Glenn Beck and the rise of Fox News' militia media
After a night of drinking, followed by an early-morning argument with his mother, with whom he shared a Pittsburgh apartment, 22-year-old Richard Poplawski put on a bulletproof vest, grabbed his guns, including an AK-47 rifle, and waited for the police to respond to the domestic disturbance call his mother had placed. When two officers arrived at the front door, Poplawski shot them both in the head, and then killed another officer who tried to rescue his colleagues.
In the wake of the bloodbath, we learned that Poplawski was something of a conspiracy nut who embraced dark, radical rhetoric about America. He was convinced the government wanted to take away his guns, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported. Specifically, Poplawski, as one friend described it, feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon." (FYI, there is no Obama gun ban in the works.) The same friend said the shooter feared America was "going to see the end of our times."
We learned that Poplawski hosted his own (failed) Internet radio show and that he visited the website of 9-11 conspiracy backer Alex Jones, who has been hyping the threat of a totalitarian world government for years. More recently, Jones has been warning listeners like Poplawski about The Obama Deception (that's the name of Jones' new documentary DVD) and how President Obama is bound to destroy America.
Who's Alex Jones? Even according to some conservative bloggers, the anti-government, anti-Obama talker is a "freak" who's popular with "the tin foil hat crowd." Like with Poplawski, apparently.
Jones might be a "freak," but he has recently been embraced -- and mainstreamed -- by Fox News, as part of the news channel's unprecedented drive to push radical propaganda warning of America's democratic demise under the new president.
During a March 18 webcast of FoxNews.com's proudly paranoid "Freedom Watch," Andrew Napolitano introduced a segment about "what the government has done to take your liberty and your property away." And with that, he welcomed onto the show "the one, the only, the great Alex Jones," who began ranting about "exposing" the New World Order and the threat posed by an emerging "global government."
"I appreciate what you're exposing," Napolitano assured his guest.
Waving around a copy of his Obama Deception, Jones warned Fox News webcast viewers about Obama's "agenda" for "gun confiscation" and the new president's plan to "bring in total police-state control" to America.
Jones also noted with excitement that Fox News' Glenn Beck had recently begun warning about the looming New World Order on his show, just like Jones had for years. "It is great!" cheered the conspiracist. (Like Jones, Beck recently warned viewers that "the Second Amendment is under fire.") Concluding the interview, Fox News' Napolitano announced "it's absolutely been a pleasure" listening to Jones' insights.
We don't know if Poplawski tuned in to watch Jones' star turn for Fox News last month. But is there any doubt that Fox News is playing an increasingly erratic and dangerous game by embracing the type of paranoid insurrection rhetoric that people like Poplawski are now acting on? By stoking dark fears about the ominous ruins that await an Obama America, by ratcheting up irresponsible back-to-the-wall scenarios, Fox News has waded into a territory that no other news organization has ever dared to exploit.
What Fox News is now programming on a daily (unhinged) basis is unprecedented in the history of American television, especially in the form of Beck's program. Night after night, week after week, Beck rails against the president while denouncing him or his actions, alternately, as Marxist, socialist, or fascist. He felt entirely comfortable pondering whether the federal government, under the auspices of FEMA, was building concentration camps to round up Americans in order to institute totalitarian rule. (It wasn't until this week that Beck was finally able to "debunk" the FEMA conspiracy theory.) And that's when Beck wasn't gaming out bloody scenarios for the coming civil war against Obama-led tyranny. In just a few shorts months, Beck raced to the head of Fox News' militia media movement.
Just prior to the Pittsburgh massacre, Beck's often bizarre on-air performances, in which his rants against the Obama administration's dark forces were mixed in with his tearful proclamations of love of country, had turned him into a highly rated laughingstock. "That is a shaky cat," Dennis Miller recently giggled while describing Beck. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough broke into hysterics after a montage of Beck's most weepy moments. And TV satirists have had a field day at the Fox News host's expense. (Stephen Colbert: "Crank up the crazy and rip off the knob!")
But I'm not sure people should be laughing.
The consequences of Fox News' doomsday programming now seem entirely predictable. As Jeffrey Jones, a professor of media and politics at Old Dominion University, recently explained to The New York Times in regard to Beck's rhetoric, "People hear their values are under attack and they get worried. It becomes an opportunity for them to stand up and do something."
People like Richard Poplawski? FYI, weeks before his deadline shooting spree, Poplawski uploaded a video clip of Beck ominously referencing the FEMA camps on Fox News.
It's true that Beck, in response to mounting criticism, made this statement on his show:
BECK: Let me be clear on one thing. If someone tries to harm another person in the name of the Constitution or the truth behind 9-11 or anything else, they are just as dangerous and crazy as those people we don't seem to recognize anymore -- you know, the ones who kill in the name of Allah.
But look at the very next two lines of his monologue: "There are enemies both foreign and domestic in America tonight. Call it fearmongering or call it the truth." That doesn't sound like Beck was backing away from his rhetorical call to arms to fend off the Marxist -- no, wait -- fascist Obama administration.
And let's drop the idea -- pushed hard by Beck himself -- that he's simply a modern-day Howard Beale, from the classic film Network, just an angry, I'm-mad-as-hell everyman lashing out at the hypocrisies of our time. Nonsense. Beale's unvarnished on-air rants from Network targeted conformity, corporate conglomerates, and the propaganda power of television. ("This tube," he called it.) Beale's attacks were not political or partisan. Beck, by contrast, unleashes his anger against, and whips up dark scenarios about, the new president of the United States. Big difference.
Here's a sampling of what Beck's been drumming into the heads of viewers, a portion of whom likely (and logically) hear his rhetoric as a call to action. That the government is a "heroin pusher using smiley-faced fascism to grow the nanny state." That it's indoctrinating our children; that we have "come to a very dangerous point in our country's long, storied history." Beck's concerned that the "Big Brother" government will soon dictate what its citizens can eat, at what temperature their house can be set, and what kind of cars they're allowed to drive.
Beck's sure "[d]epression and revolution" are what await America under Obama, and fears moving "towards a totalitarian state." The country today sometimes reminds Beck of "the early days of Adolf Hitler." Beck thinks that Obama, who has "surrounded himself by Marxists his whole life," is now "addicting this country to heroin -- the heroin that is government slavery."
And it's not just Beck. Appearing on Fox News, Dick Morris recently made a wildly irresponsible comment that looks even worse in light of the Pittsburgh law-enforcement slayings: "Those crazies in Montana who say, 'We're going to kill ATF agents because the UN's going to take over' -- well, they're beginning to have a case."
And it's not just Fox News. Radio nut Michael Savage recently claimed that "we have a naked Marxist for president." And high-profile conservative blogger Erick Erickson contemplated the beating of politicians: "At what point do [people] get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?"
Of course, the right-wingers at Free Republic are way ahead of Erickson as they fantasize about Obama's assassination: "And let's face it: all the speculation about Obama being the actual Antichrist will either be confirmed or denied if someone gets off a lucky shot at the SOB."
"Go Kill Liberals!"
I wonder if Glenn Beck knows who Jim Adkisson is. Adkisson made headlines on July 28, 2008, when he brought his sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, and, after whipping it out of a guitar case, opened fire on parishioners while a group of schoolchildren performed songs up by the altar. Adkisson killed two people and wounded several others.
Adkisson, a 58-year-old unemployed truck driver, brought 70 shotgun shells with him to the church and assumed he'd keep killing until the police arrived on the scene and shot him dead as well. Instead, some members of the congregation were able to wrestle him to the ground and hold him for police.
When investigators went to Adkisson's home in search of a motive, as well as evidence for the pending trial, they found copies of Savage's Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity, and The O'Reilly Factor, by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. They also came across what was supposed to have been Adkisson's suicide note: a handwritten, four-page manifesto explaining his murderous actions. The one-word answer for his deed? Hate. The three-word answer? He hated liberals.
The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just Kill yourself. Do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals!
What Adkisson especially hated about liberals ("this cancer, this pestilence") and what he hated about candidate "Osama Hussein Obama" was that they were marching America toward ruin: "Liberals are evil, they embrace the tenets of Karl Marx, they're Marxist, socialist, communists." Adkisson seethed over the way liberals were "trying to turn this country into a communist state" and couldn't comprehend why they would "embrace Marxism."
Sound familiar, Glenn?
John Bohstedt was one of the Unitarian church members who tackled Adkisson after the first round of gunfire went off inside the sanctuary. Two months ago, Adkisson pleaded guilty to the murder charges and was sentenced to life in prison. At the hearing, Bohstedt told the Associated Press he didn't think the killer had been insane, but rather had been manipulated by anti-liberal rhetoric.
"There are a lot of people who hate liberals, and if we stir that around in the pot and on the airwaves, eventually there will be people (like Adkisson) ... who get infected by the violent rhetoric and put it into violent action," Bohstedt said.
He remained worried about future violence: "Do you think there are other Jim Adkissons out there listening to hate speech? I do."
Me too.
I see Glenn Strange, er, Beck is now back pedalling on his loony concentration camp schtick. I think he's feeling the heat from somebody at Fox after that right wing gun fondler set up and killed those 3 police officers. They (Fox) have been whipping up these looneys for months now and they rightfully are seeing that they might be cultivating another Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh out there. I hope they cool it. There's a lot of weirdos watching Fox.
I agree. You know it's scary enough Barack having to fight economy, unemployment, etc., but to have to fight these people. Crazy doesn't begin to explain these nut jobs. I'm glad I'm a democrat, I'm glad Barack Obama is our president and I wish him and the rest of us (logical people) Godspeed...
Great up to date summary of Glenn Beck, Eric! I am posting a list of sponsors to the Glenn Beck show for anyone who would like to write a letter of complaint. This list is courtesy of "real citizen" over at crooks and liars.
—————————————————————-
Walgreens Media Relations
Mary Shultz, Walgreens Manager, Broadcast Media: 847-914-2961
200 Wilmot Road
Deerfield, IL 60015
(847) 914-2500
—————————————————————-
Lexmark x2 859-232-2221
Director of Corporate Communications – Lexmark
Tim Fitzpatrick
tfitzpat@lexmark.com
—————————————————————-
Liberty Mutual 617-357-9500
John Cusolito, Vice President, Corporate Communications – Liberty Mutual
Phone: 617-574-5512
Email: john.cusolito@libertymutual.com
—————————————————————-
Yellowbook 1-800-YB-YELLOW
http://www.yellowbook.com/contactus…
—————————————————————-
Lazyboy
http://www.la-z-boy.com/contactus/
—————————————————————-
Lending Tree 800-555-8733
Allison Vail - Manager of Corporate Communications – Lending Tree
704-943-8339
allison.vail@lendingtree.com
—————————————————————-
Edward Jones 314-515-3269
John Boul, Manager of Global Media Relations of Edward Jones
(314) 515-3265
E-mail: john.boul@edwardjones.com
—————————————————————-
Hyundai 800-633-5151
—————————————————————-
Direct Buy 800-988-6049
—————————————————————-
AARP 800-852-0879
—————————————————————-
Schwab Bank 866-855-9102
415-636-5454 Speak to Glen Mathison or Greg Gable
—————————————————————-
Legalzoom 323-962-8600 or 800-773-0888
—————————————————————-
Joesph A Bank Clothiers (JoB Clothiers) x2 1-800-999-7472
—————————————————————-
American Express x3 877-890-2639
212-640-5951 Speak to Mike O’Neal
—————————————————————-
Cialis (Lilly Corp) x2 1-877-242-5471
317-276-2000
—————————————————————-
Honda 800-999-1009, 310-783-2000
Ann Hartl, person in charge of advertising
“she wants to hear from us”
E-mail: ann_hartl@ahm.honda.com
—————————————————————-
Volvo
Marriot
U.S. Trust (part of Bank of America)
Verizon
Geico
Lunesta
Garmin
Bayer
LL Bean
TD Ameritrade
Progressive
Americaspower.org (some Coal lobbyist group)
Lincoln
Farmer’s
Glass Doctor
http://www.lilly.com
http://www.ustrust.com
http://newscenter.verizon.com
http://www.geico.com
http://automobiles.honda.com
http://www.lunesta.com
http://www.garmin.com
http://www.schwabbank.com
http://www.josbank.com
https://secure.bayer.com
http://www10.americanexpress.com
http://www.llbean.com
http://www.tdameritrade.com
https://www.progressive.com
http://www.americaspower.org
http://www.lincoln.com
http://www.farmers.com
http://www.glassdoctor.com
http://www.walgreens.com
Thanks for the list.
Thanks Snoop.
Thanks for the list, snoop. I needed to pick up a couple of things tonight after work.
any particular caliber?
You all are sick, the only person that kill that officer is the nut job. He pulled the trigger no one else.
Yeah, but right-wing nut jobs who convinced him that Obama wants to take his guns away loaded and cocked the gun for him.
Right! and Fox News told another lie when it REPORTED that Erick Holder was going to review the gun laws...
Do some research. Obama does support bills to take guns away. You know all you ppl think Alex Jones is a nut job but he lists the bills and encourages us to fact check what he says. Does Fox News do that? Perhaps CNN.........no? Oh well then by all means let me just stop listening to someone who states the facts and pulls them off of the governments own websites. Go to infowars.com and read the stories before you pass judgement........or just keep your head in the sand and think that all is well in the government.
You people are dangerous.
Yes. Yes we are. Very, very dangerous. Dangerous to tyranny. Dangerous to the government. The government FEARS us and if it doesn't, we strive so that it does. Thomas Jefferson: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty" Understand? We try to understand your viewpoint, why not give a listen to ours?
We fight for freedom. Plain and simple. Liberty and sovereignty. If you read the writings of the founders and understand their intentions and if you read the founding documents and understand them, you would understand what we are all about. I KNOW YOU HAVE NEVER READ THAT INFORMATION SO YOU ARE IGNORANT TO WHAT WE ARE ALL ABOUT. SIMPLE END OF DISCUSSION. YOU EITHER AGREE WITH THE LIBERTY, SOVEREIGNTY AND WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON, OR YOU ARE AGAINST IT. REVOLUTION IS COMING. AS BENJAMIN FRANKLIN SAID "JOIN OR DIE" We are not looking to kill people. We are looking to peacefully, civilly restore our constitutional republic. Chances are you have no idea what a constitutional republic even is.
YOU people are the dangerous ones. "There is nothing more terrifying than ignorance in action." -Geothe
Sit down, Francis.
"No people can be both ignorant and free."-Thomas Jefferson
Great response, but keep in mind the ring-wing fringe has been programmed to receive their talking points in about as many words as can be stuffed into a 10-12 second sound bite. Remember, in the most literal sense, we are dealing with "ingnorance in action."
We are not looking to kill people.
Some people are. And sounds like you're an apologist for them.
We are the dangerous ones??
either for it or against it; revolution is coming; join or die.
You sound pretty dangerous to me.
Wow!
The teacher really covered a lot today didn't she? I'm glad you kids are able to retain so much. Do you know if the Franklin quote will be on the quiz? Love the Geothe quote. And the sentence in CAPS was inspiring.
Let's get real. What have you ever fought for?
You don't want to kill anyone just offer us the chance to join with you or die. I'll take death, please. As long as I never have to listen to the rantings of one more bedwetter.
I don't think that was most eloquent of statements myself, but "Join or Die" is not a threat of violence, but a quote from Ben Franklin in the vein of "United we stand, divided we fall."
If a doctor says, "Take the antivenom to the snake that bit you or die," is he threatening your life, or trying to save it?
Where were you when the government started spying on Americans without judicial oversight, when Bush instituted the Northern Command (in violation of Posse Comitatus), when he claimed the right, and Congress acquiesed, to hold American citizens without charge, trial, or right of appeal, merely by designating them "enemy combatants," and when Congress suspended habeas corpus? It seems that the only part of the Bill of Rights you "enemies of tyranny" care about is the second.
By the way, regarding Goethe, to think that those who disagree with you are necessarily ignorant is a dangerous self-deception. It's also mildly insulting, but since you've clearly read (or heard quoted) more than you understand, I'm not bothered by it.
Do me and yourself a favor Conchobhar, Check back a little further than the Bush Presidency say.... around the time of the Civil War and how Lincoln handled things then. Lincoln did far worse things to protect the Country (or at least what he thought was protecting the Country) when he was in office. I have news for you....there is NO-ONE inside the DC beltway (Democratic or Republican) who has your or my best interests in mind. Every Senator and Congressman is in DC for themselves. Do you really think someone is willing to spend millions of dollars for a job that pays just over 150k per year just because they want to make this Country better, think again....its the perks of the position that they lust for,sure some of them may have had good intentions when they first were elected but the road to hell is paved with good intentions or so I have been told, POWER CORRUPTS and ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. If you really want to fix the problem then two words.....TERM LIMITS.
Actually, Jones & co. protested exactly the things you mention - as well as the crimes of Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc, regardless of party affiliation - for years.
The question is, why are so many democrats willing to back Obama's continuance of the Bush policies they criticized when a republican was in office?
(And, yes, I feel the same way when I hear republicans who gave Bush a free pass now attacking Obama.)
The simple fact of the matter is that Sen. Obama voted to give immunity to the telcoms & to reauthorize the Patriot Act - and his administration has since argued for its expansion, as even Keith Olberman has reported - and as President, not only did he go from acting to bring our troops home from Iraq "the day he took office" to stating that in 16-24 months we'll "look at" bringing some troops home - and, at any rate, we'll have huge permanent bases & leave at least 50,000 troops there - but he has DOUBLED the amount of troops in Afghanistan, and not only continued Bush's illegal bombing campaign in Pakistan, but expanded it, even suggesting that we might have to send troops there as well; and, of course, he's expanded this ridiculous bailout started by Bush to the point where, according to the latest numbers from Bloomberg, the debt it has created equals our entired GNP.
His administration has also made any number of misleading statements designed to give the illusion of ending Bush's policies, all while making nothing but cosmetic changes: We're closing Guantanamo, BUT there are many prisoners we can't release or allow to be tried, so we'll have to find a new place to house them indefinitely without charges; We're ending torture, rendition, and the backdoor draft, EXCEPT in the instances when we "need" to use those techniques; we're ending "The Global War On Terror," but we're starting "The Overseas Contigency Operation;" the US's drug policy has failed, but we're going to increase spending on it...
He's got the same Defense Secretary as Bush, and, according to The Pentagon, has "deferred to the military" in making decisions about the war, as well as, according to The White House, "consulted" with GW in regards to Iraq.
He's also surrounded himself with seemingly no one that isn't a memeber of the Trilateral Commission and/or the CFR, and, if you're unfamiliar with those groups, I would suggest consulting the fine works of Noam Chomsky on the subject.
I voted for Obama, but in the past couple of months he has shattered any remaining naivety I might have had left in viewing either of our two political parties as seperate entities, and the level of propaganda I see on display in the media is just as irresponsible now as it was under Bush, be it from Glen Beck or Media Matters.
Who would have thought a return to 39% top tax rate would bring out the guns?!?! The last 8 yrs not a sound, funding education and jobs and a return to 39% revolution in the streets.
Obama:
Voted for the Vitter amendment to prohibit the confistication of firearms during a major emergency
has stated:
"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation."
and announced that he favors measures that respect 2nd amendment rights, while at the same time keeping guns away from children and criminals.
He HAS voted to allow charges against one case in which a person shot someone who tried to break into his house, but only out of respect for local decisions.
you should continue researching. All sides, those for, against, and unknowing. Alex Jones is right about a lot of things and he's not a nut job, I listen to him just about everyday. As a listener you should be aware of two things:
1) he's correct on almost all accounts and
2) you'd understand from what he's told you that the "elite" control the media.
Does Alex Jones run a media program? Just because he tells you more truth than another doesn't mean he has the whole truth or that he isn't corrupt.
Use your own brain. Make your own connections.
"The elite controls the media", if by elite you mean right wing corporatists that own nearly every media outlet in the world and push right-wing propaganda every minute of everyday (most blatanly on Fox "News") then yes, I agree with that.
Otherwise, you are certifiably insane
What a crazy thing to say. The dems will truly stop at nothing to silence anyone who does not share their view. To blame the actions of a mentally ill offender on someone else for political gain is a new level of desperation for the left. This entire article does a disservice to the officers killed in this tragic event.
Lighten up. We call you out on the irresponsible eliminationist rhetoric that demonizes and dehumanizes; we point out that these unstable individuals hated liberals and were fans of Beck, Savage, etc, and you think we're trying to silence you. Nice projection. What is it you think you're up to, if not trying to silence the opposition, with your accusations of political leveraging?
pointofview yet again misses the point with his warped view of reality.
Yeah, like using a brain-dead woman and their family for political gain...ooops, I mean, yeah a new low for the Dems...and...what he said
Then you must agree that Charles Manson is innocent too.
Manson is a psychopath that is guilty of many things, but I think it's safe to say that 1st degree murder isn't one of them, as even the prosecutor in his case admits that he didn't actually kill anyone, which is something of a prerequisite for that charge.
Instead of finding him guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and being an accomplice before and after the fact - for which he would have received the same penalty under law as any of the actual murderers - a jury made a symbolic conviction against what they viewed as a Tim Leary type seducing the priveledged (white) youth of America away from their middle class roots & into psychedelic, murderous madness.
When you have the President - Nixon, in this case - declaring a defendant guilty to the national media before the case is even closed, I think it's safe to say that the trial was about as fair as that of The Chicago Eight, and just as much of a spectacle.
what were his beliefs?
I remember seeing at least one of those Beck rants live, so to speak.
If you _honestly_ think that Beck did not, at the very least, _approach_ a line
of impropriety , {not to mention did you even see these rants (talk about sick)?}
then I, with all due respect, sincerely disagree with your position
Thanks, I just sent a boatload of thank you letters.
Hope you included the families of the three officers . . .
Great list snoopy. Do you have one for Hannity, Olbermann (to be fair to both sides)
Great list! Thanks.
