier to read because they use the same four or five words . . . Obama racist socialist birth certificate.
something that isnt human events or WND or something of that ilk?
anything please....just one?
cloak yourself in free speech all you like. just dont come crying when you say something that gets you banned
Oh, and Obama's not my hero, but he's one HECKUVA lot smarter and more honest than Beck.
Power doesn't have to be measured in money or an elected status. Words do have power, and its depressing to see this sort of power wielded like a machete, rather than a scalpel.
And I would say that the level of education is relevant. Just because he is successful and knows how to reach people (charismatic intelligence) doesn't make him right.
Being educated in your profession is incredibly important. And when your profession is giving opinion pieces on political issues, it is a great disservice not only to yourself but to everyone that listens to you when you are either not informed, or willfully misinformed.
and another thing.
last i checked the president wasn't trying to stir up fears and speaking hate speech.
though maybe to your ears what the president obama says no matter what it is will be dubbed by you to be hate speech.
granted what he said about the cops was a dumb move. but it cannot touch with a pole of any length (even the big lever that Archimedes said he would be able to move the world with) to what beck and limbaugh and hannity, and every person on the opposite side of the president have said.
as i said before your comparing apples to oranges. cause if it was not so. beck should have been able to run and become president himself. but he didnt. and he never will
Becky never held public office and doesn't even possess a college degree. Nice try, but you failed miserably.
Thanks for proving you do not possess a college degree either.
Leaving the article out of "Beck is American hero..."
And spelling KoolAid "cool aid."
How's the weather in New Dehli?
and as for truth. i cannot think that one thing out of his mouth has ever been true. and i have watched and listened lots of times just for good comedic laugh.
careful throwing out that socialist kool aid drinking it could easily be applied to you as well.
couldn't be that the students are to blame? the parents?
no its the teachers fault. yep always is.
History is more my passion of which i am very good at.
i mean its not like it requires alot of work to do right?
research is done within a few hours with no effort.
writing is a snap.
and the first draft of anything is always accepted and published immediately
so no effort at all right?
I can accept that there is a market for fear and loathing.
What I don't accept is Fox peddling its "news" shows as News and its "journalists" as Journalists!
Pass Health care and watch the Insurance Companies stop stealing.
You think Beck is Informative?? His info ( what he claims as FACTS )
is ALWAYS incorrect.. He is the Carrot top of Media.
So, are you're claiming you are a librul now? Ok. Run with it.
Ya right! Maybe Beck & Palin 2012 to 2013 and a half!!
Beck is a fool and is getting what he deserves!
Can we approach this with imagination, or stoop to G.Beck level? The network is still taking the same total to the bank. Plenty of wrong-talk wannabees are lined-up, or waiting for an e-mail. If G.Beck stays on, the network of tangled webs wins. See them spin. Fox may have the highest total viewership, but that tells me overall percentage. It seems to me, those citizens are scared of losing control. Same with G.Beck.
Addsum,
Ronin Kannushi.