Why Glenn Beck, and Fox News, can't escape the "racist" trap
Have so many blue-chip advertisers ever fled a program as quickly as the who's who of corporate America that's sprinted away from Glenn Beck in recent weeks? I certainly cannot recall ever seeing a mass exodus of this scale.
The A-list collection of disgruntled Beck advertisers is staggering: Applebee's, AT&T, Bank of America, Best Buy, Campbell Soup, Clorox, ConAgra, CVS, Ditech, Farmers Insurance Group, GEICO, General Mills, Johnson & Johnson, Lowe's, Nutrisystem, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, RadioShack, Sprint, State Farm Insurance, The UPS Store, Travelers Insurance, Verizon Wireless, Vonage, and Wal-Mart, among others.
If any television program had lost just three or four of those types of high-caliber advertisers, it would be seen as an extraordinary move in a media environment in which grassroots attempts to pressure advertisers have traditionally yielded modest returns. But at Fox News, Glenn Beck is rewriting television history right before our eyes: four dozen lost advertisers and counting. All of Beck's big-time advertisers have fled. All of them.
As momentum continues to gather behind the unprecedented boycott effort led by ColorofChange.org, Beck and Fox News executives seem to be flailing around as they frantically search for a way to stop the exodus.
Despite media reports to the contrary, Fox News executives explicitly refused to distance themselves from Beck's claim that President Obama is a "racist," let alone reprimand the host for the shockingly hateful comments. Fox News' initial knee-jerk response of failing to question any of the gutter rhetoric Beck dishes out, and the cable news giant's decision to treat the transgression as a nonstory unworthy of a serious response, of course, is what led to the boycott drive.
The fact that nobody anywhere inside Fox News had enough sense to hold Beck accountable or to even suggest that calling the president of the United States (aka "this guy") a "racist" on national television was well outside the bounds of professional broadcasting -- the fact that Fox News could not even for a moment publicly contemplate that Beck had stepped over a glaringly obvious line of common decency -- is why those same executives have been forced to watch as an avalanche of A-list advertisers go public with their plans to make sure they are no longer associated with Beck.
Looking back, it's hard to imagine how executives at Fox News could have handled Beck's "racist" smear any worse. And it's hard to imagine how Fox News could have inadvertently cultivated the ground any better for a sweepingly successful advertising boycott than the cavalier way they dealt with Beck's presidential race-baiting.
And if you don't think the snowballing ad boycott has left Fox News suits stunned and knocked back on their heels, then I don't think you understand the kind of arrogance that runs through the water supply over at its Manhattan headquarters on Sixth Avenue. Execs there this year no doubt have been congratulating themselves on their ratings success and patting each other on the back for having the brilliant insight to unleash a hatemonger like Glenn Beck on the airwaves.
But suddenly, uh-oh, there's a price to be paid for peddling hate? And worse, it's a free-market penalty where blue-chip advertisers -- those bastions of corporate America that Fox News idolizes -- are deciding for themselves that they cannot afford to be associated with Fox News' wonder boy? Corporate America is turning its back on the new face of Fox News?
If the boycott continues to gain momentum, Fox News won't be able to avoid writing down losses. Yes, the cabler claims it hasn't lost any money yet because nervous advertisers simply want off Glenn Beck, not off Fox News (i.e. advertisers are still spending money with the network). But the truth is, since Beck called Obama a racist, Beck's advertising base has been cut by 50 willing advertisers, and Fox News' need to find advertisers for the hour-long weekday show has not changed. And I'm guessing it's not having much luck drumming up new Glenn Beck business in this environment.
Honestly, if advertisers continue to abandon Glenn Beck, pretty soon the show's going to be forced to run more than the occasional free public-service announcement. Either that, or the advertisers willing to stick around are going to get some great deals or maybe even some free spots in order to make sure Fox News can fill the inventory.
Meanwhile, on air, the latest Fox News strategy for dealing with the never-ending "racist" controversy seems to revolve around amnesia. Seriously. It's like everyone at Fox News has been flashed by that light stick Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith used in Men in Black to erase the memories of unsuspecting UFO eyewitnesses. Suddenly at Fox News, nobody remembers that Beck called Obama a racist. Nobody remembers that that's what sparked the advertising boycott.