Thank you for the list. I am sending out emais now and will make some calls tomorrow. I hope more join in.
I just went to infowars.com and it's Alex Jones web site...WT?
I just went to infowars.com and it's Alex Jones web site...WT? BTW, I did go to factcheck.org and you should too. Time and time again, the President has said that he is not taking away your guns, and he would need the cooperation of Congress, so maybe before anything else you should write to your Congress person and ask for their support!
I think Beck is scared right now. He is starting to take alot of heat as these rampages become more frequent. His attempt to say only the psycho is to blame is a cop out. It seems he should realize he has a responsibility to not incite even if that means lower ratings because Bleck might play a crazy on TV but there are real crazies out there and they are heavily armed.
If people can't be influenced, if they can't be driven to take violent action by radical rhetoric, then why are we worried about radical Islam? Any psychos who happen to be in the Middle East will act the same way, whether there's a radical branch of the religion or not.
There's something I'd like to see Beck try to answer.
That's a very good point.
Indeed, it was a good point. I didn't think of that angle. If we're so not afraid of rhetoric here influencing people, then why are we worried about radical Islam rhetoric? I mean, people never believe the things they hear on TV and the radio after all right?
Thanks! Beck fans are welcome to give it a shot as well.
Indeed. If people cannot be influenced by the media they watch, how could advertising ever work?
It makes as much sense as calling someone a communist AND a fascist.
Great point Brab.
Similarly, if rhetoric is not an issue, why was Reverend Wright such an issue for Beck, Hannity, etc.? I heard Hannity bring him up again just the other day.
Crazy talk on the airways may inspire crazy people to do crazy things. Nothing more, nothing less. We respond to crazy talk by declaring it crazy. We respond to crazy people doing crazy things by locking them up or getting them treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.
Speech should be censored only when it expressly calls for or incites the commission of violence or is otherwise illegal (defaming). Otherwise, I (and Beck et al) get to say what I want. Nothing more, nothing less.
And WHO is calling for censorship? Nobody.
Yet.
Irrational fear raises its ugly head yet again.
Mr. Boehlert expressed "worry" at the end of his column. Is his worry that the crazy talk will continue? Or that we are powerless to stop it? While he did not advocate action some do. I have read posts here stating the FCC should revoke Fox's license.
In terms of rationality, my "fear" is on par with this column's "worry".
As I stated in my initial post, calling out Beck's crazy talk as crazy is all that is required.
Maybe he's concerned that more people will be shot in the head.
Maybe so. I mean, that is what G. Gordon Liddy talked about wasn't it? Shoot them in the head because they'll have body armor on?
Strawman eh? Don't forget, speech over the radio and TV is already censored, speech on the radio and TV is not guaranteed first amendment protections, which is why we can't hear certain cuss words, can't see certain naked body parts, certain acts of violence, and so on.
Nobody is calling for the entire population of the United States to dye ourselves green and dance the conga, either--should we be worried? Oh, wait, that would be ridiculous? So is the implication that people are trying to censor Beck and the other wing-nuts.
What possible excuse could someone have for putting Glenn Beck on the air in the first place? Oh, wait. He's on FOX. Nevermind.
How about calling for the network to fire him for being unhinged and irresponsible? It's not a first amendment issue or anything.
I'm good with that. Far more effective however is targeting the advertisers as noted by others.
Yes, Glenn Beck has freedom of speech. That doesn't mean that Fox News, yes even Fox News, has to allow it on their airtime.
Notice something funny about the picture of Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly on the Media Mattters homepage? Is it just me, or do they not resemble the Munsters? There is Herman (Beck) -- "Darn, Darn, DARN!" -- Eddie (Hannity), and ... hanging around in the background ... Grandpa (O'Reilly). Only, these guys are trying to scare us silly.
If you believe Beck should be fired then look on the other side at MSNBC and Keith Olbermann or maybe you could call for something a bit more civil and intelligent such as........CHANGE THE CHANNEL.
Has everyone forgot about the radio program "The War of the Worlds"?
That's an excellent point. People that tuned in during the program and thought that it was real freaked the hell out. Of course, there's no disclaimer of any sort at any time during Beck's program to let you know that what he's saying is fiction.
Supposedly, the highest rated (here we go with those damned ratings again) program was the Edgar Bergan and Charlie McCarthy Show. When they went to commercial a lot of people changed the station to the Mercury Theater station in mid broadcast of the War of the Worlds. These were the people who thought it was real.
I can see that. I could never imagine anyone tuning into the Beaver's show at any point and thinking that it's for real.
CHANGE AMERICA CAN BELIEVE IN. "We live in the greatest country on Earth." "Let's join me in changing it."
These were the same statements that made many Americans like myself VERY angry to hear continuously. Why change my country into France? Go to France if you like France folks. Leave my country alone.
So yes. Just like the abortion clinic bombers and deranged whacko enviromentalists there are always extremists. That will NEVER change!
However, to blame these types of acts on someone with a differing opinion than yours is JUST as despicable.
I guess you never really bought into the idea that Hitler hypnotized the masses, did you?
Looking at Obama and the sheep, well, that is very EASY to imagine. The sheep complaining of past spending and then smiling about THIS ridiculous spending.
But wait. I thought we were tax and spend liberals, so we should like spending right? Where are people smiling about his spending? Nobody is really. But we realize that in order to get our house back in order, something bad to be done. Stimulus might be the answer, we'll see in a little while for certain if it was or not. Nobody is happy about the money that we're tossing out and spending. What else are you going to do? Nothing?
something bad to be done.
You are RIGHT about THAT! The government has no business in the free market for any reason. "Throws the whole "time/space continuum" off. hehe This is turning into a cluster. I can tell you RIGHT NOW that this is a huge mess. We'll be out of this before the first buck is spent. Just what we need, a new road....sheesh. I guess the poor can take advantage of that perk, huh? Why do you need to wait? I'm at a loss here to your line of thinking!? Where do you search for economical info to be this CLUELESS?
See, the government staying OUT of the free market is what got us here in the first place, for the most part. The lack of regulation in the free market by the government is what messed things up. Did you think it was going to fix itself? The alleged free market has proven time and again that it doesn't correct itself, and needs help along the way.
Your comments make no sense whatsoever in the context that I was writing. First of all, stimulus money going into our country to provide jobs, and to create jobs. We need jobs. What don't you get about that? Yes, building a new road makes jobs, actually, lots of jobs, and also at the same time, our infrastructure is falling down (bridge collapse in MN anyone?), and we need to improve upon that if our country is, yes, going to grow. That you don't see the connections there doesn't surprise me. Will poor people make use of a new road? Probably they will. That new road could provide people who are poor with a job in building it. It's not a job that you need a higher education for, but you just need to be able to dig, maybe hold a sign, or be a flagger. Those jobs will probably pay better than previous jobs that they have had. After the road is finished, it could possibly be a new and improved route for public transportation that poor people use to get to their jobs, and to be able to move around the towns and cities that they live in, because they can't afford a car. That same road could be used to make a better and shorter route for say, trucking to bring food to their local grocery stores, therefore reducing costs of food that they buy.
How is this turning into a cluster? You know, the market has rebounded a bit since Obama took office, and since stimulus money started to get into the economy of our country. Are we out of it yet? Heck no, we're far from it, but we're seeing some good indicators. Markets are up. Housing prices are starting to rebound in some areas. And so on and so forth.
What data are you seeing? Because apparently, your reality is not, well, reality.
Again, you can afford the down payment on the car, but the day will come when that money runs out and then you get re-po'ed!
What the heck are you talking about? You are really making no sense whatsoever, except to rattle off some BS talking points about the free market.
I am looking out of the window right now at a road project. There is not one black or white man standing out there. They are ALL Mexicans or of latino descent.
Looks like this is going to provide THEM some good money then, huh?
And this means what exactly? I'm sure that you're thinking that they're all illegal aliens, or something stupid like that, which is probably not the case, but you see brown skin, so they must not be here legally right?
It means "Reality" doesn't have a bone in his body that isn't racist.
careful throwing racisim around.
im not saying your wrong or that your not wrong. but, ive learned that it shouldn't be thrown around lightly
I didn't.
You never learned anything
It means REALITY is living in his little FANTASY world.
THEM? Funny, I know a few Hispanic Americans, why the assumption that only whites and blacks are Americans?
BECAUSE I AM SURE THAT THE AMERICANS TO BE IMPACTED BY OUR TAX DOLLARS WERE PROBABLY SUPPOSED TO IMPACT ALL AMERICANS NOT JUST A NICHE.
The other point is that many folks are saying the Mexicans are doing the work that NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO DO. So, in other words you are poor but then not poor enough to get out there and go get one of those jobs.
Well, anyone who wanted those jobs should have applied for them, Reality. I'm sure there was no race based criteria.
A road project? Paid for by your town, state, county or country?
If the project is being worked by illegals as you suggest then someone in charge of handing out the government contract has broken the law.
It's a simple thing to find out. Get the information to back up your moronic claim and come back to us.
And start an investigation. I'm sure that since so many laws and regulations have been violated, you're in for some whistleblower money.
Reality,
The reason there are so many illegal aliens "if that is what you a reffering to" is that the government is not intervening enough. Illegal aliens work cheaper, if the governernment removed all oversight and fines from companies caught hiring illegal aliens the companies would hire even more of them. That is by definition the free market, they will work cheaper so companies will use them. SO you want government intervention to a certain degree I take it?
Amen. FINE the dickens out of them. I agree! Good post. Government should be involved when it has to do with "government projects"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Money went 30/1 for us 29/1 to foreign bankers.
Sorry I mean we get 1/30 of the money, most of the rest wen offshore. AIG bonuses were 1/1000 of the money that AIG sent to Euirope and China. You are getting scammed. We could have recieved $40,000 each for these bailouts, with less of an inflationary reprecussion, (some would have banked it) Instead we are liable to pay this debt through increased taxes, which isn't sustainable, so they will dillute the money. Your pruchasing power will erode, and your job raises will never catch up b/c we are in a depression. SCAM SCAM SCAM. Look into who funded Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton and even McCain. Banks. Carrol Quiley said in Tragedy and Hope, we only need to control the leaders of the parties, the rest will follow. (paraphrased, no time to look it up)
The federal gov't building roads is usurping power from the states. Read article 10 of the constitution. Oh jobs, jobs, ohhh we need jobs!!! Jobs are not the END they are the MEANS. What we need is production and savings. What don't you get about that? Its fine to repair broken bridges, but folks in CA shouldn't be taxed for some federal project in MN. That's pretty funny you say job to hold a sign!! A sandbag will hold the sign just as well and be more efficient. So you are for inefficiency for the sake of jobs? Are we going to force businesses to hire? That is not America friend. As a business owner, I'd rather fire my workers and hire a sandbag or machine to do the work. "That same road could be used to make a better and shorter route" The road cannot be used to make a shorter route. The road is one length route, that's all. You cannot changes its length at will. The inflation needed to give the guy the useless job he toke from the sandbag will cause prises to RISE. " the market has rebounded a bit since Obama took office" HA!!!! What market? The stock market? So what!!! Where's your so-called data? Stock market is up, so what. Its going to crash back down. Has nothing to do with obama. Show me your stats on housing prices. "And so on and so forth." What? What so on?
It's called the Fedral government! The Federal government won the Civil War . Federal law upsurps state law. Try and get a sand bag to buy your products? You make alot of assumptions that don't make sense.
Try and get a sand bag to buy your products. Amen.
What we need is production and savings
Wrong again. We haven't produced anything in years. And savings? That would cripple our consumer driven economy.
"The government has no business in the free market for any reason."
OK, let's start by abolishing child labor laws. Happy with that?
FANTASY, You are full of cr-p. No GOVT itervention in business would be like taking away all the rules of the road,no traffic lights or sighns and no speed limits. The result would be utter chaos. THE SAME THING WOULD HAPPEN IN YOUR FORM OF COMPLETLY UNREGULATED CAPITALISM. If you dont believe me , check out the 1920's and 1930's.
It's also funny to me that folks like yourself and other republicans apparently just figured out that you're against spending tax money, when OBama took office. Bush never saw a spending bill he didn't like to spend, and as a matter of fact, presided over the largest growth of the federal government in our entire history. Good thing he was a small government conservative eh?
Is that any different than the congressional republicans who all of a sudden have become *ahem* fiscal conservatives? They, nor Bush, saw a spending bill they didn't like.
Bush was never a conservative. Most Republicans are not.
Neither was Reagan.
Then why all the phoney outrage now? Just like the rest of republicans/conservatives, there was dead silence during the last administration...
I'm sure that Reality will be back to say that he/she was mad too during the Bush years. As if that's true. We never heard a peep from the right wing when Bush was free wheeling and spending like a mad man with no plan to bring in revenue. Obama is spending free wheeling style as well, but he has plans in place to bring in revenue to cover some of the spending at least, which makes it more responsible.
This is irresponsible to our children and our country altogether. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. For Obama to emulate, actually it's escalate spending does not make things any better.
The reason you think that spending is "escalating' is because Obama is putting the numbers into the budget for all to see. W put the Iraq War off budget, and he and Cheney hid the figures and cooked the books so that no one could be sure how much was really being spent, lost, stolen, and mismanaged.
To still end up with the bottom line deficit of $450 Billion dollars. You can take many paths to the same result.
Irresponsible spending, like what Bush did, is wrong. Obama's spending, however, is not irresponsible. Any fair-minded person knows the difference, and the American people do to, in general.
Only biased partisans like Reality and JamesB/Tommy don't get it.
Seems that many of you feel fine being "fair-minded" with other folks money. That seems like an oxymoron to me.
It's my money, I-don't-live-in-Reality, and I want my country to prosper and become better and any moron knows that investing in something (even with borrowed money like any corporation worth anything knows) is an absolute necessity for growth. And stop using words that you don't have an understanding of the definition, like oxymoron. I makes YOU look like a moron.
Here we go again. Back to turning all republicans into nazis. and where is your "disclamer", you know, the one where you call us all a nazi, and then deny calling us all a nazi?
Using lies and propoganda to lead the country into war IS a Nazi tactic.
Except, in the cases stated in this write up, these acts were committed by people with different opinions than me, and there is a lot of the same heated rhetoric being displayed currently by mainstream news operations in the United States. Will everyone get delusional violent fantasies? Of course not, but some, like this guy in Pittsburgh, will.
When Obama talked about changing the country, he didn't mean the basic tenets from which we have grown as a country. He meant, change from the way we were currently doing things, as in, the failed model of the Bush administration. Nobody said we were going to become France. You don't think our country was and is in trouble and needed to change direction?
I wholeheartedly believe and we'll see in the future, that government involvement in the free market got us here and further intervention made things worse. Yes.
You are incorrect. Non intervention in the free market is what got us here, as in, not enough regulation. That has been actually proven out.
Bush added another 15000 pages of intervention. Either way, government harms the free market every time.
Either way, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up your incorrect claim. Actual reality, on the other hand, has proven you wrong many times over.
problem was that it was worded to allow for OPTIONAL regulation and VOLUNTEER to police themselves.
the assumption being that businessmen would put the good of the nation ahead of their own self interests. and of course that is the wrong assumption. since anyone who is in business will look out soley for their own interests and everyone else be damned!
Whoa, whoa, whoa, reality! You have gotten way off-script here. What about Barney Frank and Dodd "killing" all this regulation you speak of? I could have sworn I read somewhere that they were all-powerful. Go back to Rush's show and "re-educate" yourself.
You can wholeheartedly believe whatever you want, reality is different. Psychotics are unable to differentiate their beliefs from reality. Can you give me an example when government in any country was not involved in the market? Can you give me an example in the history of capitalism where there was no government involvement?
Most of the planet are socialists. Is there another planet that you can use as an example????
So you can't or won't answer the question? You have no idea what your talking about! Thanks for proving my point!
I wholeheartedly believe that you're wrong.
And where does that get us? Nowhere.
No FANTASY, IT WAS LACK OF GOVT INVOLVMENT IN THE FREE MARKT THAT GOT US HERE
Why change my country into France?
How is this happening? Don't forget we've already changed to "freedom fries" and "freedom toast".
Dumbest things ever, not to mention the French in "French Fries" refers to the cut of the potato, and not the country. French fries actually came from Belgium, and are known as pomme frites.
And French Toast was created by a man named French. It was originally called "French's Toast" and the name became shortened through common use.
And, from BBC News: "French Kissing of Many Different Partners Can Quadruple a Teenager's Risk of Meningitis".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4696974.stm
This dumb supposed efficient health care of Obama as we grow green with envy of the Europeans is sickening. The deep, dark secret of high health care cost in this country is the individual states "monopoloy mandates" that drive the costs up. This seems to be a state issue rather than a federal government one. Many folks have no idea where the ball is to keep their eye on it. Iowa's cost is 44% lower than my state for instance. Why can't I subscribe to the companies there that are so much cheaper? Why do we not have more freedom to choose?
AGAIN, if reporters would do the research instead of echoing other reporters and their wave of garbage, maybe the public could have a chance of being better informed.
"... Iowa's cost is 44% lower than my state for instance. Why can't I subscribe to the companies there that are so much cheaper? Why do we not have more freedom to choose?..." Why don't you ask your representative?
Umm... You DO have the freedom to choose what healthcare you want. You can, just like me, opt out of the plans provided by your employers, and then buy your own. I'm willing to bet, it's going to be more expensive than a company supplemented plan, but nobody is going to stop you from doing it, so take the plunge, cut the cord, and buy your own.
The other thing is that with the Obama health care plan, it provides, or could provide coverage for all individuals within this country, but again, it does NOT prevent you from getting your own insurance, or say, the company that you work for providing it for you (as a lot of companies do currently).
Umm, according to statistics about health care costs, and quality of care, Europeans DO have better health care than the average American. Even though we spend the most, we are at the bottom of the heap when it comes to overall quality of care in industrialized western type nations.
Those statistics are simply false.
What? Do you think someone just made them up to make the US look bad? They're not false. Europeans generally get better health care than the US.
Well yes. Folks that want free government healthcare.
OK then, prove it. Prove that someone just made these statistics up. Methinks you might be delusional, and might break into a USA! USA! USA! chant at any moment.
What's wrong with THAT chant? hehe
Nothing, except that for some reason you are under the delusion that we provide the best health care in the world, when we actually don't. And that it is some evil plot to get government controlled health care, and it's not. It's purely information, and facts. Sorry that you don't understand these things.
Governement ran "anything" is sub-standard, period. there is no arguing that. I know firsthand.
No matter how much firsthand experience you have, efficiency and effectiveness of other healthcare systems can still be measured and compared to ours.
Anything that our government touches goes wrong other than their one true responsibility of protecting the citizens of this country.
So you believe that other governments can manage things, but ours can't? What do you believe is the inherent flaw in our system that makes that true?
They do a horrible job too.
Then why don't we have a superior healthcare system? If free enterprise is better than government-run, shouldn't we have the highest-rated care?
We do.
Back it up.
Go to a doctor with ANY health condition and the care you will receive will be available. Any procedure...
THAT was easy!
How about quality of care? Availiability is not the only measure used by those who evaluate these things.
Back it up with something substantial. That shouldn't need to be specified.
Compare the military healthcare to what you receive as a civilian! It is night and day!
Military healthcare is better than civilian? Please elaborate.
as evidenced by walter reed...
Whoever said THAT? Military healthcare SUCKS!
http://www.afcm.org/besthealthcare.html
One side of the debate is condescending toward the unique American system and most things American. They avoid American principles in their admiration for socialism and collectivism elsewhere. The argument runs that America is the only industrialized country without "national" (i.e., government) health care. They do not mention that we are also the only country founded on an ideology based on inalienable rights and the U.S. Constitution. The other side of the argument is too often represented by those who claim admiration for all things American, but are often more interested in getting political credit for paternalistic handouts than principles.
In the last forty years, the government share of health care spending in the United States has increased from under 10% to over 50%, while the remaining elements of the free market have fallen under increasing regulations. What is left is still the best in the world. Canadians, we are told, have a better system because they live longer than Americans. Are there other demographic factors involved—didn't they also live longer before they nationalized their heath care system? Is it a better system because, although some prescription drugs are sold at a lower price, many more are not available in Canada at all? Is it better because Canadians wait an average of 17 weeks for referral to a specialist? Is the fact that Canadians come to the United States to spend more than $1 billion a year on health care an indication that Canada has better health care? One wonders why this superior system resulted in the Canadian Supreme Court striking down the law forbidding private insurance "because access to a waiting list does not constitute access to health care." Why did the Canadian Medical Association recently elect as their new President a physician who owns an illegal private clinic in British Columbia if they think Canada has a better system? Significant new spending by the federal government in Canada does not seem to be having much impact on improving the situation.
Neither has huge additional spending on the National Health Service in Great Britain over the last seven years improved their health care. Two years ago, many British hospitals stopped providing heart bypass surgery to smokers. The waiting lists were so long that they wanted to give priority to non-smokers who responded better to surgery. Last year several regions stopped providing knee and hip replacements to overweight patients because their response to surgery was not as favorable as thin patients on the waiting lists. This year the British Medical Journal reports that physicians in the National Health Service are often no longer treating patients age 80 or over for strokes. These are examples of how government makes rationing decisions. Many patients in Great Britain who survive the waiting lists undoubtedly receive excellent care. Just don't smoke, gain weight or get old. British waiting lists have provided the world with one important service: they have given great impetus to the medical tourism industry, in countries like India, for British patients who would rather pay for surgery in India than endure a long wait for free surgery in Britain. This industry is now also providing Americans with cost-saving surgical options.
That's neo-con think in a nutshell. It's been so long since we've had competent government that Reality just throws up his hands and says "Well, that proves it, government always fails (usually under Republicans)"
You know, when you call 9-11, someone answers the phone. And if your house is on fire, people will drive over to put it out. And if someone is breaking into your garage, some fellow citizens in uniforms will come over and check it out.
You also might want to look into how efficiently medicare/medicaid is operated by the government.
Also - by not supporting better health care, you in turn support profits over lives. How un-American is that?
No. I do not believe that government should take away life saving drugs or drugs that can lengthen lives for the sake of efficiency. I do not believe that government is responsible enough for themselves to be responsible for our health.
I can look at Social Security and tell how well the government runs programs. You know? We could have secured this plan with all of this money being spent. Instead we know that the money will run out as it stands...
I can look at Social Security and tell how well the government runs programs.
Do people still get their check every month? I think so.
i would like to know about this first hand experience that you speak of where the government screws everything up
Neo-Con? Again, I do not believe that government should take away life saving drugs or drugs that can lengthen lives for the sake of "efficiency".
You have now populated an entire strawman city. No one has come even close to suggesting the things you are arguing against. You still have provided no evidence whatsoever to support any of your statements.
The only thing you have arguing in your favor is a set of extreme delusions, and they're guiding you in the wrong direction completely.
I think that REALITY and CHENEY 2012 are one in the same. They sure sound the same , both a couple hopeless FAR RIGHT WING NUTJOBS blowing out the same cr-p LIMBAUGH AND HANNITY DO. Lord help us all.
how about drug companies witholding drugs that could help people for the sake of saving costs.
or how about releasing drugs that are dangerous and they know it to be so but do it anyway cause they can make fast money.
specifically Vioxx
"Anything that our government touches goes wrong other than their one true responsibility of protecting the citizens of this country."
This is something I see thrown around lightly. Government is bad at everything except this one thing. Rationale? None.
Never heard of SNAFU? Or 9/11?
"Governement ran "anything" is sub-standard, period. there is no arguing that. I know firsthand." - Reality
Funny thing is that I and millions others have experienced FIRST HAND the incompetence of the free market and private sector leaders.
But those are sooooo much better than being govt-run, right, Reality? Or at least that's what the GOP cons have been stuffing into your head for years.
Yes, that's true. I would not want China rnning my country.
Last time I looked, they weren't.
just because they have bought alot of our debt doesn't mean they can or will run the country.
The only way to know first hand is to be in government. Are you running a gov't program? That may explain why your program is sub-standard given your disdain for your government job.
what about the four branches of our military? they are government run.....they seem to be doing pretty good for the most part at least
We do. How many citizens are pulling out their own teeth here on 8 month waiting lists? I know for a fact (I took advantage of the program a couple of years ago), where you can go to the County health Services and they will get you in front of a dentist RIGHT NOW. This stuff is already in place.
I have a friend that needed to see a gastroentologist for a major medical issue and they told her to wait 3 months. In the meantime, she was in bed and finally was flown back here by her family for treatment. She is so happy to be back here in the States. You guys are not taking advantage of the millions of horror stories that are everywhere to be seen as examples!!!!!!!!
You obviously haven't read Obama's outline of his health care proposal.
Zero. Any more easy questions?
And you, apparently have not been paying attention to the millions of horror stories about people in the US WITH insurance being denied necessary procedures because their HMOs don't think it's necessary. In other words, you have a doctor, on the line with an operator, and said operator gets to decide what can and cannot be done to the patient, not the doctors. How is that any better? It's not now is it?
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct1998/nf81008a.htm
Then you change plans. My own is horrible at times, but you cannot let them off that easily. You write letters and bring the noise and they will change their tune!
You write letters
Ha! Kind of hard to write anything when you're already sicker, an invalid, or dead.
Folks that want free government healthcare. - reality
Governement ran "anything" is sub-standard, period. there is no arguing that. I know firsthand - reality
I know for a fact (I took advantage of the program a couple of years ago), where you can go to the County health Services and they will get you in front of a dentist RIGHT NOW. This stuff is already in place. reality
So folks (not you of course) lie about socialized medicine so they can get free care, anything run by the gov't is run poorly and then you took advantage of a government service providing (possibly subsidized)dental care? Wow, how does your head not explode?
The point is that I had to get off my rear end and go get it. There was a charge but it was on a sliding scale. I could have let that $50 hold me back and wait for a free ride, but i didn't.
Seems like you have no problem suckling at the public teat that you so roundly criticize others for.
I could have let that $50 hold me back and wait for a free ride, but i didn't. - reality
Way to fight the good fight. Oh, and that sliding scale you refer to sounds like a tax payer funded government intrusion into the "free market"
Corrrrr-ect. No programs are needed for freeloaders. For those that NEED help, they can find it.
Actually, the waiting times have much improved in most countries with universal health care. For example, they're much better in England now... though still slower than here.
In Japan and Taiwan, the waiting times are practically non-existent, since there are no gatekeepers.
You're peddling propaganda.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07651650
Study done by some British researchers, who already have free health care.
WHO rankings (which is a well respected and trusted organization from 2007):
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
And one more for you, top ranked insurance plans in the US, so you can make your purchasing decision maybe a little easier.
http://health.usnews.com/sections/health/health-plans/index.html
Are you saying that those workers you didn't see working on the road from your window don't deserve "free government healthcare.?"
Reality,
The cost of healthcare is high for all because everyone already has free healthcare here in the US. They go to the emergency room and skip out on the Bill. Then your precious free market takes over and the hospitals must charge everyone else more to compensate for it.
NOPE! That is incorrect. Only certain companies can do business in certain states.
Than, again, what is stopping you from shopping around the different companies that are allowed to do business in whatever State you live in to find the "best" deal on health insurance? Nothing. Nothing at all. Go ahead, cut the cord, and do it.
You are missing the point. The government involvement in the mandates in this equation is the problem. Just as all of the other involvement in all of the other areas. The government with THEIR hand in the insurance mans pocket and vice versa.
Lift the mandates across the country and watch how much the prices would drop...
Politicians and lobbyists with cash handouts, Republican OR democrat is the bottom line problem.
No, I don't think that I am missing the point. As I understand it, the government doesn't mandate who can and who cannot do business within a certain state. The companies decide that for themselves as to where they want to do business. If they currently can't, or don't do business say, in Maine for example, but they want to do business there, they can jump through some hoops, and they can do it. It's got nothing to do with the government, and everything to do with business decisions made by these insurance companies.
Life the mandates and I would hazard to guess that costs would go up, and quality of care would then go down, just as it has been, because at the end of the day, insurance companies are there to make money. That's it.
Then take off your hat so we all can see it.
Obviously, from my moniker, I live in Iowa and I am PO'd! No one told me I could be getting 44% cheaper health care. However, I pay the same insurance premiums as everyone else in Illinois, Minnesota and so on? Am I getting completely ripped off then or is my care 44% less effective? Either way, I am angry! Please tell me how I can "subscribe" (whatever that means in this context) to these companies?
The REALITY of America is Change. America is always changing. It is the evolution of America that is one of its greatest traits. That is why blacks are not slaves, women can vote, children are not chained to machinery, and idiots like Glen Beck are not executed for advocating the overthrow of the government. If you dont like change dont live in America. Myanmar might be more to your liking.
"However, to blame these types of acts on someone with a differing opinion than yours is JUST as despicable."
Whatever. Again we see in you exactly how cons will talk until sunset about personal responsibility, but when it's dark out, you are unwilling to actually take any of that responsibility. So do it, punk. Take some responsibility for your right wing eliminationists and stop making excuses when we stand up against the rhetoric of domestic terrorists like Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity.
When people are getting killed while they worship, or doing their job, this about more than a different opinion. This is about poisoning the public debate with irrational fear because you have absolutely nothing constructive to contribute. Own it.
Here are some scenes from "Real America". http://washingtonindependent.com/37360/scenes-from-the-real-america
Those are some of the scariest photos I've seen for a long time. No wonder there are so many mass shootings in the U.S.A. I'm glad I don't live there.
Gun regulation? We don't need no steenking gun regulation!
The Right to Free Speech is NOT absolute. You can not yell fire in a crowded theater nor can you use speech that is intended to get people to break the law and threaten public safety. The right wing is flirting very close with the law and has been for years. They have used deception and misinformation to encourage terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. They defended the terrorist Branch Davidian Cult. They have done everything but call for the assassination of rightfully elected Democratic leaders including Barack Obama, again often using outright lies to do so. I'm for free speech as much as the next guy but this has nothing to do with the free exchange of ideas. This is the direct manipulation of a propoganda machine whose aim is the assassination of Barack Obama. They know they can't beat him in 2012 but they might be able to kill him.
Obama is beating himself. No need for anyone against him.
"A man gets into a plane without being licensed and takes off. We all are paying close attention to watch as he crashes. There will be no surprise when he does."
And if he does Reality what will your reality be? What kind of world would we be looking at? Dang Man it ain't like the last 8 years was a great success. You can't possibly think that it was over-regulation of the banking system that caused this financial melt-down can you? You can't seriously believe that our moral standing as the beacon of freedom and defender of human rights was reinforced by us torturing prisoners or jailing citizens without charges indefinitly. You couldn't really believe that creating more enemies by the reckless policies of the last 8 years made us safer. Explain to me again why we invaded Iraq? YOU REALLY WANT MORE OF THE LAST 8 YEARS?!?!?! Your C-R-A-Z-Y! The government is subsidizing the crooks on Wall St. and you call it socialism because Obama wants to lower taxes for 95% of people let Bush tax-cuts expire and provide health insurance to the people. Yea, time to rise up in arms,can't have the government paying and putting people to work, why that would be the end of civilization as we know it.?!?! Yea the last 8 years of not talking to our enemies or those we disagree with sure has netted great results,to go back against that policy now would be insane and make us look weaker to our enemies. Thats crazy talk. The reality Reality is that if Obama fails OUR reality won't be worth much. You want him to fail why? Do you really think raising the top tax rate from 36%-39% is income distribution of the socialist type?
Someone more experienced than Obama without the socialist upbringing. Someone not in the Gas companies pockets like Bush. Someone younger and less liberal than McCain, but someone that has similar relationships with everyone around them.
To save 3000 lives THIS NEXT TIME? Do whatever you need to do!
We took out an evil dictator that gassed tens of thousands of Kurds and his own people. We have shown the light of freedom to millions of women and children. We have taken an insane idiot out of the Middle of a volatile area. Finally, folks believe that at some point, we will act as the Superpower of the planet and kick their as* if they get out of line and cause trouble with neighboring countries.
I don't want to pay lower taxes for Obama to run up the tab through the roof for me to pay higher taxes later, no.
Let's hug our enemies, come home and pull all of the knives out of our backs. We are easy to hate as the greatest country on earth.
SEE, this is the key that none of you can get your brains around...As a good friend/pastor told me, "Let's imagine only one person of the 10-15% of the worlds total Muslim population that are extremists, walked into a church, put a gun to anyones head in the congregation and said, "Forsake your God or die". Let's just say, there would be a lot of God haters to join you all very quickly. NOW, on the other hand, let a crazy liberal American walk into a mosque to do the same thing. They ALL will die for their God.
If Obama fails, the market will correct itself either way. Actually, the market will become numb to his intentions.
Sure the tax increase was of the socialist type. This increased mediocrity. This dampened the hunger to become part of this clique of folks. Sure! If you are $1000 from that tax bracket, what would YOU do? Keep grinding it out or slam on the brakes to avoid the HUGE penalty for working your rear end off? I could not handle the stress that it would take to make that much money. (And I am no quitter) I envy folks that have the wherewithall to excel within the same financial system as everyone else.
You actually go to church and pray to a God and rationalize it with the BS your talking about?!?!? Your insane and whats wrong with this country>
REALITY'S THINKING IS ACTUALLY FANTASY BASED.
I envy folks that have the wherewithall to excel within the same financial system as everyone else.
Are you Joe the Plumber?
The suggested raise is from 36 to 39 % of the amount over $250000. So what you're saying is that someone will stop working at $249,999 rather than keep earning to make $500,000 since the tax increase on the extra $250,000 is $7,500?
There's only one word to describe someone like you, QUITTER.
Oh, I forgot, you're are no quitter. I'll substitute troll instead.
Ignorant is more like it. If someone stops right before they hit $250k per year, because they don't want to pay an extra 2-3%, then they're really stupid.
Why hand your hard work to folks that don't work at all? It is the point of it all that counts.
Nobody is saying that this is what happens. 3% extra goes towards making our country great.
So, let me get this straight. Hannity is an idiot? Billo? Everyone on your tv screen at Faux News? They are ALL making significantly more than $250K. Why, oh why would they do that? why are they not standing on principal and refusing any compensation beyond $250K? Please ask them? Why they choose to take that extra million dollars when they have to "give away" an additional $30,000, which would still leave them with... $610,000...oh crap, now I see why they would still take it. Because they don't have any principles, they just want to pay less taxes so YOU have to pay more! It is the point of it all that counts, indeed.
First... What socialist upbringing? You mean, in Hawaii? Last time I checked, that was part of the United States. Nice ad hom there though. I'll give you a few points for not hyperventilating that out too badly.
3000 lives on 9/11? You mean, the people killed by mostly Saudi Arabian nationals? Those 3000 people? Are you trying to equate Iraq with 9/11, because if you are, there is NO connection. Zip. Zero. Nadda...
What was the original justification for invading Iraq? Bear in mind, it wasn't to remove Saddam from power. It was to take out his WMDs that Bush told us he was SURE he had, and he was SURE he was going to give to terrorists to use against the United States. Well, wrong on both ends. He didn't have any WMDs, and he had no ties to terrorists who were aligned against the United States.
Saddam was a bad guy, we all know that. But he was not worse than African dictators and despots who we have ignored for far too long, such as in the Sudan, where the loss of life was far greater than the loss of life in Iraq under Saddam. Why didn't we invade them? Oh, right, nothing there we wanted. Don't get all moral, we were in it to protect our own interests, ie, oil supplies.
When Saddam was removed in Iraq, this led to a majority of Iraqi civilians being now aligned with, yes, Iran. In other words, Saddam was a check against Iran in the region. Now, with Iran, Iraq, and Syria all of the same majority, and all of the same mindset, we have a region that could unite very easily, and say, go wipe out Israel.
Nobody is talking about hugging our enemies, but if you believe ignoring them, and not having open diplomatic relations with countries that we consider hostile to the US is a good way of foreign policy, how's that working out so far? Yeah, not so good. Talking to, and interacting with foreign countries that are hostile to us, or are our enemies is not the same as hugging them as you say. Walk softly and carry a big stick TR said back in the day. And the old saying of keep your friends close, and your enemies closer also applies.
The market, will NOT correct itself. Obama cannot fail.
This huge penalty that you proclaim about the tax brackets. You mean the 2% increase? That HUGE penalty? That's not huge, that's back to the Clinton era of taxation, and is still far less than the richest folks were getting under GHW Bush, and Reagan. There are different rules for people who are higher up in the "same financial" system as you and I, meaning, if you can afford a good tax accountant, you can get away with a lot of your money year after year while paying exceedingly lower tax rates than a middle class person such as myself.
And what are you talking about with people in church with guns saying convert or die? What does that prove? I know plenty of Christians who would die for their faith, and their country. And what do you mean join us all very quickly? Are you stereotyping again that liberals somehow hate God and Christians? Because last time I checked, most of the hardcore liberals that I know, are good Christians.
The market will always go up or down even if there was no President either way.
Gee, thanks for that specifically vague response. And I now know, if I had any doubts before, you've got nothing.
since when do we have the right as a superpower to dictate what another country does? that idea has led to the downfal of two of history's empires. i speak of the Romans and the British. they both tried that and got away with it, and then they fell.
Well said, congero.
But take a look at the fundamental assumptions inherent in Reality's nasty little narrative metaphor about the unlicensed pilot.
First, as it is with so much right wing garbage, the metaphor contains violent death. Next, he reveals helplessness, the political inability to do anything about anything. That's the kind of political disengagement from the public debate that right wing authoritarianism breeds with its 'you're on your own,' mentality. Lastly, he further entrenches his isolation by conforming to this model of authoritarianism that denies social change comes from movements of the people and asserts change comes top down from an individual.
In short, he is an anti-democratic thug.
Bingo!
and if president obama is proven right and everything that he says happens happens....what will you say then? willyou admit that everything you had been saying was wrong?
Whole lot of accustions against the right, where's your proof? Come on everybody jump on, I always see everybody wanting proof on baseless accusations, let's see it! BTW the Davidians were a religious cult, well armed but hardly terrorist unless you are privy to info on some terrorist act that everybody else missed...
I think referring to Alex Jones as simply, "Anti-Obama," is a bit of a misnomer. And with Napolitano talking about appreciating what Jones has been doing is a big ignorant on his part, especially for Fox News. Anyone who's paid enough attention to Jones, either in agreement or disagreement know that Jones himself has been unabashedly against both Democrats and Republicans alike, including previous President, GW Bush. I think this is a clear indication that Napolitano and perhaps Fox News haven't paid good enough attention. Otherwise, they might've taken exception to Jones implicating GW Bush as part of the Globalist agenda.
What is really frightening is the fact that most of these angry killers are toting high power assault rifles so it easy for them to kill a dozen people or more when they go over the edge!
but god help you trying to stop someone from getting such a weapon.
see i fully understand the 2nd amendment and support it, but i think there needs to be a limit or at least a point where someone is going to say....step back.
see being a long time hunter. i have two weapons....well three actually. i have a 30-30 rifle that is lever action and holds 7 rounds total. though when i hunt i take only one round with me.
my second is a 12 guage mossberg shotgun. able to hold 4 rounds. again i only take one.
my last one is a .22 magnum rifle. more than anything i just use it to get myself set for the hunting season....its pretty noisy so it gets my ears adjusted.
i have long desired to have a personal pistol, my choice would be a colt .45 or a glock .40/45.
but none of these weapons i have mentioned are assult weapons.
my problem is that so many gun advocates say that there cannot be a limit.
well i ask this question.......what do you need an assult rifle for?
if you use it for hunting....well your not a true hunter. plain and simple. because you remove the skill from it.
target practice? i can't imagine ever having to use an assult weapon in any situation unless your in the military.
so tell me, what is the practical use for me to have an assult rife?
Honestly? Because they're fun to shoot. They have no practical application in the real world, maybe for home defense, but in that case, you're better off (in my opinion) with a 12 gauge semi automatic shotgun. No need to aim in the dim light, point and squeeze.
Assault rifles are fun to shoot. That's it.
It's also really fun to drive down highway 1 at 120 mph.
the only thing i could even think, for me anyway, that would make them fun to shot is that i wouldn't have to cycle the lever on my rifle for example.
i've shot semi-automatic weapons and thats the only benefit i have seen from them
Timely and helpful wrap-up, Eric. What worries and fascinates me is the effect all the militia-style rhetoric must be having on Fox News' rank and file. Consider Fox's evolution from its 1996 birthing. News staff members weren't human-like pods materalizing a la "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." They were legitimate news gatherers, some with excellent resumes. So as long as they could deliver the news straight, it didn't matter that Fox pundits, talk show hosts, panelists and "military experts" carried water for the Republican Party. First it was bash Clinton for five years, then idolize Bush for eight -- or at least minimize his monumental mistakes. A conscientious reporter could live with that as long as the news side could be reasonably described as "fair and balanced." (Yes, I know how ludicrous that seems when, for example, reporter Robert Angle says, "Brit, this proves Democrats just won't shut up." But bear with me.) You might think that if a Fox news staffer doesn't like the direction in which the employer is headed, he or she could just leave. It isn't as easy as that, especially if the pay is good and the so-called fringe benefits are excellent. One looks for reasons to stay, especially when times are tough.
But look at the situation today. When Barack Obama was elected president, it was a safe bet that Fox News would prosper. It had but to tap into the huge minority of voters frustrated with the election's outcome. Fox's tack, however, goes way beyond the battering commentators gave Bill Clinton a decade ago. Now the News Department is in on it. For one recent example, Sean Hannity wasn't the only one on Fox News highlighting Obama's criticism of America while deleting the president's pointed remarks regarding Europeans. News side did it, too, though I understand talk show host Bill O'Reilly uncharacteristically aired the whole thing. More than ever, Fox is altering tapes, apparently against the day they can be used for GOP campaign ads.
Worse, Beck and Hannity are regularly hosting people who craftily (and sometimes not so subtly) advocate not only removal of the president by election, but by violent overthrow or assassination.
That is a far remove from where Fox began 13 years ago. It's a wonder most employees can live with the swing even further to the dark side. Incidentally, I imagine Fox makes employees promise that when they leave, they will refrain from publicly criticizing Fox. How else to explain the dearth of guest columns headlined "Why Fox and I finally parted company"?
Jerry Elsea
These people at FoxNews such as Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Medgan Kelly, Steve Doocey, Brian Kilmeade, Gretchen Carlson, Dick Morris, and others promote their "hatred" for President Obama for high ratings - period. FoxNews could care less if their daily "hate" for President Obama have manipulated people to harm others because it was not their fault, huh? So sad of FoxNews, but hey at least they got high ratings.
It's a shame this very important subject got hijacked by a troll. And in allowing him to continue in this manner, why was his blatantly racist comments about the evidently Latino contruction workers tolerated?
Fox News is playing with fire. At some point, the public will catch on to how irresponsible this is. I do hope their advertisers pay for this. I'll be sending some e-mails tonight. I already sent one to the UPS Store when I saw them advertising on Beck's program, anyone know if they've stopped? I know UPS is no longer advertising with O'Reilly.
give it time.....im sure beck will be feeling the pinch soon enough
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
Advertisers follow the rankings, and Beck’s show along with ALL the other fox broadcasts out rank all the other networks. Advertisers go where the biggest audience is. The more controversial the bigger the audience, and the higher the network can charge advertisers. So letters to their advertisers; is simply an exercise in foolishness, but I guess it makes one feel like there really making a “Change”.
I'm troubled by all this talk. This argument seems to me to be a very similar to then one so common a few years ago suggesting that violent rock/rap lyrics inspire kids to violence.