Despite the swirling controversy, and despite the fact that Beck is losing the type of advertisers that sales teams covet, the host's "racist" smear has become The Story That Cannot Be Mentioned By Name.
It's true. Last week, Beck appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show, and the two men bemoaned the attempts by nasty liberal "loons" to shut Beck up -- to snatch away his freedom of speech. What was odd was that while Beck and O'Reilly clearly made (indirect) references to the ad boycott campaign, they never explained to viewers what sparked the outrage. They never explained why. They never conceded the campaign was launched in direct response to the fact that Beck went on national television and called the president of the United States a "racist" and someone who flashed a "deep-seated hatred of white people."
At Fox News, that smear has been flushed down the memory hole, and all that's left to do is play victim. (Incredibly, O'Reilly and Beck appeared to be cribbing their amnesia shtick off The American Spectator. Never a good sign.)
But here's what I don't get: Why doesn't Beck go on TV every day and simply defend his "racist" claim? Why doesn't Beck stand up for the racist remark and stake his reputation on it? Because right now, the pathetic, squishy approach he's taking where he limply lashes back while pretending the ad boycott sprang from some mysterious place -- where Beck plays the victim and pretends he never made the "racist" smear -- is just too lame for words.
The host has never apologized, so it seems logical that he stands behind the claim. (And that's what he claimed one month ago.) And if he stands behind it, why doesn't he set aside a few minutes on each program to detail how Obama is a racist? Why doesn't he educate his viewers? In fact, I'm sure even folks who don't regularly tune into Beck would be fascinated to know how Obama, whose mother was white and who was raised by his white grandparents, suffers from an abiding hatred of white people and "white culture," as Beck claimed.
Hey, maybe if Beck does a good enough job, he'll even win back some of his lost advertisers. Maybe by talking the "racist" issue to death on Fox News every day, Beck can clear the air and the boycott will cease.
It's conceivable but unlikely. What's really going on here, of course, is that Beck has stepped so far in it with his "racist" crack that he can no longer see the tops of his shoes, and even his shins are starting to sink into the muck. The answer to Fox News' unraveling advertising problem is obvious. But neither Beck nor anybody else at the network has the decency to apologize, so they've decided to stitch together this fantasy about how the ad boycott was started because Beck said some nasty things about a ColorofChange.org ally, Van Jones.
Good luck with that. I'm sure that by playing dumb about the "racist" controversy, and by ignoring the comment while wallowing in a permanent state of victimhood, former blue-chip advertisers will soon come sprinting back onto Beck's show.
In the meantime, courage, Glenn Beck. Courage.
Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter.
When Kanye West said it, it was the truth.
In other words, put up or shut up.
Just weird. I guess nobody else noticed that Obama is whatever religion/affiliation suits the republicans. I guess Baptist suits starkcr31 right now.
1 NEPHI 12:23
“AND I BEHELD, AFTER THEY HAD DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF THEY BECAME A DARK AND LOATHSOME AND A FILTHY PEOPLE, FULL OF IDLENESS AND ALL MANNER OF ABOMINATIONS.”
1 NEPHI 13:15
“. . . AND I BEHELD THAT THEY WERE WHITE, AND EXCEEDINGLY FAIR AND BEAUTIFUL . . .”
2 NEPHI 5:21
“AND HE HAD CAUSED THE CURSING TO COME UPON THEM, YEA, EVEN A SORE CURSING, BECAUSE OF THEIR INIQUITY. FOR BEHOLD, THEY HAD HARDENED THEIR HEARTS AGAINST HIM, THAT THEY HAD BECOME LIKE UNTO A FLINT; WHEREFORE, AS THEY WERE WHITE, AND EXCEEDINGLY FAIR AND DELIGHTSOME, THAT THEY MIGHT NOT BE ENTICING UNTO MY PEOPLE THE LORD GOD DID CAUSE A SKIN OF BLACKNESS TO COME UPON THEM.”
You're working uphill.
The main difference is that this was one incident by one person, and it was criticized. Beck is allowed by his corporate masters to go on every day, in the face of monetary losses, and spew his insane propaganda. Remember how MSNBC canned Phil Donahue, because he criticized Bush and the occupation of Iraq while the President was popular? It's clear that liberal hosts are judged by a different standard.
There's a major difference between saying the President "doesn't care about" a class of people and that he "hates" them.
Kanye was wrong, though. Bush was fine with black people...he just didn't care about poor people.