It's an argument I never bought then, and I don't really buy this argument now. And while I appreciate Boehlert's reasoning I can't really make the jump he's almost willing to make. Aren't you saying that this kind of rhetoric somehow had something to do with Poplawski's violent spree? Amongst your evidence is the fact that they found the Turner Diaries and Hannity books in his house... are you suggesting we ban these books? I can't imagine. The argument I think you are pushing your readers towards is that talk like Beck's is legalistically akin to the proverbial yelling of "fire" in a crowded movie house. I hate to say it, but it's not.
I must also point to the conversation that Beck and O'Reilly engaged in a few weeks ago where Beck suggested that he can see how people snap and start shooting and O'Reilly said (and I'm paraphrasing) that kind of shooting spree is evidence of a deep personality disorder. Honestly, I agree.
Ultimately, free speech is free speech, you can't stop Beck from saying we're slouching towards fascism any more than you can stop NWA from saying "F*** the police" or stop Ozzy Osbourne from singing "Suicide Solution." It's just the price we pay for living in a free society.
Beck is a buffoon. Even Beck knows he's a buffoon. And I know that FOX knows Beck is a buffoon. But he's their buffoon and he's killing at the ratings. And ratings make the show. The real joy of our modern age is that soon enough Beck will, like Fox Mulder and the X-files, run their course. His Schtick will get old and he'll slump back to radio, and you'll look back on this column and be a bit embarrassed.
You can clearly see that this is different than say rap lyrics of video games. Why? Because those things are escapism, and they're not real, as in, they're entertainment. What these folks are talking about is what they perceive to be happening in the country as they see it today, ie, talking about our President as being a fascist. This is a touch bit different than a video game, and even though I personally think a lot of these folks are out to lunch, there is a segment of our country that will listen to them, and believe what they are saying, because they are in a position of power, or have the available use of a bully pulpit from which they can speak. In the example of Glenn Beck, he has 3 hours per day on the radio, and another hour on TV in the afternoon. These people are opinion makers, and in some senses news reporters, so again, for some, they are trusted. It's not the same argument as lyrics, or video games, they are far different if you ask me.
First of all, nobody is talking about banning everything. Why is it when people start writing and talking about what happened, and what kind of rhetoric folks are using, everyone starts talking about banning things. This is America after all, and the hardest speech to protect is speech that is either horrendous (KKK, or other right wing hate groups), or something that we just don't like. I would fight for anyone's right to say whatever it is they want to say.
Here you go, equating being on the radio, or being on TV with free speech. It's not free speech. The FCC controls what can be said or seen in these mediums already. Nobody has an inherent right to a TV or radio show. Nobody can stop these idiots from what they're saying, but they can be stopped from being exposed to such a large audience, such as trying to impact their sponsors, and using the market to control what is, or what is not seen or heard. It's not a free speech issue. As a matter of fact, anyone in the world with an internet connection can, say, go to Google and start their own blog and write about anything that they want to for any and all to see.
Beck is a buffoon, but one that is increasing the size of audience, and an audience that is increasingly getting angry about the state of the country, now that Obama is in office. And remember what I said above, there are plenty of people who trust Glenn Beck, and think that he is saying nothing but truth.
This guy in Pittsburgh fell into that realm, and I have to believe that in some ways, Mr. Beck, and others like him, were responsible for this man to actually believe that Obama was coming for his guns, and that he needed to revolt against the government, and he did, violently. Do I think that this would be the majority position? No, I don't. But 3 dead police officers in Pittsburgh is more than enough to convince me that a lot of the things that Beck et all have been ranting and raving about is making its way into people's minds, and they keep telling the American people to "do something about it" and this is just but one of many responses. I've seen peaceful demonstrations, and I've seen some instances of civil disobedience, and I say good for them. I don't agree with them, but that is the correct way to air their grievances. But again, all that it takes is one person, like this guy in Pittsburgh to do this, and there "could" be others. I hope not, but it is a possibility.
In addition, we require video games and movie makers to put parental warning stickers on their products. Fox News does not have to do so. In addition they are using art to make a political point. Fox News its not in an artistic medium. It is not performance theater. They claim to be a news organization and yet they spend most of their time deceiving the American People. It is the equivalent of launching an ad campaign designed to convince people that smoking cures alzheimer's and enlarges your penis.
It is NOT Free Speech because it relies on deception in order to misinform the American public and get them to make bad decisions.
I don't think this applies here, first of all TV viewers do get warnings when the content they are about to watch might be disturbing. It's common practice by the networks (and a sure way to get people to watch).
Again my point, Television is an artistic medium, FoxNews is like Kabuki Theater, they are an echo chamber and anchors like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck make no particular claim to being objective or being journalists.
Also, are you willing to put the same disclaimer on Rachel Maddow's show? Or on Olberman's? Their speech can be just as incendiary, after all, aren't Olbermann and Maddow making reference to war crimes in regards to the last administration?
And what about Michelle Bachmann? Should she come with a warning when she tells her constituents that the U.S. is thinking about putting people in re-education camps? The answer to all these questions is, of course no. And there's too much equivalency to just single out Beck, or Fox News.
Are you comparing the torturing of prisoners condoned by the last administration to the fantasy world that Michele Bachmann lives in?
Bachmann's claims are too far fetched to be repeated yet the torture done in our names is real.
Fair enough, there's no equivalency there, except for the notion that the last administration is and will continue to make a legal argument defending their actions and arguing that what happened to certain 'high value' prisoners wasn't torture at all, and in fact was completely legally justified.
My argument here is it's debatable who's living in a fantasy world, and what you or I might think about it don't matter.
My other point was that you can make a case that this kind of speech Beck's, Maddow's, Olbermann's, and Bachmann's is all incendiary to someone, and if you are suggesting we shut up Beck, then where do you stop. It's the old slippery slope argument.
Give it a rest. People here are standing up to eliminatioists, not trying to shut them down. If you consider push-back as trying to shut them up, you are a thin skinned coward. Maddow and Olberman do not share any rhetorical traits with the New World Order, conspiracy jackboots like Beck or Bachman. So just save it.
You're one angry guy/person, and you're right, I am thin skinned. But I aint' wrong on this one. In your mind, Maddow and Olbermann don't share any rhetorical traits with the New World Order, conspiracy Jackboots like Beck or Bachmann because you're unable or unwilling to think about the possibility that there are people in this country who find their kind of talk just as terrifying as you find Beck.
To some people, Maddow and Olbermann are the face of a progressive agenda that includes universal human rights, the teaching of evolution in our schools and a solid wall between church and state. That agenda is threatening to many people, and their aggressive support of those policies can seem as jackbooted and conspiratorial as all fo this talk by Beck and Bachmann.
I'd go on but I think you exhausted all of your intellectual capital on this entry.
PS: oh yeah? You save it!
AAAaaaacccckkkk! Universal human rights! Science! Constitutional integrity! That's enough to scare anybody!
You miss the point. Not surprisingly, you offer only bluster, while you provide no examples of Maddow or Olberman behaving like Beck and his crazy brethren when they say liberals are fascists, dangerous, nazis, enemies within, destoying our country.
You got nothing.
MADDOW AND OLBERMANN are a breath of fresh air compared to the GARBAGE that eminates from FOX NOISE on a daily basis.
I appreciate the point but there is no warning before a Beck show. In addition, Fox News in order to make its point uses outright lies to do so. They know they're lying, they just don't care. While Olberman and Maddow may have called for the impeachment of Bush or his trial, they never called for violence. The Becks, Hannitys, Savages, and Limbaughs have repeatedly suggested that violence against officials of a Democratic government is somehow a patriotic act. Beck needs to be questioned by authorities and asked... Do you advocate the violent overthrow of the American government? If the answer is yes, sit him in jail just like they did with the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers and the left wing nutjobs who were doing the same thing. Why do conservatives get a free pass?
I think we'd need to check and see if any of these folks ever suggested actual violence against officials of a Democratic government. The only reference I've seen is where someone made a point 'how long does it take before outraged citizens head down to the statehouse and punch out their representative', not a tacit incitement, but a carefully worded question with a pre-supposed answer.
And Limbaugh? The only thing I've ever heard him say was that he hopes Obama fails, whoop de-doo.
I've only ever heard these guys parrot the old tree of liberty quote... and I'm not sure quoting Jefferson can be seen as incitement to violence.
If authorities showed up at Beck's door and questioned him? That would really bother me, talk about proof of a rising autocratic state. We are not in the business of silencing our critics. We are in the business of dragging their ideas out into the fresh air and light of reason.
You show up at Beck's door and question him, well then welcome to the world of the jackbooted thug, I ain't interested.
Kevin,
If you believed that a Lenin, Hitler or Stalin type leader was about to run the country, would you try to kill him for the sake of your countrymen? Would you blame someone who did?
If you believed that this country was going to turn into Communist China or the Soviet Union, would you threaten violence to try to make sure this didn't happen?
That's what the people who see Beck as more than entertainment think. If Beck wasn't on a "news" channel, his schtick would be less dangerous.
I love the last point about showing up on Beck's door to question him. I am glad we agree on Bill O'Reilly.
Really? If I believed a Lenin, Hitler or Stalin type was about to run the country? What would I do? Well I'd vote against him/her for the sake of my countrymen. It's what we do every two years. And the reason it hasn't happened is because we have a powerful Legislative and Judicial branches, no matter what you might think of their current abilities. Honestly, if you flip this on it's head and see the centralization of power and the nationalization of our monetary system that's happened just in the past 3 months, we would all seemingly have a lot more to worry about in that regard now than we did over the past 8 years.
If I believed this country was going to turn into Communist China or the Soviet Union, would I threaten violence? No. Would I become WAY more politically active than I am, yes. After all, "supreme executive power is derived by a mandate from the masses, not some watery tart throwing a scimitar."
But again, we keep talking about 'these people' as if they aren't us... Worrierking was talking about the Bush Administration 'condoning' torture as fact, without even stopping to think that in fact the former Bushees don't think of what they did as torture, and short of being convicted by the Hague they never will. But worrierking can't wrap his/her mind around that idea. And here's the deal, you'll never be able to establish causality on this one, you'll never be able to prove that Beck had anything to do with any of this... and we just can't decide all of a sudden that speech is dangerous. Beck's rhetoric doesn't pass the sniff test.
We all need to try really hard to pull ourselves out of our frame of reference. Here's the thing, I've heard and watched Beck for years, this is the same crazy weatherman who used to freak out about government planes and chemtrails... and remember it was CNNHN, not Fox who first hired this guy... so it wasn't Murdoch who first gave this guy his first platform, it was Ted Turner.
Finally, I sense from your note that you think I'm a fan of Bill O'Reilly. I am not, and I think his team of ambush producers are practicing the worst kind of TV. I wouldn't even call it journalism. He's an embarrassing loofa loving, out of court settling gasbag.
I feel the same way you do, Kevin about being politically active, but many of us aren't peaceful protesters and go to their base instincts when they hear an idiot like Beck spewing his crap. We do have laws on the book about dangerous speech (fire in a crowded room, etc). I am not saying we should censor Beck, but the decision by both CNN and Fox to put this buffoon on the air is incredible.
I didn't sense at all that you were a fan of O'Reilly, there was no sarcasm meant in that part of my post. I seriously am glad we agree on that.
I do agree, I'm no fan of the decisions being made by the bosses at CNN, and Fox or MSNBC. From the moment Nancy Grace was put on TV I stopped watching CNNHN, CNN I still watch for the morning show because I think John Roberts is a pretty good journalist and it's the least annoying of an annoying genre.
CNN's decision to do their Daily Show lite with D.L. Hughley I think is just embarrassing. And I think Olbermann and Maddow are generally poorly written, and content poor. I think honestly if you're going to watch any of the Cable primetime shows Stewart and Colbert back to back will give you as much hard news as Fox's or MSNBC's primetime offerings, but you are right, that's just incredible and sad.
I'll always watch Charlie Gibson, I like the way he hopes I had a good day, but NBC is putting out the better newscast IMO. The Sunday talkies have become an embarrassment all across the board.
For the moment there's still newspapers.
Torture can be a fact, even when not charged. People were tortured in our names. Even though those responsible thought it was proper, it doesn't make it legal. I'm old enough to remember the Nuremberg Trials. Those convicted also thought they did nothing wrong and were serving their country.
Generations of Americans have fought and many have died serving this country when it honored the "quaint" Geneva Conventions.
You might say that's it's always happened, and it has. But this country has never tortured as policy, until the Bush administration.
Correction. Old enough to have been taught about the Nuremberg Trials by parents and teachers .
I agree with you completely! I don't imagine Cheneyfeld does.
You need to watch the Letterman interview of Bill O'Reily last week I believe, Billo called what he does journalism and himself a journalist.
"anchors like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck make no particular claim to being objective or being journalists."
O'Reilly's claim that he's a journalist: "I'm a journalist"
Hannity's claim that he's a journalist: "I'm a journalist who interviews people who I disagree with all the time, that give their opinion. Fox has all points of view."
Hey, I'm an astronaut... saying it don't make it so...
But you're right, I'm wrong on this one.
So they do claim to be journalists... and that's too bad, because we all know they're not.
I mean Hannity's quote in and of itself rules him out of the ranks of journalists because good journalists don't bring agenda's into their interviews. But maybe you're right and that distinction is lost on a lot of viewers. I don't really know what to say to this one. I can only fall back on my initial point, no one will ever be able to make a case that Glenn Beck caused this guy to start shooting. And using that as an argument for censoring his material in some way, is un-american, and unhealthy for the country.
In the meantime, Fox's entire prime time line-up is it's op-ed page, same with MSNBC, and these networks snipe at each other like kids on the opposite ends of the sandbox. Who loses? The American people lose, and we tune into the network that reinforces our preconceived ideas, and read the blogs that snipe at the people we think deserve being sniped at.
Anyway, all I can say is when I read back and forth like this I'm pretty dang energized by the thoughts of my fellow Americans. Pretty cool I'd say.
Actually, "we" do not require the "warnings" (i.e. ratings) on movies and video games. We may demand them, but both ratings systems are voluntary and supported by their respective industries. Every single attempt to give those ratings the force of law has been ruled unconstitutional. The US legislature cannot give legal authority to a voluntary, private ratings system.
Well put. I was trying to find the right words because I too disagreed with Kevinenochs post. I remembered a program I heard on NPR where they were discussing the role that the radio DJ's played in ramping up and perpetuating the slaughter that was taking place in Rwanda. The connection between the broadcast and the genocide was irrefutable.
Now that's a good point, and well made. What do we say about a government-run media's role in perpetuating and promulgating the policies of a despotic government?
I say that the more sources of information people have access to, the less probable that a media mouthpiece can have a large impact on a population.
As I understand it, the only real informational source available to the people of Rwanda was to their government run media. If they had their own Glenn Becks, and their Keith Olbermans, and their Wolf Blitzers, and a host of other competing news sources, all of them providing cross talk and analysis, well then maybe a single mouthpiece like Rwandan radio wouldn't have been able to have the horrific impact it had.
All the more reason to allow free discourse, and let the reactionary compete with the rational in the marketplace of ideas. For my part I think Beck is his own worst enemy, he is not an enemy of the state. I also think we do ourselves a disservice by raising his rants to this level. Beck couldn't even have the conversation we're having.... I just don't think you can make a solid case that he had anything to a cop-killer in Pennsylvania.
Are you saying their was only one station on the radio? How do you know that? I get your larger point though, and i agree with providing access to multiple sources of information,but do we really have that? I mean WE do,but how about most people? I would say that most people are busy trying to make ends meet and they don't have the time it takes to research an issue , which is why i think despite the many resources we have ,people pick and limit their informational sources to the ones they trust. Despite having multiple sources the viewers of Fox News believed overwhelmingly that we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Sadam Hussein had something to do with 9/11!?!?! Those viewers helped keep the perpetrator of those lies in office with a big assist by Fox News! We don't have a free discourse of ideas in the news media. Your more likely to find Glenn Beck's on the airwaves than Amy Goodman, and what you have is a virtual blackout of the left on TV. TV is more than a artistic medium, to alot of people for various reasons , it is their ONLY source of information and entertainment. Glenn Beck may be his own worst enemy but that doesn't mean he should be left alone or ignored,but as you say that I can't make a solid case linking Beck to the Penn. killings(I never said that)you cannot deny the power of the tube! I think the Beck's with their power have a responsibility, and Glenn is walking very close to the line of what should be allowed on TV. He again said today that people should be AFRAID that Obama will take their weapons and right to own them away. He may not be solely responsible for the increase in gun sales, but I bet the NRA ain't made at him. His rants taken in this present environment of uncertain times is very dangerous and all it takes is 1. I disagree with you , I don't think we are doing a disservice by trying to eliminate his type of speech from the airwaves, but I do agree with providing greater access to information.
I think your criticisms of Fox are fair but I would say this.... When the Iraq Study group came out with their definitive findings that Iraq had no weapons of Mass Destruction and that there were no links to Al Qaeda, I remember talking with colleagues about why the Bush Administration would continue to make the claim, and why Stephen Hayes continued to shill this baloney...
Someone said this: "They keep saying it because they believe it." I don't have many a-ha moments but as Justin Wilson would say "that was one."
Now I'm not sure Limbaugh believes the things he's saying, I don't necessarily believe Coulter or Hannity believe the things they're saying but I do believe that their world view allows them to believe things you and I might say are specious and silly like an Iraq-Al Qaeda link, or the idea that the war in Iraq has made americans safer, or that the earth is actuall cooling... or uh I don't know INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
The true test of our patriotism is not to dismiss such talk as dishonest, or provocative, but to allow it, to understand it and discuss it in such a rational thoughtful way that the hot air just leaks away.
A hopeful note, Beck, like Coulter is going to have to keep ratcheting up his rhetoric, note the socialism, communism, FASCISM, thread he's had to follow. He he has a limited half-life so he's taking advantage of it.
Finally, I'm not smart enough to say what should and shouldn't be on TV. Me and my son rediscovered Johnny Quest this week... lots of random gunfire and dead Yetis... I sadly turned it off for now, and went back to non-violent Scooby Doo. The point is, for now, Beck should be left alone, he hasn't called for armed uprising, he's not hurt anyone... he's just a guy with a big microphone, and proof they're easy to get. Maybe he is honestly afraid the government is going to take our guns away, he ain't the only guy saying it, and you're angry because he's saying it on TV? You can't swing a dead cat without hitting somebody who believes that Obama wasn't born here, or is the antichrist, or is going to take our guns, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Again, it would be a huge mistake for you to think you're acting patriotically when you're tlaking about eliminating speech from the airwaves. YOU SIR, ARE A JACKBOOTED THUG! kidding, but think about it, that's not what we do here.
Kevin.enoch I understand your larger point about information being the tonic for misinformation,but i think your missing the point I made, that while there is multiple sources of information people's access to it is very limited. Almost every major newspaper in this country has, is facing closure or cutbacks. Major TV foreign bureaus have closed shop and limited their correspondents. Despite having over 600 stations on my cable TV most of the networks are owned by a few conglomerates, and believe me I don't consider Rachel, Keith , or Ed to be the left, so you have a virtual blackout of the left from the airwaves. All this talk of socialism and I haven't seen one socialist on TV except maybe occasionally on CSPAN. Which leaves it up to the conglomerates and their spokespersons(pundits, and analysts)to define. What did we learn from the lead-up to the Iraq war? We learned that the Pentagon carried out illegal psy-op war against it's own citizens with the help of Fox,CBS,NBC,MSNBC,CNN. Despite the protest in Europe and information that contradicted administration goals we were fed a constant helping of support the president or your with the terrorist, and it worked!!!! They controlled the information. They skillfully manipulated information by embedding the "journalist" with the troops. This speech isn't taking place in a vacuum,it's taking place in the environment of social and economic uncertainty and people are looking for answers but with fewer options for finding the truthful information. It's no doubt that Olberman and Maddow scare some people, but those are the people who are vunerable to the misinformation and propaganda supplied by the Becks. Check out this out : http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/7800/27224 . I hope you watch the video. These are not some nuts on a street corner , who should be left alone or ignored:"...
And it's not just Beck. Appearing on Fox News, Dick Morris recently made a wildly irresponsible comment that looks even worse in light of the Pittsburgh law-enforcement slayings: "Those crazies in Montana who say, 'We're going to kill ATF agents because the UN's going to take over' -- well, they're beginning to have a case."
And it's not just Fox News. Radio nut Michael Savage recently claimed that "we have a naked Marxist for president." And high-profile conservative blogger Erick Erickson contemplated the beating of politicians: "At what point do [people] get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?"
Of course, the right-wingers at Free Republic are way ahead of Erickson as they fantasize about Obama's assassination: "And let's face it: all the speculation about Obama being the actual Antichrist will either be confirmed or denied if someone gets off a lucky shot at the SOB." I'am sorry I strongly disagree that this speech should be left alone to fester or disappear on it's own, it must be fought! I think you have good intentions, but for alot of people Glenn Beck is not entertainment he is news, just look at MTRENKLE366 posts above. To be silent is to give them the floor. If Beck and his ilk are not directly criminally responsible for Pittsburgh they are definitly morally and ethically culpable as I believe my examples and this article prove.
I did watch that bit up above. And yeah, I think this is crazy and provocative talk, I'm not sure it's as dangerous as you believe.
After all, people have been yapping about this for years... Carter was going to establish a One World Order, then Bush the first actually said the worlds "New World Order" and was a Mason, then of course the Clinton's, a brief respite during Bush administration and now it's back again.
I agree there are more media platforms now to shout this baloney, but in the end it's the same old baloney. I think these guys are irresponsible, I think they are purposely provocative, and if I gave the impression that we should leave them alone, I only meant in regards to censoring them, that we should never do.
Hold reasoned discourse, explain policies, continue to vote with our heads, do some political outreach, call senators and congressmen, write op-eds for the local paper, and perhaps boycott their advertisers... yes please, we should do all these things.