Also, Kanye had the evidence of Katrina relief. It may or may not have been good evidence, but it was far more substantial than anything Glenn has to go on. And the Katrina response still can't be explained.
Can you please give us some examples of GW Bush being racist?
As always. Only credible links.
Fox News is free to publish whatever damn fool things they want.
Every company is free to support any program they want.
I'm free to withhold support from any company that supports the publication of damn fool things.
But cheer up. I'm sure Extenze, Cash4Gold and the Tea Party Express will be happy to fill up Lonesome Rhodes' open ad space, only for a lot less money.
Since Reagan destroyed the unions, they have been toothless and the cars have gotten worse, the pay for workers has gone down, the middle class has disappeared.
The unions taking over? I wish. The middle class would come back. Our country will be strong again.
It is absolutely disgusting that in this country a person can work 40 hours and still not be able to raise a family. What happened to the Teddy Roosevelt Republicans who stood on their principles for a living wage? What happened to the Teddy Roosevelt Republicans who stood against the economic royalists?
It's morally repugnant that a God fearing person, such as yourself, would attack family first institutions, like unions, that leverage for a better future the only power a working man has; his sweat and his numbers.
You have your priorities backward, your patriotism in a sling if you don't think unions are the key to creating greater economic equality, guaranteeing fair pay for fair work and ensuring protections against being thrown into poverty if a person can't work.
Wake up, for the sake of humanity, from the market fundie haze you have been lulled into.
god knows he is rolling in his grave now.
Other than the air controllers strike, and the consequences from that.
Reagans war on Unions
Baltimore Sun Link
Do a Google search and find your own. I don't blame Reagan for everything but; he wasn't the unions friend and he certainly wasn't the conservative god that others might want you to believe.
What don't the right wing nutz ever mention that two parties signed those auto worker union contracts? If executive management agreed to unworkable terms and conditions, is that the fault of the Unions?
When did blue collar workers start hating on Unions in this country? What's the matter with Kansas?
There HAVE been unions that abused their power. There always will need to be a balance. But without unions, (AND government regulation) we eventually get the same conditions as when the robber barons ruled.
Another arugment for universal single-payer health care. Thanks!!
Beyond that, you ought to stop trying to make people feel angry because millions of union laborers can actually afford to raise their kids with enough food on the table, in a good neighborhood with good health benefits. You should applaud unionists for clearing the way to better work conditions for everybody.
I guess the American disaster of income inequality should go unnoticed?
I guess the fact that unions support real families should go unnoticed?
I guess executive malfeasance should go unnoticed?
And you realize, of course, that Henry Ford (yes he was a Nazi sympathizer) declared bankruptcy seven times before his motor company became a success?
You do realize the THOUSANDS of people whose livelihoods depend on that CEO you so easily condemn flying a corporate jet?
You do realize that don't you? There is another side of the airport. Not just the part you go on holidays in.
But do you really believe the Unions destroyed the automakers? It was Management that decided which cars to build. Management directed lobbyists to keep DC from passing higher fuel standards (especially when it came to SUVs)and from passing gas taxes. Yes they would have raised prices at the pump, but that would have encouraged the market to stand up and demand smaller, more fuel efficient cars (think Europe). But Management didn't want to make the smaller cars because their profit margins are higher on big ass trucks and SUVs. So Management developed all their marketing hype to convince Americans that they were safer in big trucks and cars when reality is that it is air bags and seat belts that save lives. Management decided to focus on profit rather than innovation - because profits lead to higher stock prices and Management's compensation is tied to stock prices.
Management made all those decisions, not the Union. Union workers showed up to work daily and did their jobs. And they are not nearly as powerful as the media would have you believe. Overall union membership numbers are a fraction of what they used to be.
If you want a slightly different perspective, watch "The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant" on Monday, September 7th at HBO (available on HBO Demand after that). It was done by Dayton film makers showing the impact of the closing of the Moraine Assembly Plant.
That's why they need big ticket items to be sold to stay in business
The excessive legacy costs are from managements refusal to fund those plans back when the pension and health care benefits were first negotiated. They decided to pay out dividends and bonuses, etc instead of funding the plans.
When the costs came due there was no money to fund them.
If you leave out the history it sounds bad:
"retirees costs account for 40% of car costs"
Instead of:
"legacy costs overwhelming due to poor business decisions"
Before Unions, people got to work 6 12 hour days a week, with no safety equipment, and if they couldn't, they starved!
Since Rs took over the NLRB there are now coal miners working 6 12s again, just like back in the 1920. The company is sweet enough to put little campers right there at the mine site so you don't/can't go home, just sleep and work, just like before the New Deal. So far they don't make the men buy their own tools, I guess because they now cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I hope YOU are prepared to work 60 hour weeks, on your knees in cold water, in the dark. What goes around comes around, and if YOU don't have union protection or government protection, they can make you do whatever they want, for , say, $8 an hour.
Straight time, no time and a half for the extra 20 hours!
Good Luck!
Look, starkcr, this isn't rocket science. You asked what Home Depot has to do with this discussion. All one has to do is read the d@mn piece to see that of the piece discussed advertisers. Being contrary just for he sake of being contrary adds nothing to this discussion or your credibility.
Just being curious though, did you agree with folks like Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and others on the right who did in fact indicate that attacking the President during a time of war is not only dangerous but undermines the troops? Simple question. Did you agree or not
Yes. You apparently can't remember past last Jan. 20th. It wasn't the same. Bush spent his first 9 months in office vacationin', clearin' brush, bikin', fishin', and golfin'.
Then after 9/11 he had at least a year and likely more of almost total complete support of EVERYONE.
People only started "hating" Bush when it became perfectly clear he was a warmongering idiot who only cares about his base - the "haves", and the "have-mores".
[Cue starkcrAVING-MAD with the usual i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i in 5..4..3..2...]
Instead, the discussion devolves to insane rants by the right-wing talkers and their followers; hence, the discussion is skewed and people are confused. And we have to deal with phony issues like this one. Only really warped thinkers actually believe that Obama is a "racist." It's stupid.
I don't think Bush was a racist either, but I do think that he doesn't like poor people.
propaganda: the spreading of ideas, rumors or information for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, cause or purposes; also ideas, facts or allegations deliberately spread to further one's cause or to damage another's cause.
Try reading legitimate sources and turning off the television, you might actually LEARN something.
Six Union Thugs arrested for A&B.
Zero "Teabag Terrorists" arrested.
How many other common American folks voicing their opinions will be beat down just like Hitler's brownshirts did in '39?
Healthcare reform advocate punched by opponent at Nelson event
Kathy Castor Town Hall Erupts in Tampa Florida, August 6th, 2009
Obama-Allied Unions Threatened With Gun Violence For Town Hall Participation
Talking Points Memo reports that a health care protester in New Mexico has been encouraging those following him on Twitter to bring their guns to town hall meetings — and use them against ACORN and SEIU if provoked. SEIU, in particular, appears the to be latest boogeyman for the anti-health care protesters.
See what I did there? I actually gave you supporting documentation.
What did you give us? You gave us some typical smarmy assertion without verification.
As for guns at TH meetings. It's legal. Sorry. Show me where anyone has advocated USING the guns. Then you'll have a point.
As for your YouTube call. The only other way to verify it is through a HuffPo article that links the same YouTube. Not exactly the most credible link. There should be some police or news link, but I can't find it.
Here is the St. Louis TH in question where the six union thugs were ARRESTED:
ST. LOUIS scuffle that lead to six arrests of union thugs
And low and behold your side has stooped even lower. One of your Hanibal Lecters has BITTEN OFF the finger of an OLD MAN at a TH rally!
Finger BITTEN OFF by ObamaCare supporter
I know you people are losing the debate, but to resort to cannibalism is beyond the pale.
It's illegal to punch someone in the face.
You reichwingers sure are violent losers...
Honestly, if advertisers continue to abandon Glenn Beck, pretty soon the show's going to be forced to run more than the occasional free public-service announcement. Either that, or the advertisers willing to stick around are going to get some great deals or maybe even some free spots in order to make sure Fox News can fill the inventory.</i>
This is the important part: Fox News will only pull the plug on Beck if he seriously starts to threaten their ad revenue. We'll see if this is the case, or if second-tier companies (like the ones currently advertising on Beck's radio show) are willing to pony up the money to fill the slots. Or, we could see a bizarre situation in which companies pay lower rates to advertise on the highest rated show on cable news. Strange times...
He is, ain't he?