And I do see your point, and I absolutely agree, there is less smart talk out there, and a lot more dumb talk, and a lot of the dumb talk is on primetime... I get that, and it bothers me, but we give the people what they want right? And it seems to me that they want Glenn Beck.
But why do they want him? I'd like to see a poll done on why people watch Beck? Do they watch him for the news? Probably not. Do they watch him like they watch a car wreck, just you never know what you might see? I suspect most people watch him for the latter. I see Beck and I see Art Bell with a TV show. It's fun for a while but then you realize.. you know Area 51 is really only a test site, and the Bildenbergers are really only a fraternity of rich old guys you don't want to hang out with, and the appeal wears off... I mean Beck can shout all he wants, but we're not marching towards fascism, Obama's not the antichrist, he's not angry etc. etc. and as time goes by, and as the stock market continues to go up... and people get jobs again.... that kind of talk becomes increasingly shrill and silly... after all revolutions are run on people's stomachs, so give me a job... give me the means to stay in my house, raise my kids, not have to watch my wife worry about money, watch a ball game now and again, and go on vacation once or twice a year and I'll be too full to worry about fascism... let's fix the real problem.
So yes I see your point, and yes I agree, but it's all about degrees of danger to me, and I just can't bring myself to really believe that a dumb___ like Beck is dangerous....
You don't think Glenn Beck is entertainment? That's all he is. If you don't think that's how he's viewed by the honchos that run Fox, then you don't really 'get' television or the mindset of the corporate owners of CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS.
But my larger point is this, there's no 'proof' that incendiary lyrics, or incendiary video games, or incendiary speech have a link to causation when it comes to acts of violence. You just can't make the link. Free Speechers have been pointing it out primarily in the world of music lyrics and video game content but we must apply the same arguments to personality driven speech as well.
You want to try and pressure sponsors to pull out of their support of Beck... good luck, that's the way to do it. But like the Dixie Chicks boycott, the more you complain, the more people watch (listen), the more ad rates (record sales) go up the more money in the bosses pockets.
See Kevin, I get TV, and Glenn Beck. You get TV and Glenn Beck, but I know plenty of people who DON'T see this as entertainment. They see Mr. Beck as promoting some unspoken truth, and that everything that tumbles from his mouth is correct, and he would never lie, he's only telling us what other media sources won't tell us. This is what I hear from sane rational people that I know who are conservatives, and yet, they use Beck, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh et all as their news sources.
There could be a link between ratcheting up the rhetoric ala Glenn Beck, and violence committed, because the man who did it, justified his violence by using a lot of the rhetoric that Mr. Beck is preaching himself.
Again, video games, and the music industry are far different, and even then, I do think that sometimes games and music can have an impact on impressionable people.
The Dixie Chicks is an interesting example, because they were pretty much censored from country music radio even though people wanted to hear them on said radio stations. Who censored them? The large conservative media conglomerates who didn't like what they said about not being proud of President Bush. Now, they don't have a right to be on the radio either, but in this case, the free market was completely and totally ignored by the media masters, because they said something they didn't like. They made their bed, they laid in it, and they came out OK.
Again, I will always protect the speech of someone, but in the case of radio and or TV, it's not a guaranteed right under our Constitution that you're allowed to say whatever it is you want. There are rules.
I have a cousin who listens to Michael Savage religiously. One day, practically out of the blue, he started ranting on some bogeyman hypothetical about Muslims demanding work time for prayer during the work day at the company he works for and bringing lawsuits if the demands are not met. After asking a couple simple questions, he quietly revealed that he does not, nor has he ever had, any Muslim coworkers. Yet some idiot on the radio can work him into a lather over something that stands a snowball's chance of ever happening to him.
I also pointed out that, unlike him, I have had Muslim coworkers, who are also friends of mine, none of which ever came close to bringing prayer rugs to work or demanding work time for prayer.
This article was hilarious! I was told about the stuff on this website and had to read it for myself. amazing!
Your hilarious I was told about people like you but I had to see it for myself , Amazing!
And exactly what did you find so funny about it? That possibly some heated rhetoric from some on the right side of the aisle turned a young man into a cop killer? Is that the funny part? Because, I failed to laugh.
Not that any other networks tag team up on the one supposed voice of the right!? There is no way that you could possibly tie this to FoxNews. I don't like them, but this is just not smart!
There isn't? You mean, the direct quotes and video you can see, on this website, doesn't have Glenn Beck talking about the fascist government we have in place now, and that Obama is going to come and take your guns?
I can't disagree with that assessment.
Yeah, just like the right wingers said about that old Ice-T record...
Good work, Eric!
Bob Kincaid covered this issue on his show last night on The H.O.R.N., in much the same fashion as you have done in print. The archived show is free at www.whiterosesociety.org/Kincaid.html and he airs nightly at www.headonradionetwork.com
I first heard you on Bob's show awhile back and have read your work at MM ever since. You're both doing a huge service to the nation by pointing out the poisonous trail from right-wing hatemedia to the violence-prone deliberately disaffected right-wing.
Right on. Good on you for listening to the HORN.
I'm not shocked that some looney-bin went on ashotting spree. Sitting through any given day on FOX NEWS you'd think they world was coming to an end. The propaganda these tools spew should be illegal, but they excuse by hiding behind the 1st amendment. Just look at this idiots that ran out to gun stores after the election.
I find it strange that all of these "patriots" like Glenn Beck, find their patriotism after they reach the age that makes them too old to serve in the military.
Neither Beck, nor O'Reilly, nor Hannity, nor Limbaugh, nor Savage ever found the time to serve their country. Yet they all say they act out of love of country now.
They're not patriots, they're whores.
Have you noticed how mysteriously absent "support the troops" is from the right-wing vernacualr lately?
So true...so true..
I don't want to tell the U.S. District Attorney his job but the the bottom line is very simple. Speech that encourages people to do illegal acts is not protected by the constitution. There are several pundits who are flirting dangerously close with exactly that sort of behavior and need to be held accountable. You can say you disagree with a politician, you can say vote against him, you can say he's a jerk, but the minute you suggest some sort of armed uprising or assassination you have violated the law. Glenn Beck needs to be challenged on air about this and asked point blank: Are you advocating the unlawful overthrow of the government? This toying around in the gray area need to stop. He needs to be brought in by the authorities and questioned.
By that rationale, any human being could deem almost anything you could think of to be said as baiting someone to commit this kind of ridiculous act!
This complaint is yet nother example of the wussification of America. Quit being so thin-skinned America, sheesh!
You know perfectly well that if my rhetoric had approached anything like this while Bush was in office, I would have been fired from my job as professor and hounded by F.B.I. and C.I.A. There is a clear double standard that suggest this sort of rhetoric is acceptable as long as the president is a democrat and the message needs to be loud and clear that it isn't. Threatening the president needs to be treated very seriously whether it's Syrian nut job or a right wing nut job.
My wife's professors use Bush jabs teaching economics any chance they get. You would think that someone knowing economics would know better.
"You would think that someone knowing economics would know better."
You're aware that virtually all conservative and liberal economists disagreed with Bush's economic policies, which were in essence tax less and spend more?
And this would be our jobs as American Citizens!
Why are you quoting the Declaration of Independence to make a legal point? This is governed by the constitution and the Rights of Free Speech and the governing opinions of the Supreme Court. At NO point in U.S. history has speech that is meant to provoke violence against the president been deemed constitutional nor are direct threats acceptable. If you don't like the president vote against him! If you lose the election, try to win the next one. Using public air waves to provoke treason and terrorism in order to undermine a democratically elected president is NOT our job as American citizens, it is the goal of every fascist dictator in history.
Why are you quoting the Declaration of Independence to make a legal point? This is governed by the constitution and the Rights of Free Speech and the governing opinions of the Supreme Court. At NO point in U.S. history has speech that is meant to provoke violence against the president been deemed constitutional nor are direct threats acceptable. If you don't like the president vote against him! If you lose the election, try to win the next one. Using public air waves to provoke treason and terrorism in order to undermine a democratically elected president is NOT our job as American citizens, it is the goal of every fascist dictator in history.
and what point are you trying to make here? that we are living under a tyrant?
My point is that the tyrants are the right wing who repeatedly try to subvert democracy through a combination of propoganda and violence. It's illegal to do so the way they have repeatedly been doing so by coyly and purposely spreading misinformation (Obama the Manchurian candidate, Obama the terrorist, Obama the hitler) and then hiding behind the first amendment the moment anyone calls them out on it. They essentially engage in the following:
Step 1: Declare the value of murdering dictators and terrorist with no connection made to any existing leader.
Step 2 (separate segment): Obama might be another hitler or terrorist.
The purpose is clear and IT IS ILLEGAL!!!
don't get me wrong i find the entire fixed noise operation distasteful and nothing would please me more than to see the whole outfit tank.
but i must play the devi's advocate.....as im often wont to do.....
if beck, hannity, and billo the clown and the rest were guilty of such....they would already be under arrest.
they will keep pushing the boundries until they have their imus moment and then they will have no one to hide behind.
history has shown that megalomaniacs always carry the seeds of their own destruction.
look at Napoleon, Hitler, Caesar, Charles I (England), James II, Heiro II (of Syracuse), Guy of Lusingnan, Nero, Caligula, Tarquinnus Superbus, Marcus Manlius, Appius Claudius Irrugenius, Appius Claudius Crassus
there are far more i could list easily, but the point being is that these clown all of them while taking their power to extremes were undone by their own actions. and i have no doubt that those of fixed noise will share in the same fate.
There was a time when the tone of the right would be easily characterized as seditious, subversive, un-American, etc.; it seems we that today we choose not to use such terms, or choose to define them in ways which are, say, less criminal.
I don't generally buy conspiracy theories, but the wild, outrageous and provocative tone of Fox's comments seem designed to lead the government into a posistion where it will need to define what it is Fox is doing, and to then act in the nation's best interests to contain their effluent. Messing with the First amendment, of course, is exactly what the right wants in order to prove the validity of their assertions that the government is out to get us all; why not start by undermining that most precious of all rights, the right to free speech?
Fox has gone way over the line in terms of acceptable "free speech". They are inciting their nutty followers to do harm to the President and the Nation. We need a consensus on what constitutes acceptable "free speech", and we need to define clearly a line over which those who claim that concept as their right may not cross.
OBVIOUSLY, Fox has gone way, way too far.
"There was a time when the tone ...."
I remember those times. Back in 2003 when we were un-American, subversives, traitors and cowards for questioning the Chickenhawks who led us into the quagmire in the Middle East.
Funny how things have changed now. We elected and support this President, yet to the right, were still un-American, including the President.
Being on TV, or on other media sources is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution. Why do I have to keep repeating that? There are already limits on what you can do, and or say on TV and the radio.
Now if these jerks want to go and write a blog somewhere on the internet, nobody is going to be able to touch them there at all. It's free reign for all there, and hence, no infringement on freedom of speech. Same thing for newspapers/news websites.
You have to be licensed to be on TV, same for radio. It's not a guaranteed right.
I think he was agreeing with you.
I agree. I think Boehlert, who usually does a fair job or presenting facts, made a mistake by only listing the lunatic ranst of Alex Jones about Obama. That would provide better context. I live in Austin where that nutbag (Jones, not Obama or Boehlert) lives. He's delusional, and somewhat overweight, so I worry for his health. His fits of rage must be tempered by a mean dose of Lipitor. Like a Lipitor foot-long sandwhich every morning. He ranted about Bush just as much as he did about Clinton. Just because he's doing it about Obama is nothing new or surprising. Fox putting him on the air, whiles sad and depressing, isn't all that newsworthy either. They had David Bossie and the whole Arkasas project fat-ass goons on TV all the time when Clinton was in the WH, claiming he was a drug runner, murdering/impregnating people, etc.
Alex Jones' rants about Obama are nothing new. Ayn Rand could be freakin' president and Jones would have a problem with it.
Randy
I don't think kishrandy9219 has a clue regarding Jones. Not delusional. Not a nutbag. And very clearly correct that every president since Kennedy has been owned by the oligarchs. It may just be that Jones is more than a tad higher than 'kish' in credibility and awareness.
And 'kish' should probably read up on the facts a bit .. I was Clinton who refused to investigate the CIA running drugs through his state as part of the way they paid for IranContra. All documented. Unfortunately true. Also unforunately, I voted for that POS twice.
Ayn Rand was foreign born, and, thus, ineligible for the presidency.
She was also a terrible writer whose books were absolute, ponderous drivel, and her theories were cold-hearted, anti-American, and just plain ludicrous, representing all the worst qualities of social darwinism.
In ATLAS SHRUGGED, all the poor people are stupid, lazy, and ugly, and all the rich people are beautiful, hard working, and brilliant.
(Matt Ruff brilliantly described it as "A DAS KAPITAL for capitalists, but with heavy petting & car chases.")
She was opposed to public education, public roads, public health care, labor laws, income tax - she actually believed that people, especially the wealthy, should just be allowed to send whatever they felt like to the government every year - and just about everything we commonly assume goes hand & hand with a modern, civilized society.
Of course, she didn't practice what she preached - big surprise - and was helped by benfactors on countless occasions throughout her life, but this didn't stop her from railing against any sort of assistance or charity for the poor.
Thanks to her, though, New York might finally be rid of both Rush Limbaugh AND Donald Trump, as they are both planning on leaving the state due to a proposed tax hike for people earning more than a million dollars a year.
(Hopefully, they'll both be moving to a mysterious island with John Galt.)
I guess she can be excused on some level, as she survived the Russian revolution & viewed any sort of social program as being akin to Bolshevikism, but as a writer - which is a generous term indeed for such a hack - she had no such alibi, nor does that excuse her testimony as a "friendly witness" in front of HUAC during the red scare.
(On a side note, if you need any more proof that Angelie Jolie is a moron, this very "liberal" woman who campaigns for aid for the poor all over the world names ATLAS as her favorite book, has bought the rights, and plans to star in a film adaptation of it, despite the fact that her efforts to fight poverty are in stark contrast to Rand's objectivism.)
If you had actually researched the topic before posting this misleading slander you would know that the posts Poplawski had made on prisonplanetDOTcom were arguing AGAINST alex jones racially open political viewpoints. The guy point and simple was a racist that lost his job and had the cops called on him for having his dogs pee all over the foor. Equating him to Alex Jones is absurd.
Fox news spent the entire time bush was in office fighting against alex jones. Alex Jones didn't ever want to go on Fox news because they would shoot hours of film and then edit it down against his favor. When ever he would go on they would try to misrepresent him.. To act like Fox news is on the side of Alex Jones is to admit ignorance of the political views of both sides.
The only reason Glen Beck has gotten involved now is so he can tear it down in the end. I've you've been listening to alex jones for the last year you would well know few in the patriot movement actually believe Glen Beck is the man he poses as.
Glen beck's agenda has been to gain trust by investing in some political viewpoints so he can subsiquently tear them down later on. He never was who he claimed to be.
Are you trying to say that Alex Jones is some well adjusted individual? I've read through his website, and guess what? He isn't. He's a kook conspiracy theorist, who has been given vast media exposure on FoxNews for his tirades.
Funny how he seems to make it onto FoxNews now, that a democrat is in office.
Sorry, magnolialover, but you haven't a clue. It is also classic nonsense (or cointelpro) to throw out terms like 'kook conspiracy theorist' .. blah blah. The entire use of 'kook' and/or 'conspiracy theorist' to attempt to discredit somebody is now quite passe. Most now know that conspiracies occur all of the time. And that we are experiencing the effects of many in our country right now. If all you have to toss into the ring is ad hominem, then perhaps you shouldn't comment at all.
Currently, Jones makes more sense with most of what he states than any other commenter ... Which is one reason why folks such as Ron Paul, Peter Dale Scott, Gerald Celente and others of national repute are perfectly ok being interviewed on his show.
Further, it is about time for media matters to retract its nonsense (and libel) about Jones ... just as dailykos and raw story, et. al. have ... recognizing that they once again got crap information from the ADL.
"Most now know that conspiracies occur all of the time."
You might want to look into recent Gallup studies on that issue.
So, I guess it's Martin Scorsese's fault Ronald Reagan got shot, huh?
And J.D. Salinger has John Lennon's blood on his hands, too?
Believe it or not, crazy people do crazy things, and there's nothing you can do to change that.
You're absolutely right. It was both Salinger's and Scorsese's fault. Remember that scene in Taxi Driver where Travis Bickle starts crying because a Hollywood actor has become president and will institute fascism, communism, and concentration camps? Or how about the third chapter of Catcher In The Rye, "It Would Be A Great Idea To Shoot John Lennon". Do you get my point yet? Scorsese didn't know that there would be some guy who wanted to bang 12-year-old Jodi Foster who would watch his movie and do something crazy. It's not a movie about shooting the president. The Catcher In The Rye, and it's been a while since I've read it so I may be wrong, never once mentions shooting any rock stars, John Lennon or otherwise.
On the contrary, Glenn Beck spends 4 hours every day regaling his listeners with his lunatic fantasies about Obama being the anti-christ, and figuring out how an armed revolution would play out. His listeners, to a large degree, believe he is entirely truthful and is saying what others are "too afraid" to say. So, if it's true that Barack Obama is the anti-christ, is a marxist, is a fascist, hates white males and is planning on rounding them up and sticking them in concentration camps, and is ending free speech and gun ownership as we know it, what is my course of action as a white male? What is the logical next step? If all of this stuff Glenn Beck says and right-wingers believe is the unvarnished truth, how could I possibly not want to kill Barack Obama? Do you not see how this is inciteful, and not exactly the same as John Hinkley, Mark David Chapman or Charlie Manson playing Beatles records backwards?
I think Glen Beck is a tool, but can you cite a single instance where he instructed his viewers/listeners to shoot law enforcement officers?
If not, then he's no more guilty than Scorsese or Salinger or the White Album.
As for Alex Jones, he's as opposed to republican policies as he is those of democrats, and the source of the allegations aginst him in this matter - the ADL - has admitted that the only reason the guy went on his site was to attack him, and most news organizations that repeated them have since made retractions.
I hated Bush, too, but how many times was he compared to a nazi, and how many liberal columnists accused him of destroying America as we know it?
We're those writers inciting violence?
Of course not.
I don't own a gun, and am in favor of sensible gun control laws, but Eric Holder and Rahm Emmanuel have both made very broad, sweeping statements about restricting ALL gun ownership, and Obama's not only either continued or expanded pretty much all of GW's horrible policies, but he has repeatedly stated that he doesn't want to investigate/prosecute the previous administration.
As such, I would say that there are legitimate concerns to be raised here, and how some nut job reacts to them - or presents them - should not be the basis of any sort of restriction or demonization of free speech.
Hell, the "crazy conspiracy" article about troops illegally policing the streets of America that upset this jackass came straight out of The Army Times and was also covered on the Raw Story site - Why aren't you attacking them?
As long as the majority of people in this country believe that there are only two possible solutions to our problems - those proposed by either the left or the right - we will continue to be stuck in the mess we currently find ourselves in, especially considering the fact that the only differences in either side's plans are cosmetic at best.
People are social creatures. Denying that is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous to claim that Salinger forced someone to kill Lennon. Isn't it obvious that the reality is between the two extremes?
I don't even see how Salinger influenced anyone to kill Lennon. The only thing I can think of is that Holden Caulfield hated "phony" people, and maybe Chapman thought Lennon was phony for some reason. And Hinckley had no political reasons for what he did at all, he was just schizophrenic. It didn't even have to do with the content of the movie as far as I remember, he was just obsessed with Jodie Foster. The same thing could have come from Freaky Friday.
Not only is this stuff fiction, but there's nothing in it to encourage the actions in question. Meanwhile, Beck is engaging in extremist rhetoric about things that are going on in real life. It doesn't rely on any disconnect between obvious fiction and the real world.
I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to make such claims, which many people have in the past.
Chapman was obsessed with CATCHER IN THE RYE, and spent his time in NYC before killing John Lennon - whom he referred to as a "phony" - reenacting Holden Caufield's actions in that book.
Hinkley was obsessed with Jody Foster in TAXI DRIVER, a movie where Rober De Niro's character attempts to murder a politician running for president before "saving" her in an orgy of violence.
As you're looking for examples outside of the world of fiction, let's point to someone like Timothy Leary.
How many people had bad trips and/or permanently damaged themselves after taking psychedelics at his urging?
Was he responsible for those tragedies, or were the people who conciously decided to take these drugs of their own free will responsible for their own actions?
This guy obviously had issues -as his racist views, the actions that resulted in his discharge from the military, the loss of his job, his drinking, and the problems he had with his mother all illustrate - and to blame what happened on what some idiot said on television seems to be quite a stretch, no matter how much I dislike Glen Beck.
Something tells me this guy was probably obsessed with the anti-christ and the apocalypse too - Should we attack the bible as well?
As an atheist that wouldn't bother me in the slightest, but as an American I would find connecting The Book Of Revelations with his actions offensive, and, as a person believeing in logic, I would find that sort of reasoning fallacious.
Again, there's no comparison between Chapman or Hinckley and this case because this case doesn't rely on any disconnect between fantasy and reality. There's no way to read Catcher in the Rye and think "wow, that could lead someone to commit murder". Extremist and inflammatory rhetoric that is supposed to be based in reality is a completely different matter. That is an influence on people. Someone who had violent tendencies might not be inspired to take action if not spurred to do so, and patriotism is a very powerful motivator.
If Leary knows of the damage and still urges use of LSD, then he would bear some responsibility. It's not a question of all or nothing. A preacher using the Bible to influence people to commit violence would also have some responsibility if someone were to do so. There will always be crazy people out there, but when someone takes that element and focuses it against a certain target, they become at least partly accountable for the results.
Do you really disagree?
I know it's an unpopular view in this day an age, but, yes: I believe people are responsible for their own actions, and to see supposedly liberal-minded people suggesting otherwise really puts me off.
Also, in a criminal matters, one is either 100% guilty or 100% not guilty, not some smaller fraction therof, although in civil cases, unfortunately, you are correct.
By your logic of partial responsibility, however, both this article & your own comments here could be held accountable just for airing its version of events.
If someone decided to stop that jackass Glen Beck through an act of violence, would you feel any responsibility for it?
This is really more of a moral matter than a legal one. And legally, someone can be held accountable for what they do, while they may have never done anything if not for influence from others. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive at all.
"If someone decided to stop that jackass Glen Beck through an act of violence, would you feel any responsibility for it?"
Why would I feel responsible for that? What extremist rhetoric am I expressing here? By your logic any criticism of anyone's actions is dangerous. Beck is perfectly free to make valid and reasoned criticisms of Obama, and that's the difference. Also it's important to note that anyone who thinks Obama is destroying the country doesn't really have any political recourse, since Democrats control Congress. Beck can be pressured through his advertisers to change his ways. So even strong criticism of Beck does not necessarily lead someone to take violent action.
I'm curious if you draw any sort of line at all. If Beck said "Obama is going to sell us out to radical Muslims and he has to be stopped by any means necessary", is it conceivable that might possibly inspire someone to take a shot at Obama, where more reasonable criticism would not? I suppose that if that happened, you would object to people criticizing Beck for what he said. Right?
I believe in complete freedom of speech PERIOD.
Looking over your comments again, I can see that you haven't made any "inciteful" statements - at least from my highly subjective perspective.
I was thinking of ButteryPat's reply to my original comment, and the intent of this article's author, and how someone might interpret them to mean "G.B. must be stopped, and by any means neccesary."
Would the two of them bear any responsibility if the scenario I suggested earlier were to play out?
(And if you re-read the posts I've made on this subject, you will see that I have been critical of Beck throughout.)
The problem is, who decides what constitutes "extremist rhetoric" vs. "valid & reasoned criticism," as you put it, and couldn't an unbalanced person be pushed over the edge by even the most innocuous of material, regardless of the source?
Should we ban emotional pleas from public discourse as they don't always follow a logical arc?
For another "real world" example, think about the Nazi's tried at Nuremberg.
No one denied that most of them were not only acting "under the influence" of others, but were acting under direct orders - punishable by death on refusal - and, yet, that didn't stop them from being hanged or imprisoned.
Should their crimes have been excused for acting on the words of psychopathic lunatics?
"Should their crimes have been excused for acting on the words of psychopathic lunatics?"
I don't know how I can make this any clearer. Someone can still be held accountable for their actions, while they may not have committed those actions without outside influence. So no, their crimes should not be excused.
"The problem is, who decides what constitutes "extremist rhetoric" vs. "valid & reasoned criticism," as you put it, and couldn't an unbalanced person be pushed over the edge by even the most innocuous of material, regardless of the source?"
I hear this sort of question all the time. Why are people so afraid of judgment, of subjectivity? Modern society relies on it. Reason is determined by analysis, logic and discussion. In law, this is why we have judges and juries, in order to make subjective determinations. But again, this is more of a moral issue than a legal one, so I'm not sure what you're concerned about here.
If someone is going to take violent action regardless of outside influences, then there's nothing you can do about that. If someone is going to take violent action if they are influenced, then there is something that can be done about that. The fact that the former group exists does not alleviate one's responsibility of riling up the latter group. For example, Obama received death threats during the campaign, which isn't too surprising. There is a racist element out there. Now, when Palin started throwing around accusations of "palling around with terrorists" and hating America, the number of death threats went up. Why? Did people get crazier all of a sudden? Was it mere coincidence? Probably not. There were people who would send him death threats no matter what, and then there were people who did it after being inspired to do so. Saying "well he was getting death threats already" doesn't make it better, because you don't want more of them. You want to avoid as many as you can.
"Complete freedom of speech" is a myth. People on television are employees who do not have a right to say whatever they want without consequences. You can stand on the street corner and talk to your heart's content, but Beck is not owed a place in the national discourse.
I'm not sure where the quote is you're talking about, but I didn't see anyone say "by any means necessary". Also, I hope you would agree that someone who is given a spot on a major cable network is given more credibility than some anonymous poster on the internet.
I never attributed that quote to anyone - just as no one can cite an instance where Glen Beck urged people to shoot law enforcement officers or stop Obama "by any means neccesary" - the question I posed was what if someone interpreted this article that way, as you are alleging this moron (mis)interpreted G.B.
(I wonder if you feel that Malcolm X was inciting violence when he originally used that phrase.)
I'm sorry, but the fact that this nut had a link to an article by Glen Beck on his MySpace page really doesn't signify anything to me, and, especially since the shooter himself has made no statements on this subject either, I really don't see how anyone can jump to the conclusion that this is what motivated him.
Apparently, we have a disagreement of opinion on this subject, but we do live in a country that guarantees us the right to express these opposing views, just as it guarantees a total buffoon like Beck the right to express whatever nonsense he choose to.
(While he is not owed a place on the airwaves, we do not have the right to tell Fox what they can or can't show on their channel either.)
That you and others on this site have brought up the fact that television & radio are the only aspects of American life not protected by The First Amendment AS IF THIS WERE A GOOD THING completely boggles my mind.
The FCC is an unelected body and should not have the right to deny anyone the right to say what they could in any other public situation on public air waves.
(While we're not allowed to say the "F" word on television, I think it's obvious that they would have had no problem with footage being aired of this guy being shot to death if he had been killed by the police, and these same people who saw the partial exposure of a single female nipple as a sign of the apocalypse also had no problem with Michael Phelps & co. walking around bare chested at the olympics - This is the agency you're siding with in this argument?)
You're right in that there are any number of laws against defamation & hate speech on the books, but no one in any position of authority has chosen to go after Beck on this - probably because they know they wouldn't win the case - nor has Obama chosen to sue him - or Limbaugh or Savage, et al - for slander and/or libel.
As for going after the sponsors of his show, as others here have suggested, something tells me that they studied the demographics of his viewers before purchasing time from Fox, and couldn't care less what people outside of this target audience think.
The fact of the matter is that there is obviosly a market for what Beck is pedaling, otherwise he wouldn't have a radio program, a tv show, and several books in circulation, and the best way people like us can impact him is to not promote him - which this discussion IS doing - and not buy his merchandise.
"I never attributed that quote to anyone - just as no one can cite an instance where Glen Beck urged people to shoot law enforcement officers or stop Obama "by any means neccesary" - the question I posed was what if someone interpreted this article that way, as you are alleging this moron (mis)interpreted G.B."
I'm not alleging anything of the sort. I wanted to know if you have a concept of "inciteful" speech. If someone were to read "by any means necessary" from some anonymous poster and act on it, then that poster bears some responsibility. Like I said, though, a poster can't expect to be taken as seriously as someone given a national platform.
"(I wonder if you feel that Malcolm X was inciting violence when he originally used that phrase.)"
Of course he was.
"I'm sorry, but the fact that this nut had a link to an article by Glen Beck on his MySpace page really doesn't signify anything to me, and, especially since the shooter himself has made no statements on this subject either, I really don't see how anyone can jump to the conclusion that this is what motivated him."
If you made some speech that showed up on this sort of person's computer, would it give you pause? It would keep me up at night, personally. Again, I'm not saying it's the sole cause, but it could definitely be a factor.
"Apparently, we have a disagreement of opinion on this subject, but we do live in a country that guarantees us the right to express these opposing views, just as it guarantees a total buffoon like Beck the right to express whatever nonsense he choose to."
Again, not about anything legal. It's about moral responsibility.
"(While he is not owed a place on the airwaves, we do not have the right to tell Fox what they can or can't show on their channel either.)"
We don't have the right to force FOX to do anything. We can certainly express concern and discontent with delusional pundits.
"That you and others on this site have brought up the fact that television & radio are the only aspects of American life not protected by The First Amendment AS IF THIS WERE A GOOD THING completely boggles my mind."
In this same post you recognize that the First Amendment is not absolute. It seems inconsistent to say that television and radio are the only things not protected by the First Amendment.
"(While we're not allowed to say the "F" word on television, I think it's obvious that they would have had no problem with footage being aired of this guy being shot to death if he had been killed by the police, and these same people who saw the partial exposure of a single female nipple as a sign of the apocalypse also had no problem with Michael Phelps & co. walking around bare chested at the olympics - This is the agency you're siding with in this argument?)"
What the hell? I agree the Janet Jackson thing was overblown, but comparing that to a male swimmer is totally bonkers.
"You're right in that there are any number of laws against defamation & hate speech on the books, but no one in any position of authority has chosen to go after Beck on this - probably because they know they wouldn't win the case - nor has Obama chosen to sue him - or Limbaugh or Savage, et al - for slander and/or libel."
Did I mention this was more of a moral question than a legal one?
"As for going after the sponsors of his show, as others here have suggested, something tells me that they studied the demographics of his viewers before purchasing time from Fox, and couldn't care less what people outside of this target audience think."
Controversy for a company is not a good thing. The idea that products or services advertised here are designed exclusively for people who watch this idiot is sort of hard to swallow.
"The fact of the matter is that there is obviosly a market for what Beck is pedaling, otherwise he wouldn't have a radio program, a tv show, and several books in circulation, and the best way people like us can impact him is to not promote him - which this discussion IS doing - and not buy his merchandise."
There's probably a market for racist radio programming in certain pockets of the south (we've had one mentioned here before), but that doesn't make what the hosts are saying appropriate. Right?
I already stated that I believe in complete and total freedom of speech, and I view the FCC's regulation of the airwaves in this manner to be unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks about George Carlin.
If that's an expression of my morality, so be it.
(I already acknowledged the restrictions against defamation & hate speech, and pointed out that no one is charging Beck with either.)
As I understand it, we're not supposed to legislate morality, as in the case of christians opposing gay rights because they think the bible tells them it's wrong or using their faith to support slavery as they once did, and when we are discussing rights, it IS a legal issue, as they are protected by law.
What I was referencing in regards to Ms. Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" is the obviously sexist nature of the belief that women's nipples are dirty, but men's aren't - A central tenet of an agency whose censorship of Americans you apparently support.
I wouldn't bat a single eyelash if anything I said was misinterpreted by a nutjob to justify whatever delusion he held, as, by definition, someone like that has a fairly tenous hold on reality in the first place.
(Was Darwin responsible for the eugenics movement that used his work to justify their atrocities? Was Jesus responsible for the rape of the Americas by people who felt the natives were soulless heathens? Was socialism the cause the holocaust? What about the drill instructor that taught him how to shoot?)
I still doubt higly that the manufacturers of laxatives, rogaine, and/or cialis will be upset by liberals - who are statistically younger than conservatives - complaining about the programs they sponsor, as they are generally not consumers of the same products that the older conservative white males that make up the bulk of Fox's audience use.
I also pointed out that I support both your own & Beck's rights to hold & voice any opinions you choose, despite the fact that I disagree with both of you.
And, yes, there is a market for racism - even in the north & on the west coast - just as there is for shows featuring flatulance, graphic sex, graphic violence, completely vapid writing & horrible acting, etc. - but I do not consider myself to be the arbitor of taste for anyone else, and resist the actions of anyone who would choose to impose their own preferences on me.
I am far more concerned about the further erosion of our civil liberties, the expansion of the war in Afghanistan and our illegal bombing campaign in Pakistan, the essentially permanent pressence of our troops in Iraq, the fact that we have wasted almost our entire GNP on this bailout, the continuance of the pointless war on drugs, etc. etc.
Regardless, the shooter himself has made no statement whatsoever as to his motivations in this case, and to assert that you or anyone else know what was in his mind when he committed this horrible act is ridiculous.
"I already stated that I believe in complete and total freedom of speech, and I view the FCC's regulation of the airwaves in this manner to be unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks about George Carlin."
There's an objective rationale for not allowing certain things on the airwaves. For example, you don't have to subscribe to any faith to understand why they shouldn't show nudity on prime-time programming. Like it or not, some words are still considered profane, and it's within our rights to regulate the expression of them on the airwaves.
"As I understand it, we're not supposed to legislate morality, as in the case of christians opposing gay rights because they think the bible tells them it's wrong or using their faith to support slavery as they once did, and when we are discussing rights, it IS a legal issue, as they are protected by law."
But nobody's saying Beck doesn't have a right to say what he wants, within the limits we've established. You're fixated on "rights", I'm talking about moral responsibility.
"What I was referencing in regards to Ms. Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" is the obviously sexist nature of the belief that women's nipples are dirty, but men's aren't - A central tenet of an agency whose censorship of Americans you apparently support."
That goes well beyond the FCC. It's legal for men to go shirtless on any beach in the United States, but not for women. The FCC is abiding by the same standard that's applied elsewhere.
"I wouldn't bat a single eyelash if anything I said was misinterpreted by a nutjob to justify whatever delusion he held, as, by definition, someone like that has a fairly tenous hold on reality in the first place."
Again, the problem isn't that the statements are being misinterpreted. The idea that the entire country is in great danger of becoming fascist is what's being presented as reality. Someone might believe that on their own, but that doesn't justify Beck espousing that nonsense.
"(Was Darwin responsible for the eugenics movement that used his work to justify their atrocities? Was Jesus responsible for the rape of the Americas by people who felt the natives were soulless heathens? Was socialism the cause the holocaust? What about the drill instructor that taught him how to shoot?)"
As I've explained already, you can't expect people to be responsible for actions taken in good faith. Everything you're talking about here applies to that. Fearmongering is a completely different matter.
"I still doubt higly that the manufacturers of laxatives, rogaine, and/or cialis will be upset by liberals - who are statistically younger than conservatives - complaining about the programs they sponsor, as they are generally not consumers of the same products that the older conservative white males that make up the bulk of Fox's audience use."
They still don't want to be controversial, and may not want to be associated with someone who behaves this way.
"I also pointed out that I support both your own & Beck's rights to hold & voice any opinions you choose, despite the fact that I disagree with both of you."
I'm not sure what the relevance of this is.
"And, yes, there is a market for racism - even in the north & on the west coast - just as there is for shows featuring flatulance, graphic sex, graphic violence, completely vapid writing & horrible acting, etc. - but I do not consider myself to be the arbitor of taste for anyone else, and resist the actions of anyone who would choose to impose their own preferences on me."
Are you seriously comparing racism to flatulence? That's not a question of taste, that's about hatred and bigotry.
"I am far more concerned about the further erosion of our civil liberties, the expansion of the war in Afghanistan and our illegal bombing campaign in Pakistan, the essentially permanent pressence of our troops in Iraq, the fact that we have wasted almost our entire GNP on this bailout, the continuance of the pointless war on drugs, etc. etc."
I agree with some of those concerns, but I've never bought into the argument that "X is important, therefore we should ignore Y". The state of our media is also very important, whether it's comparable to Iraq or not.
"Regardless, the shooter himself has made no statement whatsoever as to his motivations in this case, and to assert that you or anyone else know what was in his mind when he committed this horrible act is ridiculous."
I'm not saying anything for certain. What I'm saying is that people should be more responsible with what they say so as to not spur on violent action from those that might not otherwise take it. That's not mind-reading, and it's not a violation of the First Amendment either. It's common sense.
We just disagree on this one, and no amount of back & forth is going to change that.
As I've said, I believe freedom of speech should be absolute, and I'd be willing to eliminate even our defamation laws.
(There are also plenty of places in America that allow women to go topless, by the way - NYC for one, believe it or not - and in much of Europe it's not considered "dirty" either.)
I think deciding what's "responsible" in this context is much trickier than you acknowledge, though.
For instance, if Beck really believes the things he says - and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one - then the "responsible" thing to do would be to "inform" people of it, and I doubt he ever once thought to himself, "Some lunatic's going to hear this & shoot police officers," nor, in my opinion, should he have, as he never once advoctated that type of behavior.
There's no evidence that this guy was a regular, or even casual, listener/viewer of Beck, anyway, and I can't help but think that it's "irresponsible" to suggest otherwise.
Similarly, this article mentions Alex Jones' appearance on Judge Napolitano's show in reference to this crime, and how irresponisble Fox was in airing it, then notes that there's no evidence that the shooter actually saw it either, even omitting the fact that Poplawski posted on Jones' site a whopping total of 3 times, and that he did so only to attack Jones' views.
(I also can't help noticing that the author never criticisized Jones when he was saying the exact same things about Bush.)
I don't think either one of us is going to sway the other on this, though.
The sponsors do study the viewers of particular shows and hope to reach those viewers with their ads. Fox might have bragging rights to be the highest rated cable news show, but their ratings are pathetic compared to the ratings of the lowest rated network news program.
And if these sponsors plan on earning profits, solely by doing business with the twenty percenters, that too is their right but I'm sure their stockholders will replace those who prefer to reach twenty percent of the available viewers while turning off the other eighty percent.
Can't imagine Zevon supporting ANY restrictions on speech, WK.
Hey there was a guy that killed himself in the Movie "Watchman" Snoopy can you pull all the advertisers for that Hollywood Company that produced that Movie?
If you can't tell the difference between the plot of a movie and people saying that Obama is basically going to destroy the USA as we know it, you need help.
snoopy, thanks for the list! that's what I came here to find. I think if we don't attack in the pocketbook, nothing will happen. I write regularly to my legislators, I post at change.gov, etc., but I think the most effective is when we contact advertisors directly and let them know that we will stop spending money with them. I currently have hundreds of dollars of prescriptions at Walgreens, and lots of friends and family who do as well. :-)
What gets me is that if this kid with the AK47 had a Iron Maiden or 50 cent poster in his room, the right wing media would be up in arms about the harm rock n roll and rap is doing to this Buck Owens nation.
The fact that this tragic and dearranged person comitted murder is a symptom of much more that is wrong. I an sick of media like Rolling stone promoting links to things that they not only have not investigated, but the fact that people actually read this kind of proaganda and smear about real journalist like Alex Jones. I am aghast at the lack of research these writers do before they put their obvious lack of expertise in reporting, knowledge and thought into a publication. What about their editors...can you say tabloid editors?
How can anyone that reports, comments, or presents arguments, be of such fractionlized and bias information? It is just plain dumb to read such poorly presented articles and believe them.
Seek the truth for yourself and stop having others think for you. Wake up America.
by giving a demographic sampling of the kind of audience that digest fox news militia media, it should be noted how disparate the lives or the economic status of the audience are with those behind the so called fox news militia media.
glenn beck is being driven to and from his connecticut mansion in an escalade;
bill o'reilly can easily settle out of court a multi-million sexual harasment lawsuit;
sean hannity has recently renewed his 9 figure contract.
compare this to the kind of life their audiences have; one shudders to think how their audiences will react if they knew about this.
The emotion of hate over powers all other emotions. People who share the same hate will cross oceans and climb mountains to be together....hate causes some people to even take the lives of their families..........To often we trivialize instead of simplify....Hate brings fox and friends together....its the strongest emotion the human body knows and it dominates any other emotion....think about it..
everyone here makes me laugh. the nut jobs that killed people are responsible for the shooting. no external source can make you kill people they chose to do this themselfs. the only reason you guys try to blame others for the actions of a few nut jobs because it give you a reason to try and discredit other exercising there right to free speech and to try to take away people right to own a gun.
PEOPLE LIKE GLENN BECK AND OTHER LIKE HIM ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE!
PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THERE OWN ACTIONS!
p.s i bet this gets removed from here because you don't respect other right to free speech when it does not go with what you believe in.
(liberals another way of say socialist)
You don't know us very well. Your missive, ignorant and unsupported as it is, will remain.
Do come back and say something else on another thread. This one's pretty long and likely to have few willing to start up a long argument at this point.
words from someone else will invoke thought, thoughts will invoke and idea, an idea will invoke action, some actions caused may hurt someone........ he's not guilty alone
You are a lunatic. He was a Penguins fan too. With your line of reasoning, we should therefore say "Hockey Loaded his gun for him." Have you seen the Obama Deception, or does Eric Boehler do your thinking for you?
Brzezinski wrote in Between Two Ages: "Shortly the public will be unable to reason for themselves. They'll be conditioned to let the media do all their reasoning and thinking for them and the only topics of conversation they will have shortly is what's been feed to them or downloaded into them on the previous night's news."
People listen to Alex Jones when the stop falling for the two-party con.
Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America. Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”Your non-right-wing President is expanding the war, renforcing the PATRIOT act, upholding illegal wiretapping, and keeping extrodinary renditions. alll while throwing more money at the banks like Bush, with anyone with a third grade understanding of math can see is the worst thing to do. (Not to mention Von Mises, Hayak, Rothbard etc)
I listen to Alex Jones because he is over the target, that's why he catches the flack.
"the obama deception", the book read by the nut that killed three policemen. But I find your fear laughable, because he doesn't BAN gun stores, does he? Did the idea that they would relocate ever fit into your equation? It's not a new idea, with emminent domain homeowners are forced to do it all the time in the name of business. Surely business wouldn't have an issue following the same set of rules the rest of us do, right?
I thought some excellent points were made(what books were read is really irrelevant) and as for fear being laughable, when you tie all those points together and the fact that within days of the new admin. taking over there was a bill introduced to repeal the 22nd, well, not so funny anymore...plus emminent domain is a little different than what you're talking about, since instituting laws which are business placement maps(when the businesses already exist) is different from a new-build.
First, post the details. Who sponsored the bill? Where is it in committee? Just you saying it happened isn't gonna cut it.
2nd point - local communities are always reviewing re-zoning laws. Bush's ranger stadium displaced several homes and local businesses. No difference.
H.J. Res.5 Introduced 1/6/09, (my bad, it was a preemptive strike) by Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), and yep, it's in committee..but so what?! The point is that there is a whole lot more going on than people care to notice....Come on, don't any of you guys take a break from watching fox or listening to rush for more ammo to do any research? Especially you, Snoop, you always have stats, graphs, etc. etc.