If you used more than 2% of your brain cells, you would know that calling someone whose mother was white and father was black, and who was raised in his formative years--in a loving environment by all accounts by Obama--by his white grandmother, is beyond ridiculous.
At any rate, could you kindly provide any evidence at all to confirm your belief?
Simple, starkraving. It's right above, where you said: "liberals call people who oppose him racist for simply opposing him." This is dead wrong. Hillary Clinton opposed him, and we never said she was racist. John McCain and Sarah Palin opposed him, and we never said they were racists. It's not our side that's so quick with the "racist" label.
But she said it, and draws huge racist crowds. You just don't like the source is all.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/08/every-critic-a-racist.html
There are plenty more where that came from.
Forward stark there are more dragons to slay!
YOU know absolutely NOTHING about the other people who attend that church, yet YOU label an ENTIRE church racist?
And then YOU wonder what part of your statement was incorrect?
Does the word 'clueless' ring a bell?
You didn't just call the pastor a racist, YOU called the ENTIRE church racist!
As I said, you got the e-mail, it's up to you to prove it is correct. Relying on information from others without question or research is indicative of a lack of critical thinking.
Keep making stuff up. Just makes you look silly.
Try again.
Not everyone who opposed Obama is a racist, but some of their opposition motivations, are racial. And nobody ever said that to oppose Obama was to be racist, that's just what the children on the talk radio have been telling you (and that you're believing).
That's got to be some reception you get in that tin foil hat of yours.
Trinity church is affiliated with the United Church of Christ. Ever hear of it? It is a predominantly white Congregationalism denomination. Learn something every once in a while and maybe you won't look so foolish.
We get it, though. No one can be racist except the blacks and Puerto Ricans. We understand exactly where your mindset is coming from. Limbaugh can't be racist, Palin can't be racist, only Sotomayor and Obama and an entire congregation that has a black pastor can be racist. You are fooling no one. It is the most obscene, obvious, attempt at Orwellian thought possible. Only the blacks can be racist. You are pathetic.
I'll continue to wait for your evidence that Obama and Sotomayor are racist or that Obama is turning America into a police state. You are pathetic.
http://bridgetdgms.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/more-hateful-quotes-from-racist-wright/
Read up on Windwalkers, Mary Glazier and New Apostolic Reformation.
If you don't want her in the conversation, don't bring her into it. You said she didn't attend a "racist church" for 20 years, but she is a member of a fringe religious sect deemed heretical by her own denomination.
You're like a much slower Glenn Beck, and that's saying something!
You are not a conservative, you are a Fox junkie. No conservatism on Fox, just hatred and lies. Try reading something legitimate.
It also shows that you are incapable of arguing logically, and so far it appears you are totally incapable of providing any evidence to back up any claim you make.
So, now you should look up "non sequitur," "straw man" and "begging the question, and then promise not to do any of them any more, lest you continue looking the fool.
I'm white, I'm from Chicago, and I've attended Trinity Church. I first heard Wright preach long before Obama was a candidate and several times during the campaign. He never said anything racist. I always felt welcome. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. You shriek the same thing again and again as if repetition will suddenly make it true, but you're wrong every time. You're delusional, lying, or both.
Don't hold your breath. Everytime Starkcolbert is confront with facts and evidence, it's off to the Kwikee Mart for more smokes and a few tall boys, only to skulk back a few ours later to sprinkle these threads with his "opinions".
So inebriating was the Bush personality cult that DOJ aide Sara Taylor actually said this while testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
"I took an oath to the president, and I take that oath very seriously," Sara Taylor said in answer to a question early in the hearing.
And right after a break, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked her if she was sure about that. "Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?" Leahy asked. It was a telling exchange.
That, of course, was a distinction without a difference during the Bush years. Then there were the creepy loyalty oaths to George W. Bush which anyone wanting to attend his speeches were required to sign in order to be admitted. There were also those who were ejected from such events because of ideas they expressed that were critical of the Leader. And for those at National Review who seem to think things are only sufficiently significant to notice when it involves celebrities rather than high government officials, there's this.
More notable than the history-erasing practices of National Review -- that's too commonplace to care much about -- is remembering just how extreme this climate was.
then there was this about the loyal Bushies:
After Goodling resigned, Williamson typed from memory the list of questions Goodling asked as a guide for future interviews. Among other questions, the list included the following:
Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.