As for the second point I think emminent domain becomes nonexistent when the re-zoning is based purely on political leanings and not on business...
Considering that the gun lobby has both Dems and Reps in its pocket, I wouldn't loose too much sleep over it.
I wanted to make sure you were not just making it up about the bill. But you are disengenious suggesting it's an Obama thing. Serrano has been introducting this bill to every congress since 1997, and surprise! He has a republican co-sponsor (Christopher Shays) on many of them!
Nice conspiracy theory though...
Nah, I wouldn't make it up, no good reason to! As for a repub co-sponsoring for Serrano it wouldn't suprise me.... a long time ago I came to the stark realization that repubs and dems are basically trying to accomplish the same thing(drumroll please)....staying in power at ALL costs. It's sad to say it but we are living in at the very least an aristocracy, maybe an oligarchy. The only solution to the problem is to break the power stranglehold the two-party system has.... but while all of us are distracted by anything and everything, including arguing amongst ourselves nothing will ever be done! (BTW Nice riposte Snoop, thanks for being more genteel than I have seen you in some posts!)
You have a few points, maybe two, but you overplay them. The rest partially to wholly bogus. Which makes turning to you as an authority a pretty clueless thing to do.
Nice to see a new generation of troll posters, or old trolls with new names. Really sparkles up the old place.
Really? Almost every gun store in America is within 5 miles of a school or park? Sounds like there's something pretty f'ed up with gun store locations in America. Or you're just making that part up. Which is probably more likely.
This was a great explanation of what's going on over at Fox - Faux - News. Maybe it's me, but I'm becoming more increasingly afraid every time I deign to stop at this station and see what hate they are espousing. It's nothing more than hate speech, and I will compare them to others who spread this kind of speech and ilk - they are equal to the terrorists that they claim to hate. They are equal to the KKK as far as I'm concerned. And I'm glad that Media Matters exists so that they can be called on their bull hockus on the regular.
So Obama won't take away guns??
How would have guessed he would try to tax worker's health care or take money away from charities either?
somebody's helmut is on too tight again...
Actually McCain's plan would have taxed workers' health care. I have no idea what evidence you have about Obama taking money from charities.
I'm guessing he's alluding to the reduction in the amount of charitable contributions that are deductible from income taxes (by a whopping 7 cents on the dollar). I'm also guessing in his mind this means that there will be far less contributions made, but that doesn't make any sense. Regardless of the allowed percentage of deduction, it doesn't change the fact that the less you give, the less you can deduct.
Won't be long now until Beck stars comparing complaints against him to parents blaming video games for violence; which Beck was one of those people.
I feel that the problem comes from the bias in the media and that it is clear that the "Main Stream media" now has a dog in the fight. Therefore who can trust them? That's where the Beale comparison comes to play. And, anyone who can state facts, which Beck does, has much more credibility then others it's simple entertainment. Like it or hate it can you deny the facts?
I voted for President Obama and identify myself as a Progressive. I do Podcast Alex Jones and have seen all of his movies, including 'The Obama Deception'. I don't agree with all of Alex Jones's views, but will admit that he has researched and documented all of his claims.
In 2+ years of Podcasting his Weekday and Sunday show, I have never heard Alex Jones advocate or incite or promote any violence in regards to disagreements with the U.S. Government. He has been an advocate of states rights, the U.S. Constitution, and U.S. Soverigny. He has also raised awareness to the inconsistencies of the 'official' 9/11 report.
Glenn Beck and the rest of FoxNews had rallied hard against Alex Jones during Buss II regime, and now that they man isn't in the office they are co-opting Alex's views to fit their needs.
When are you Americans going to instigate some sensible broadcasting regulations like most other civilised countries have?
Oh, that's right, Americans like Beck, Hannity, and ORielly aren't much into ANY kind of regulations are they?
Broadcasting regulations? Hell no.
Gun control regulations? Hell no.
Regulations on financial institutions? Hell no.
How's that been working out for you lately? Hell!
Glenn Beck and Fox are shills when convenient; then a gatekeeper and diverter when convenient.(like Michael Moore) I suggest reading "Manufacturing Consent" by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, which is a book, unlike the Obama Deception, which is a movie. Do you believe me b/c I disagree with you, or only to those whom would validate your arguments? See without an agenda; hear without notions.
I am asserting that Alex Jones awakens many to the false right-left paradigm, as Chomsky, as Ron Paul, Naomi Wolfe, G. Edward Griffeth, etc. Alex Jones never advocates pre-emptive violence, that is more than you can say for Bush-Blair (Iraq Lies) or Obama (preventing terrorism by attacking Pakistan/Afghanistan) Bhutto herself said before her murder that Osama Bin Laden is dead, which everyone in Asia and the Arab world knows. This is the type of news AJ covers, as well as Mike Rivera, Alan Watt, Wearechange.org, Amy Goodman etc.
Firearms Legislation In The 111th Congress
H.R. 17 (Bartlett): This bill would reaffirm the right to use firearms for self-defense and for defense of one’s home and family. Other Bills include: H.R. 45 (Rush); H.R. 197 (Stearns); H.R. 257 (Jackson Lee); H.R. 442 (Rehberg); H.R. 495 (Rodriguez, Teague, Engel, Reyes); H.R. 1074 (Scalise) - Not to mention dozens of ammunition laws on the books. Will you feel comfortable when the opnly ones with guns are the police, the military (which are policing here now - (Armytimes) and the gangs? What if people had guns at that immigration center? Two-Three people would have died tops.
Ad hominem attacks are employed here as well as other fallacies such as argumentum ad vericundium (a friend gave me a book on logic which really changed my perspective regarding the false right-left paradigm)
I thought as you a very short while ago...intelligent but trusting...another friend I hadn't seen in years asked me to do look into 9/11. That was one year ago; and it has been quite a journey I can assure you.
This guy that went ape-sh was a 22 year old former marine (no inhibitions about killing) living with mommy, a rascist who disagreed with Alex Jones (Total of three posts prove it; this is my second, will they blame media matters b/c i posted here disagreeing?) Good Luck look into 9/11 loosechange; terrorstorm...it will blow your mind i Pormise. And the Obama Deception...is mostly about how the bankers control the Agenda and that Presidents are puppets. Jefferson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Wilson, FDR, Jackson have said as much.
Amy Goodman reported that Osama bin laden is dead? Could you provide the link for that?
The Ancients: "Bhutto herself said before her murder that Osama Bin Laden is dead" - if links don't get posted for security resons go to youtube, type in "bhutto bin laden". www dot youtube dot com slash watch qmark v equals UnychOXj9Tg or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
Bin Laden was a CIA agent code name TIM Osman. OBL was never indicted for the 9/11 bombings...check the fbi most wanted site (not enough evidence to indict on 9/11) Afghanistan is about opium. period. Look into Prescott Bush's Nazi connections, the Opium wars, GB senior-Panama-coke-florida connections, Look into Tillman's "friendly fire incident." where he got shot in the face three times from 5 feet and what he was about to go public with; communicating with Chomsky.
Did you actually read my post? I am citing Amy Goodman as someone who tells the truth like Larouch, Kuccinich, Cynthia McKinney and Nadir. However, I don't agree with any of the aforementioned's politics, but they are definately not disingenuous like Glenn Beck, so I respect them.
Who I am is not important, but I will tell you that I was involved (very low level) in funneling money to the Afghani Jihadis when they were battling the Soviets, many years before I learned of the "GRAND Chessboard" (Zbignew Brezinski), and that the Soviets were never our enemies (Anthony Sutton, Norman Dodd- Rease Commision, Armand Hammer, Oppenheimer)
Yea, I read your post but your sentence was clumsy and all I asked for was clarification. Your right who you are is not important!
One more thing; kudos to Media Matters and Eric Boehler for not filtering my post or deleting me. At least they support free speech of commentators.
Unfortunately, 'TheAncients', you appear to be spot on. There is much more I am sure you could have referred to. As could I. When more folks begin to realize the falseness of the fabricated 'left-right' -distract the people - paradigm and begin to recognize the real perps, then perhaps, just perhaps, we may be able to resuscitate the nearly, completely dead Republic. If we don't -as is more likely - most here won't be too pleased with the police state which is (not so slowly) replacing it. By the time the transformation is completed, it will be far too late to do anything about it.
But take heart. You'll still be able to 'vote' for whichever candidates are selected by the oligarchs. And as 'debt serfs' in the new feudal World Hegemony, you'll still imagine you are free. Remember, "There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe
One question did Alex Jones do this ?: Jones also noted with excitement that Fox News' Glenn Beck had recently begun warning about the looming New World Order on his show, just like Jones had for years. "It is great!" Just a yes or no will suffice!
It is unbelievable , in the name of Freedom of speech, these people can spread the hate through airwave and TV. This is not freedom of Speech. Freedom to spread the hate is different from actual Freedom of Speech. These right wing talk show hosts are just spreading hate againsts, liberals, gays, minorities, agianst legal or illegal immigrants......on and on. We need to stop it. Can we do something to stop preaching of hate????? If we dont stop it, that will be manifested in the form of severe hate crimes on the streets of United States.
Eric you truly are a tool. You sit here and write a commentary on topics that you have at best poorly researched, and you try to slander people who are out there making a name for themselves by speaking the truth. The fact of the matter is that Alex Jones is trying to educate people about how our government has been taken over by criminal elements of the Anglo-American banking oligarchy. But someone like youself who disagrees with him, would rather try to link him to white supremacist psychopaths, than debate him on the facts. Fox News and Glenn Beck are owned just as much by the criminal establishment as you are yourself. The fact of the matter is Poplawski was angry at Alex Jones for not being aligned with his "skin-head" views. Also keep in mind it wasn't Alex Jones who trained him to be a deadly killer, no that was the marine corps. Oh and lets not forget his conspiritorial view are what had sent him over the edge, but wait.... im pretty sure the cops were called over a dispute he had with his mother about his animal urinating in the home. But hey, im just another tin foil junkie, living in a dream world. Actually, it is you Eric living in a dream world. The fact Eric is that there is a push for global government, and it will sooner than later affect us all. I hope you educate youself before its too late. Maybe instead of criticizing The Obama Deception, you should check it out on youtube or google video. Then as an adult you can make an informed decision whether to believe it or not, rather then just smear something that you only have one side of the facts about.
Finally someone is publicizing the racist propaganda machine backed by FIXED Noise. When you spew racism then the 'Nuts" will act with impunity as we witnessed in the Pittsburgh shootings. The right wing media see's no alternative other than to evoke so much hatred that someone will act to do harm to the President. I hope that they violate some law that will terminate their actions. We must remain vigilant in pointing out these neo-Nazis who want to bring this government down. Where are you who called Americans terrorist and unpatriotic when they spoke out against the Iraq war and George Bush's policies? Now your mouths are spewing Racism and inciting domestic disturbance yet you feel you have some right to do so. You are slime balls. You are lower than blood sucking ticks. Yet you say you love America. How laughable you are. Your ignorance is only exceeded by the narrow minded support of GW Bush and Cheney. You mindless farts need to get a grip...Obama is here to stay.
As for those talking about health care...most of you have never been sick and discovered that your Insurance will only cover 70% of the total cost and getting a $30K bill. Not many can pay and therefore you only can make a choice of the gold standard so you choose to treat symptoms rather than the disease. Nor have any of you been laid off and have no Insurance. Nor have you had a child who had a pre-existing disease and no one would insure them or COBRA cost over $1200 a month yet you're only getting un-employment for the next 12 months.
Therefore you ditto heads need to really check yourself...because you might lose your job, or you daughter may get sick, or wife and you can't afford health care. We need Universal coverage because of these issues and no country like ours should deny any American health care.
I am not surprised at the nonsense Beck says each and every day. What truly surprises me is that he has an audience. That is the freightening part of this discussion. Unfortunately there are far too many of our fellow citizens who are too tightly wrapped. Free speech means we must allow the idiot fringe the right to express themselves, even if their views are just short of homicidal and offensive. The price we pay for living in a free land is putting up with an dangerous idiot like Glenn Beck. The people who employ him are far more dangerous.
Speaking of Manson, didn´t he get secret messages from the Beatles? Didn´t those messages tell him or lead him to murder? Well, I suppose anyone who has ever listened to the Beatles or God-forbid, still does, is a potential killer and we should just burn all Beatles music on a big bonfire, kinda like the Nazi did right? What do you think Eric, you being a music expert and all.
Or maybe we should just "put to sleep" all dogs that pee on the floor, because it´s REALLY the dog´s fault this guy decided to kill- any idiot can see that!
All jesting aside, this is about censorship. Or the potential for censorship, by claiming this disturbed man was so influenced by what he read/viewed and then naming certain media personalities, and suggesting that this was the only reason that lead him to kill(sorry, Eric but do have a psychiatic degree?).
Here´s is something interesting for those who can be open to other views(those not stuck in the Left/Right paradigm) and care about the freedom to have other views or just for people who like to post lists.
The Top 25 Censored Stories of 2009
www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/
And they have archives of news from years past, when other presidents were in office. Here you can read the News that didn´t make the news -BECAUSE: MEDIA MATTERS!
Have fun with that!I don't think the suggestion is that there's only one reason for the killings. The point is that extremist rhetoric is a contributing factor. It's really not "censorship" to say that people should be more responsible with their words.
Eminent domain is theivery.
The armed are the last defense against the inevitable tyranny. I would rather walk into a mall where I know half the people are packing. Where's the safest place in the US? your local a gun store.
( * )( * ) each of those radaii are 5 miles. that mean's no gun store for twenty miles straight. now stack em. All the gun store will only be allowed to exist in the most rural areas of the US. It's non-euclidian geometry. Stop drinking flouride, watching TV, taking vaccinations, and eating GMO foods and you will be suprised at your trebled IQ and clarity.
You seem pretty delusional to me, so tell me how your going to take out an A 10 Warhog targeting your bunker, with your assault rifle.
Cuse, thats warthog.
The crazy's are coming out today!
I've noticed that each Media whore has their own set of "groupies" that come along to defend them. Sometimes, they only show up in threads about their very special coward. It would be funny if these 'entertainers" weren't so unhinged.
Wow this just shows the stupidity that is running wild in our country concerning issues such as this. To actually believe that this man was influenced by someone is asinine. If you believe this to be true then blame the alcohol company that made the alcohol he was buzzed out on too. He was a full grown man that had some mental issues for sure, he made had a choice and his choice was to stay enraged and kill someone.
The real person to blame for those cops getting killed besides this psycho is the person that took the 911 call. They failed to mention to the cops that this guy was armed and extremely dangerous, drunk and enraged. Come on people, I know half of you on this blog have half a brain to think for yourselves, at least I would sure hope so.
And to Mr. Boehlert, get your facts straight sir and quit trying to blame other "conspiracy" nuts for some nut that was liquored up and on a rampage. Place blame where blame is due; on the guy that was obviously nuts to begin with and with the 911 worker that FAILED to tell the policy this guy was armed and dangerous. You, Mr. Boehlert are the reason why kids should not smoke pot; printing garbage like this is crazy. Are you going to blame video games and rap music for the next mass killing that happens?
Here is the proof about the 911 dispatcher that took the called and FAILED at their job. Use common sense and good research instead of degrading the intelligence of your readers. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxAP_ul1xtDvN-3H8XQ5EaI6_7cAD97DRUS00
What's asinine is to believe that propoganda doesn't work. Of course, it works. If you call for people to commit acts of violence and people who admire, respect, and listen to you commit those acts of violence, you are morally culpable. Charles Manson is in jail for doing exactly that!
Where is your proof that Alex Jones called for acts of violence against the police/government? From the little I have heard of him on the radio, he is pushing to resolve things peacefully. Please provide proof that Alex Jones called for this.....
I do agree with you that propoganda does work as the government has duped many into believing that the left and right are completely different when it comes to politicians. I still place blame on the 911 dispatcher for not mentioning to the police this guy was armed and dangerous, that is their job to give them all the details so they know what they are walking into.
Two questions? I have listened to Michael Savage, Alan Colmes, Alex Jones; played violent video games and been mad as hell over our politicians allowing our country to go down the toilet. Why have I not felt the desire to go out and kill cops and elected officials? If these guys have so much influence over so many why have I or millions of others not gone out on a killing spree?
Here is another story that just broke on Yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090408/ap_on_re_us/retreat_shooting
They going to blame this one on Alex Jones again?
Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.
I have little fear of the our military launching an full-blown attack against the people, because they would lose their mandate. They use Fabian Techniques of incrementalization, slow militarization with the occasional false flag or wholesale slaughter like Waco. Or maybe a famine like the Ukraine. Or camps like Hitler.
Besides, if a psychotic faction of the military launches a full-blown attack against us the majority of the military will turn against that faction.
Would you rather have an assault rifle like the Taliban and bleed an occupying Army for 8 years or just give in? The best weapon is spreading information. If one of you questions your perspective I have not wasted my tme posting here. Good luck in your research! Check out Alex Jones, he will open your eyes...he is not like the preconceived notions that you may harbour.
Well said Ancient;
I feel that when and if it comes down to it, you will see a majority of people (civilian,police, and military) go against the faction.
The bad part about this whole entire episode is that many are still ill-informed and choose to just read articles from people they like, listen to talk radio programs they like and go with what they are told. Many of them don't bother to research things they have been told or read and sit in the dark instead of standing up and taking the time to do some critical thinking and legitimate research. Such as this corporate stooge that tried to blame Alex for this psycho shooting those cops, he didn't bother to research that this guy disagreed with Alex's views and the fact the 911 dispatcher failed in their duty to inform the cops this guy was armed and dangerous.
Until more people stand up and find out that their own officials are screwing them and trying to make sure the people can't stand up to take their government back, we will continue to fall into total tyranny.
Great post and keep up the great work :)
I didn't say that he did. I said the belief that statements that indirectly call for violence are somehow unrelated to the subsequent acts of violence is patently absurd. People go to jail all the time for urging people to commit acts of violence. Fox News has done so indirectly for years now and the only reason they aren't in jail is because of the suit and the tie and the size of their megaphone.
How about this: Somebody publish addresses for Alex Jones, Glen Beck, Bill-O, Hannity and pictures of their kids as well as an up-to-date schedule of his whereabouts. Blueprints for security and floor diagrams of Fox News studios, nearest gun stores etc... We have an entire channel dedicated 24 hrs a day to this but we never directly call for violence. Is that okay by you? Is that protected speech for you?
Do all of this with cryptic allusion to the declaration of independence and teary eyed pundits recalling 9-11 and lamenting how Fox News destroyed the country?
Wow Dio, I guess you missed the whole entire point of what this thread is all about. The corporate shill that wrote about this psycho shooting those cops openly blames Alex Jones for the incident. That is why I was ranting that people like him should quit smoking pot and do some actual research for as to who was really responsible for this mess. Instead of posting facts, he went straight to the point of placing blame on someone that doesn't even stand for what this psycho did. Please stay on topic....
Next, I never said that people weren't influenced by propoganda, you assumed that.
Finally, I feel sorry for you and others who watch that corporate/government run garbage on CNN and Fox News. I am against the garbage that spews out of those two agencies. Yet, you still did not answer my question about millions of people that are actually unfortunate enough to still be watching those programs, listening to those people; why have they not gone crazy and started killing cops and elected officials?
By the way, the government has all those details on those folks just lacking the t.v. channel. And protected speech is right here, you and I arguing over this useless thread.
As with any propoganda some answer the call, some don't. Not everyone participated in the Rwanda massacres either. It is after all difficult and troublesome to assassinate someone. Also it's early in the Obama presidency. Give it time.
But the left has unilaterally disarmed. We need to make it as hard for these guys to do business as possible because that is precisely what they do to everyone they disagree with. And the article is not entirely about Alex Jones you idiot so I;'m not off topic!!! You made a statement about hate-filled propoganda that was generalized and I took issue with it. Deal!
Thank you for the response Dio, of course I know this whole topic is not about Alex, it is about blaming others for the information they relay to the public. The guy that shot those cops was already crazy and I was suprised to find out this one was not on Prozac like the other shooters. I would just like to see a little more research on a topic like this instead of just ranting about certain individuals. Would have been nice to see some links about the dispatchers mess up.
I totally agree with one thing though, a lot of people need to quit calling for heads that is why I quit listening to that little troll Beck. We need to address the real problem that is going on in this country. People are losing their jobs at a record number and most of those in Congress and in the White House could care less; people are feeling hopeless and going crazy. (Thus, the mass shootings + some Prozac induced)
People need to quit listening to those shills calling for heads and make the appropiate changes that are needed in this country regarding our economy and our leaders. I agree that Fox News and CNN need to tone down the party head hunting. But then again if you think about what is happening in this nation right now, that is what the government wants for total control over everything is for people to resolve this crisis with violence. What better way to do that than to have their own media outlets stir the pot.
fear is a sign of weakness. God isn't the author of fear......the real motivations comes from the other in.
sick
If he's anything like you, no thankyou!
who do you know that has an ax to grind but keeps it quiet? These guys have take polls on what Neilsen rating americans what to hear.....they're geniuses...they cater to the Neilsen ratings demographics and they'r numbers shoot up and then they get all the advertising dollars.......fox and crew are very intelligent......I don't agree with them but I see them..
Our ancestors use to tell black people to go back to Africa whenever they complained about America. Who's holding Beck and Hannity back from finding a better country to live in. Obama can't change America in 8 years. I don't think its about Obama,,,,,I still think this country has people who let hate get the best of them.
Please give us a list of the sponsors of the Beck show and post it on the main page. We need to let them know we don't like what Fox is broadcasting.
Why would you go after the advertisers when you don't watch the channel in the first place????
I tell you what...I am learning SO MUCH about how you all operate. I can just send a screenprint of this page to the advertisers to let them know to just ignore all of your emails because you don't watch the channel. I don't watch any of these channels or I would have beamed CNN or MSNBC's advertisers years ago.