[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?
Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.
Prior to Goodling herself testifying before the House Judiciary Committee about her screening of prospective DOJ hires to make certain they were sufficiently devoted to serving George Bush, she shared with a Justice Department official this vow: "All I ever wanted to do was serve this president." And she didn't have a "secular mind." Even as Attorney General, Alberto Gonazles actually thought his "client" was the President.
If you'd like to read more about your hyprocrisy I'll provide the link something you almost always fail to do:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/02/bush/index.html?source=newsletter
So, still no examples or proof for any of your claims offered as yet.
For all we know, you are saying marvelously logical things, and yet they go unnoticed because they are inaudible to the rest of us.
All we get is what you type, and that must come from another part of your brain entirely, the part that never learned rhetorical skills or reasoning.
But, you do think Obama is playing the race card (whatever the hell that is) by saying that his political opponents will accuse him of being different? Of looking different than our past presidents and of having a funny name? This is your evidence that Obama is a racist and a race-baiter?
Please, continue to show us how Sotomayor is a racist, too. You are a partisan madman. You have clearly chosen following what you are told to believe over any effort at fairness or thought or any consideration even for the well-being of your own country. You are all that is wrong with the Republican party today, and all that is wrong with the political discourse in this country today. You are a lost cause.
http://crooksandliars.com/search?cx=partner-pub-2240240393572029%3Acvbdwoqj6fo&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_q=racist+e-mails#1083
and like you like to say, there's plenty more where that came from. Another lie by stark has been debunked.
Wow, stark. This is fun.
But then people like you don't have to deal in facts, you just have to talk louder than everyone else.
Oh, the pity. That means we'll never hear from you again!
Obama has never accused anyone of being a racist and NO, he didn't call Crowley a racist, he just told the truth. Crowley acted "stupidly."
There is no evidence [even though I know that you've probably gotten the e-mail] that Obama is a "racist" who hates white people.
And frankly, I'm not expecting you to successfully back up your contention that the professor is racist any more than you've done with the President.
Speak on, oh enlightened one. Every casual reader of this site knows you have the intellectual edge, to be sure.
The police don't make or drop charges, the DA does.
I said that the charges had to be dropped, and they were. I never said who made them or who dropped them. In other words, you've made your point cogently enough, but it was a stunningly irrelevant one. Feel smarter now?
Just because the DA chose not to charge the man doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.
But in this case, the one we're now talking about, no crime was committed. Or are you disputing the plain facts again?
For the President to say someone acted stupidly without even knowing the facts was stupid on his part.
Please be sure to tell us when this actually happens, starkraving. You've got the market cornered on the stupidity in this discussion.
The report turned in by Crowley did not justify an arrest anyway. Crowley owed Gates his name and badge number, and made exiting the house a condition for further discussion. This would be entrapment. Additionally, there was no reason for him to leave the house at the time to communicate with anyone. He had Gates' ID, and could finish any relay of messages from the car after he left.
Crowley also made it clear that there was no reason to suspect Gates of anything. He saw Gates in the foyer (on the phone, as it seems), before Gates ever saw him. Is he supposed to believe that a 58-year-old man broke into a house to use the phone? There's no probable cause involved, so there's no need for an extended argument to begin with.
That in itself is a perfectly clear indication that he does own the house.
Again, Crowley himself admitted in his report that he believed Gates lived there very early in the encounter. By his own admission, he did not have probable cause.
And being on the phone is a clear indication that he owned the house. And his utter indignation about being questioned about being in his own home is a clear indication. And his willingness to go get ID is. His age is. His clothing is. His cane is.
And I countered that your point was irrelevant, and it still is.
Do you understand now?
I understood before, and that was obvious to just about everybody.
So to make assumptions when even he admitted he knew nothing about the facts was an intelligent thing to do?
I never said anything of the kind, of course. What's more, for that matter, neither did Obama. What he said was that he didn't know if racism played a part in the arrest, not that he "knew nothing about the facts."
Gee, Stark, how much more embarrassing failure on this argument do you really want to endure?
This is your excuse for only being able to label specific black people as being "racist"? You can't come up with a single white person who you think is worthy of your calling a "racist"? WOW! Seriously, wow! Don't bother replying, I've lost interest.
oh and have them come not from misquotes told by beck and or limbaugh.