In a society full of overmedicated folks and thin-skinned wussies that can get offended by Spongebob Squarepants for God's sake somehow...Why do you all not realize that the hatred spewed at the right and back to the left by OUR MOUTHS and our keystrokes is a major cause of all of this? Many folks look at life as a spiritual battle. possibly even a great moral degradation brought on by the left. Circumstances that give millions the excuse to kill unborn children could be one HUGE catalyst of anger for many.
Could a night of overconsumption of alcohol with no sleep with a BIG spike of adrenaline have had anything to do with this? We could throw in a touch of depression too if you will?
Simple. We may not watch the show but we do buy the products. We can demand that advertisers stop feeding the Hate Machine or we boycott their products. As a strategy, it has historically been very successful and I applaud the posting of those advertisers now.
"Why would you go after the advertisers when you don't watch the channel in the first place????"
Because they might not want to be associated with this sort of thing, no matter who is bringing it to their attention.
"I can just send a screenprint of this page to the advertisers to let them know to just ignore all of your emails because you don't watch the channel. I don't watch any of these channels or I would have beamed CNN or MSNBC's advertisers years ago."
I'm sure that will be very persuasive. "Keep sponsoring this nutcase because the people complaining about him don't watch his lunacy". Brilliant.
"In a society full of overmedicated folks and thin-skinned wussies that can get offended by Spongebob Squarepants for God's sake somehow..."
James Dobson? The conservative?
"Why do you all not realize that the hatred spewed at the right and back to the left by OUR MOUTHS and our keystrokes is a major cause of all of this? Many folks look at life as a spiritual battle. possibly even a great moral degradation brought on by the left. Circumstances that give millions the excuse to kill unborn children could be one HUGE catalyst of anger for many."
So you don't see the reasoning for going after advertisers when Beck is stoking irrational hatred, but people who advocate abortion rights are somehow responsible for the hatred spewed from the right. Is that about right?
"Could a night of overconsumption of alcohol with no sleep with a BIG spike of adrenaline have had anything to do with this? We could throw in a touch of depression too if you will?"
Those things could be factors, as well as influence from television personalities could be a factor.
I could possibly understand this behavior from you all if not for the 24 hour/around the clock bull that more channels spew at the right. Why do you think that I do not watch ANY of these channels? I am one less customer watching advertisements.
I have been trying to think of a way to sue ALL of these networks for false advertising. CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews all claim to simply state the news. None of them do. Someone has GOT to get this media circus under control. If I want want entertainment, I watch HBO(except America-hater Maher).
One more point that is key to this discussion...No matter what is said on tv or the radio, there are many on the left AND right that cannot rub two scruples together and they just fall in line with their peers. The PACK mentality, which I see quite a bit here even when the argument is irrational. Either way, going after the right of an American to have an opinion is gutless. This shows your inability to go toe to toe. You look like a Palestianian rockthrower dude. (Throw and run)
The left can spew junk out of the side of their necks 24 hours a day, I do not care. Blaming music, FoxNews or Scooby Doo for other folks actions is flat-out dumb. To tear down the right for an American right or wrong to have an opinion is un-American.
Nobody is saying that anybody lacks the right to an opinion. Opinions are not sacred, though, they can be judged. If Olbermann's opinion was that Bush conspired in the 9/11 attacks, you can be damn sure that he would be condemned for that.
And I just love this high and mighty BS as if conservatives weren't calling liberals traitors for criticizing the commander-in-chief in a time of war. Truly precious.
Right. To tear down somebody for having an opinion is terrible, right after you say that Bill Maher hates America. Yeah, you're so much more open-minded than I am. Examine yourself, man. Realize that you're spouting out hateful crap without even thinking about it.
Amazing!
I find it fascinating that you bring up Bill Maher, considering he was fired do to right-wing outrage. When conservatives find something offensive, they go after the person, but liberals aren't supposed to do the same thing.
Why?
Pardon me, "due to".
We have something in common. I have always felt that anything against Obama that is said that I am automatically a racist. Let me tell you with a firm handshake here, I am the furthest from racist as you can be. I do not like people that use race as an excuse to fail or to get perks.
Bill Maher is the epitome of extreme lefty hatred. He has hatred for so many Americans. See, the difference in Bill and myself is I would take a bullet for ANY American when I served. He would step aside if he knew you were from the right. (He probably would step aside either way actually, the wuss.) Talking about someone inciting hatred. You guys are talking about the WRONG PERSON!
I already understood your views on Maher. I'm not sure how that answered my question. And I have absolutely no idea where racism and Obama came into this particular conversation.
Reality,
Then why would you assume that brown skinned construction workers are not Amercians? There is a disproportionate number of hispanics on construction crews relative to the population. There are also a disproportionate number of whites on Wall Street and in the House and Senate. When executive bonuses went to the bailed-out corporate elite their was no outrage based on the color of their skin. It was based on their "niche". The outrage was based on There are disproportionate numbers of Asian people in other places. Maybe the construction workers were looking back at you thinkng, "Here we are building this road and that guy is at home looking out the window"
And
Re: the list of links...
Does anyone else have problems with these links?
most of them do not copy correctly and/or even link correctly in my browser.
Plus, might this not be a case for actual complaint to the FCC?
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
This article was extremely hilarious! If Fox is so bad; then just tune out. Obviously since Fox ratings are above all other networks in EVERY time slot (Cable News Ratings); they clearly have a very receptive audience.
Beck and Fox are entitled to their options; even if the writer does not agree. Fox IMO is not any worse then the left leaning MSNBC. Fox just has better ratings. LOL
I am smart enough to recognize bias on msnbc when I see/hear.
and in the words of Dick Cheney: "so what?"
_Please, Please, Please, I beg you: show me ANYTHING that compares to the style and content of Glenn Beck's sickening rhetoric...
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
Sorry I’m not pined to my PC, and did not have a chance to reply to your reply. LOL
Do you actually watch the Chris Matthews show? He cuts off people he disagrees with, has limited knowledge of the issues that matter (Michele Obama’s European Wardrobe selections for instance does not qualify); His discussions are far from intelligent on even an elementary school level.
me neither.
I recall watching Matthews recently battle it out with Ari Fleischer one night for a number of segments of his show (of course not all discussions are Harvard School of Broadcasting I would admit) but he at least tries to have a real engagement...
However, most Fox commentators cut off even their own allies in their discussions well before the break. There commentary is based on quick quips, specious idioms, and inflammatory innuendo (if not outright slander) and sometimes, arguably, speech that foments "nut-jobs" to take action
thought not.
By the way, put in proper context, most of what is "biased" on msnbc is often a response to the likes of extremist's comments on Fox cable.
Now any intelligent viewer would see that Chris Matthews tends to "be in the tank for Obama", so what?... the difference is that he has actual, full-blown, intelligent [um, for the most part ;o) ] discussions with his guests
What really cracks me up most about these rightwingers like Glen Beck and Michele Bachmann, is they remained silent on the tyrrany of the Bush administration for 8 years. Obama's been president for 0.2 years, and it's the end of America. Therefore, they can't be taken seriously. You can't say it's "OK" if "our guys" are tyrants.
Big Dan,
They do that to keep the left vs. right paradigm going and to keep people distracted from our country being looted by the Fed Reserve and their banker buds. Bush was a huge tyrant and turned most of our industry over to the overseas interests, gutting this country and declaring war on his own people. Obama is just a new face for the same order that has been looting this country and destroying our Constitutional rights. I really wish he would have been like MLK but then again, MLK stood against the same crooks and ideology that run this country right now.
Both of those two are trolls
I hope the victims' families sue News Corporation and Fox News. This is the only way to stop Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly. Otherwise, the producers and the suits won't lift a finger.
Jim Adkisson and Richard Poplawski were already crazed, but it takes one rightwing talk show host's rhetoric to push them over the edge.
Because of Beck's twisted rhetoric, three police officers are dead. Poplawski may have pulled the trigger, but Beck provided the reason.
Blaming Beck for this tradegy is sick and perverse. I have a novel idea, why not blame the killer??
I can sum this up much more succinctly, "liberal mindset". If someone is poor, someone ELSE was greedy and made too much money. (Nevermind the long hours, time away from family, the stress, responsibility of making that kind of money to get the family ahead. That takes something in the poors mindset that simply is not there, selflessness. It is always about them and how they got the shortest straw. Responsibility is a constantly moving target. The 10% of the planets Muslims which ARE extremists have a right to blow us up because of Bush. The same man that did EXACTLY as Obama is doing now by ensuring this was not a war against Islam, but terrorists, MANY, many times. The difference is that he did it with some dignity and without blaming ourselves in other words as Obama has done.
This is irresponsible for any American to blame a killers warped rationale on someone else. This guy coldly killed several folks selfishly. These folks had families.
What a ridiculous load of generalizations. First off, what makes you think that poor people don't sacrifice for others? And where has anyone even suggested that anyone has a "right" to blow up people?
I don't know how many people I've seen who can't tell the difference between explaining something and justifying it. It's not that complicated. Extremist muslim rhetoric and aggressive foreign policy are both factors that explain Islamic terrorism. In other words, you seem to view "responsibility" as something like a football that only one person can possess at a time, and that's not how it is. Many different people can be responsible in different ways and on different levels, and recognizing that can be very important in comprehension and prevention.
And it doesn't seem that long ago that conservatives were talking about how liberals were emboldening terrorists when they criticized the war. If nobody but the actual terrorist is responsible for anything, then what the hell was the point of that particular charge?
Pointofview says:
Clearly, someone needs to hire a lawyer to discuss "vicarious liability" with Fox News. It wouldn't hurt some of the chuckleheads like pointofview to educate themselves, either. Give an idiot an idea, and he'll run with it. Especially if it's a violent idea.
Glenn Beck is crazed. I heard his ratings are incredibly (high) and he's in an afternoon time slot when few working people can watch the broadcast. He is clearly stirring up trouble. I'll try to contact his sponsors.
Thank you so much, Mr. Broehlert. Over these last weeks I too, have become increasingly alarmed , as well as outraged at this call for "insurrection" by Fox News. I truly believe that they are laying the groundwork for one of their crazed followers to assassinate our new President. Mr. Beck is more than enough, but unfortunately he is only one of several of their irresponsible hosts. Beginning with the early morning "Fox and Friends" the diatribe against Mr. Obama continues throughout the day culminating, of course, with Beck, HANNITY, O'Reilly and Van Susterin. I so wish other media folks (K. Olbermann excluded) would recognize the seriousness of this, and take on this evil, and yes, racist network. I am an elderly woman and can say that I have NEVER seen a network take this kind of "activist" role in trying to disrupt the presidency of any other duly elected leader of this country. It is interesting that as disliked as President Bush was by MANY in the media, I can't recall anything comparable to what Fox is attempting here. With this economic crisis sending so many Americans to the "brink", and ith many looking for someone to blame, doesn't this qualify as "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater"? I wonder if this would be of concern to the FCC? I intend to find out. We can't sit by in silence and let FOX get away with this.
If you want to understand where Glenn Beck is coming from it is important to understand the source of his world view. He is an enthusiastic Mormon and Mormons believe that America is destined to suffer a large scale social breakdown associated with Armagedon. The standard prophetic vision of the Mormons is contained in the writings of John Taylor, its third president and "prophet". If you subscribe to those prophetic visions, as Glenn Beck does, you imagine that America is destined, as a matter of providential certainty, to self-destruct. Here is a Youtube link to a Mormon video which promotes the Glenn Beck vision of America's future: YouTube - new world order secret combinatiions john taylors vision. After seeing that, is it any wonder that Glenn is crying on his program? But I also wonder if Glenn has gotten caught up in promoting his religious views along the lines of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Is Beck that enthusiastic? My understanding is that he's also an alcoholic, while Mormons strongly discourage (at best) alcohol consumption. Also, Taylor defended polygamy, which has been grounds for excommunication within the church for almost 120 years. It's possible to be enthusiastic about the modern state of the church without agreeing with the early fundamentalism of the movement.
I'm not saying it's impossible, it just seems like a bit of a stretch on the surface of it. When I'm able to watch the video maybe that will help make the connection a little clearer.
I find it to be utterly hilarious how each side of the phony left/right paradigm suddenly rediscover the constitution and liberty when they find themselves on the minority.
Fact finding institutions like Larry Clayman's Judicial Watch, or Alex Jones's InfoWars, are always the darlings of the minority, and ridiculed as conspiracy, nutbags by the majority.
Back during the dark days of the Bush Regime, Media Matters pointed out, and rightfully so, the hypocrisy and lies of the adminstration, and the media whores who backed them, now the tables have flipped, and it's the wretched whore, Fox News, who have all of a sudden embraced (almost) freedom, and Liberty, and it is Media Matters who have become authoritarian tool to impose the will of the majority.
It's time to wake up and realize that the left and right establishment play for the same team, and ain't none of us on it.
And so far as this New World Order "conspiracy", I wonder why noone is calling Gordon Brown, Henry Kissinger, Sarkosy, Time Magazine, The New York Times, the BBC, conspiracy theorist, because one Google search will give you umpteen articles about all of the above talking about it as an emerging reality.
If that be the case, logic would tell you, maybe you should research and find out exactly what this New World Order is, and what does it mean to you.
I think some people need to lay off the 2 party kool aid, and do their home work.
I know you won't like what you find, so most of you will go back to the more comfortable phony left/right paradigm.
There is a tendency I've noticed of Americans to assume that partisanship is equally bad on both sides, that the nasty rhetoric we're seeing now is merely the flip-side of criticism Bush endured. If you believe this, you clearly have not been paying attention. Bush eviscerated basic tenets of the US Constitution, as well as international law, he invaded Iraq without seriously considering an alternative, or a plan to win the peace, and he did in fact loot the treasury to the benefit of very few power players. Prior to that, however, when the bombs started falling in Afghanistan, he had 90% approval and virtually universal deference from the mainstream press.
Obama, on the other hand, having inherited this mess, is enduring withering criticism, which is an extension of the smear campaign he endured during the election, and most of it is coming from Fox News and talk radio. The tactics employed by these outlets include demonizing homosexuals, immigrants, and religious minorities, and promoting an international socialist conspiracy to destroy America and take your guns. These tactics are in no way comparable to the criticism Bush received.
Thank you "eyes". You have proivided a glaring example of my point exactly.
It appears Obama is continuing the Bush Regime's agenda to destroy the Constitution, usurp American souverienty, and implement the agenda of the Global ogliarches.
Obama has violated international law by bombing the souverign nation of Pakistan, but that's ok. Obama is ramping up the protection of the poppy crop in Afghanistan, but that's ok. Obama, and Bush held hands to implement the Banker Heist Bill. As a matter of fact, the weak and powerless Democrats did everything and continue so to cover and continue the crimes of the previous adminstration.
If you loved Bush, than you should love Obama, and vice versa.
Unfortunately you live in the blue guy good, red guy bad world, where principle is left behind, and as long as my guy is in power, than everything is ok.
Oh, and though all the world leaders, and the mainstream media are promoting a New World Order, it some how is some nutty idea fostered on extreme websites?
Thanks for validating my post.
"It appears Obama is continuing the Bush Regime's agenda to destroy the Constitution, usurp American souverienty, and implement the agenda of the Global ogliarches.
Obama has violated international law by bombing the souverign nation of Pakistan, but that's ok. Obama is ramping up the protection of the poppy crop in Afghanistan, but that's ok. Obama, and Bush held hands to implement the Banker Heist Bill. As a matter of fact, the weak and powerless Democrats did everything and continue so to cover and continue the crimes of the previous adminstration."
Wow. It's fairly pointless to have a discussion when so many particiants in the discussion are completely off their rockers.
The "soverign nation" of Pakistan has no ability or intention to exert authority over the terrorists operating within its borders. The United States is well within its rights under international law to strike at these elements, which seek not only to undermine the legitimate US military operation in Afghanistan, but also to strike at America itself, as they did on 9/11. Furthermore, Obama is protecting the opium crop? Are you serious?
Ah yes, the Democrat/Republican Oligarch conspiracy. I've heard this one before. You folks like to talk in hyperbolic, paranoid conspiracy language about that one. Fact is, we need Wall Street to help get us out of the mess that they (largely) created. I don't think any rational person would question the utility of stock markets, or of the financial industry. A well-regulated international financial infrastructure is crucial to the free exchange of goods and services.
Obama is a Constitutional scholar, and he is making every effort to determine the most prudent, legal way forward in addressing the unique challenges posed by international terrorism. Unlike Bush, who summarily threw out Contitutional premises..
Seriously, you're a fringe conspiracy theorist. Admit it. And my original post certainly does restate a compelling case, made repeatedly on this site and others, that Fox News and the talk radio circuit are espousing a dangerous brand of incendiary propaganda intended to bring down the Obama administration. The puppetmasters of the right wing are very afraid of an administration that would rebuild the safety net, strengthen the rule of law, strengthen our ties to the international community, work to repair the environment, and ensure that we are on a firm fiscal footing going forward, including a sane tax policy. By espousing crazy conspiracy theories, you are accomplishing nothing but babbling nonsensically.
Excuse me, promoting *the idea of* an international socialist conspiracy..
I'm sorry but if ANYONE has the belief that it is unamerican or wrong to question the Government they are fools. You can not blaim a talk show host for causing someone to snap and kill anyone, chances are if someone is unstable they will at some point snap. Pull your head out of you butt and open your eyes or at least get your big butt up and change the channel on the TV or Radio if you disagree with whats on. You do have the right to do such. I don't like what John Stewart says but I can and I do change the channel and I don't insist that everyone else not listen to him just because I don't like him, what gives you the right to tell me what I can or can not watch or listen to.Neither the Republican's or the Democratic parties have our interests in mind anymore. It's getting to the point that a "shake-up" just might be needed to get the Country back on track but just because I think it or write about it dosen't mean its going to happen
If you care to remember....this Country WAS and I do mean past tense WAS based upon the idea that it was everyones right to speak their voice no matter who it offends even if it offends the Government . If you can not stand by and watch someone burn the US flag or comment on the path THEY believe the Counrty is heading then you need to think about moving to a different Country.
For years (since the early 1960's) I have watched how this Country has changed and the vocal minority has been allowed to take away more and more. It began with prayer in School and it has progressed further and further.This Country was formed with the belief in GOD and that has been allowed to totally change.
In the Late 1950's Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev made a comment that they ( the Russians) would bury us (the US) and that they would destroy us from within. I'm not ready for such an action and I will voice my opinion anytime I see fit, its my "God given right".
I have served this Country and I was proud to do such but I also would have no problem defending this Country from within if necessary. If you thnk all is good and President Obama will be the majic pill that will cure all ill's....good for you. You keep that thought but don't stand their and tell me or anyone else that your opinion is the correct one and the only one...they name streets after people like you "ONE-WAY".
Nobody's saying that Beck can't criticize the government. What's being objected to is the irrational riling up of militant and unhinged elements with fearmongering nonsense.
You want to talk about rights but think we should have organized prayer in school? You think everyone should be taught that there's a GOD? Unbelievable.
After 21 years voting Republican and getting completely ripped off by the Bush administration I am flaberghasted at the insanity that has grown in the Republican party. I am now a recovering Republican and Independent. I am not a far left Democrat.
To me they sound more like skinheads then supposedly rational, educated succesful capatlists. Their only news is Fox or the email garbage they get from News Max and groups like that.
The hate from the uniformed and scared just oozes out of them and many are my friends. They think I've turned traitor because I question and point out exactly how we got here. I'm the only one around me that reads and they accuse me of liberal propoganda yet most of my news comes from Finanical media. Don't think Financials are exactly the far left media.
Fox has brainwashed these people that NO OTHER media ANYWHERE is EVER telling the truth. So it doesn't matter how much light you shed on something they tell you it isn't so. It's like they've all gone to Facist Republican Madrasas and that scares me more than Obama at this point.
To me it's like stolkhom syndrome or an abusive marriage after time you stop thinking and believe the captor or abusive spouse.
I worry for the country because we have too many problems to be polarizing each other and demonizing each other.
I'm not thrilled with Obama either right now. He already seems to have rolled over for big banks and big business. He sees no problem in the lost jobs to outsourcing, insourcing and illegal immigration and has no plans to stop the Visa programs that take jobs away. Frankly I cant see the difference between either side most of the time. They are both in the pockets of Wall St and Big Business. That to me is the scariest thing. We don't have a govenrment of the people we have a privatized government by Wall St and Big Business which we have to subsidize while they take away our jobs and wealth give them to other countries that really are socialist, communist, etc. That to me is the biggest threat to our country. It's also the biggest irony of the wing nut Republicans...it's somehow OK to give our wealth to a communist country that then exports products that harm us and that's not supportig communism or socialism...huh??
All I can do is hope and pray we all come to our senses someday soon and hold our government accountable. Both sides of it. Because it's not socialism we need to be afraid of it's the prvatization of our government by Wall St and Big Business we need to be afraid of.
You know there are rational, moderate intelligent Republicans they have just been drummbed out by this hysteria. It's why so many of them defected and voted for Obama this time.
The Republicans had 8 years and they showed thier colors. I just hope the Dem's don't squander thier opportunity. So far I'm not impressed.
I wish us all well and pray we survive ourselves.
Nice commentary
Responsible reporting. Why take it to the level of "armed and dangerous" or fear-mongering? Talk about the issues that concern your viewers, talk about ways and things that we as citizens can do to get involved. Write letters, non violent protests, petitions. Maybe this could lead to bipartisan involvement. I bet if you asked most people who their congress representative is, they would not know. Let's stop all of this "for ratings sake" infotainment journalism.
This Eric person is obscessed with glenn beck. I would advise you to find something else to do during your (24 hours of) free time.
The right-wing nut-job extremists who dominate the Republican party and the conservative media remind me of people out of the Dark Ages. It's hard to believe that these same kind of people are "alive and kicking" in the 21st century.