Oops, you already have shown that to be the case. The counterexample, of course would be to state that Obama is not a racist, which is true.
But you're still am illogical ass.
His church has many social service programs and welcomes white folks, as has been pointed out to you by a person who has attended there.
how about beck did it just to bring attention to himself and it blew up in his face.
wow. good troll.
Uh, I meant TOOL.
Don't be so sure about that. Murdoch is driven by ideology more than money. He's the same guy who lost 100 million dollars a year on Fox, for its first five years until Hannity turned the first profit for the company. Murdoch spent a half a billion dollars just to make sure there was a biased news source spouting conservative propaganda 24/7.
Right, I think Stephen Colbert could easily move his act over to Fox News and their viewers wouldn't even recognize it as satire.
It is the home of the loons - the only thing we can know from the ratings is that there are far more loons in this country than there ought to be.
You really have no clue, do you?
American Idol has the highest ratings on TV, but I don't think anyone would claim it's the best TV show going. Not even close.
People who defend Fox always bring up their ratings, well guess what? Their ratings are still nowhere compared to what the broadcast nets used to achieve. FXNC, CNN, and MSNBC are literally fighting over crumbs. There are only about 4-600,000 viewers that seperate them across the entire country.
Why a viewer would be interested in ratings is beyond me.
Oh, and having "higher ratings than the other cable channels combined," isn't much to write home about . . . a) very few people watch cable opinion networks at all, b) Fox is carried on ALL cable providers' line-ups in their basic cable package. MSNBC, on the other hand, is not. It is carried in most markets as a premium service and subscribers have to pay extra to get MSNBC. For it to do as well as it does against CNN and Fox is remarkable.
Now, what was that about "ratings"?
Maybe you could explain to some of us "idiots"
There are a number of ideas about paying for subsidies, including repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and trimming costs from our current bloated, inefficient delivery "system."
You can read all the versions for yourself. Or you can decide to listen to people who have read the proposed bills and can simplify the language. Or you can listen to a right-wing talker who will misinterpret everything, including saying that there is A BILL.
There's no bill? Then what is HR 3200? It is "Proposed legislation" is it not? Sure they may make changes to it, but that is the bill that came out of the House committee, Authored by Dingel, RANGEL, WAXMAN,GEORGE MILLER,STARK, PALLONE, ANDREWS.
It even says halfway down the first page "A Bill"
Maybe you should read it.
What are the other versions out there?
You still didn't tell me what was in any of the versions other than you progressive talking-point generalities.
How exactly will it be paid for? How will they "trim costs" or make the delivery system "more effecient?"
You have no idea, do you?
Didn't think so.
How Laws Are Made
1. When a Representative has an idea for a new law, s/he becomes the sponsor of that bill and introduces it by giving it to the clerk of the House or by placing it in a box, called the hopper. The clerk assigns a legislative number to the bill, with H.R. for bills introduced in the House of Representatives and S. for bills introduced in the Senate. The Government Printing Office (GPO) then prints the bill and distributes copies to each representative.
2. Next, the bill is assigned to a committee (the House has 22 standing committees, each with jurisdiction over bills in certain areas) by the Speaker of the House so that it can be studied.
The standing committee (or often a subcommittee) studies the bill and hears testimony from experts and people interested in the bill. The committee then may release the bill with a recommendation to pass it, or revise the bill and release it, or lay it aside so that the House cannot vote on it. Releasing the bill is called reporting it out, while laying it aside is called tabling.
3. If the bill is released, it then goes on a calendar (a list of bills awaiting action). Here the House Rules Committee may call for the bill to be voted on quickly, limit the debate, or limit or prohibit amendments. Undisputed bills may be passed by unanimous consent, or by a two-thirds vote if members agree to suspend the rules.
4. The bill now goes to the floor of the House for consideration and begins with a complete reading of the bill (sometimes this is the only complete reading). A third reading (title only) occurs after any amendments have been added. If the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate.
5. In order to be introduced in the Senate, a senator must be recognized as the presiding officer and announce the introduction of the bill. Sometimes, when a bill has passed in one house, it becomes known as an act; however, this term usually means a bill that has been passed by both houses and becomes law.
6. Just as in the House, the bill then is assigned to a committee. It is assigned to one of the Senate's 16 standing committees by the presiding officer. The Senate committee studies and either releases or tables the bill just like the House standing committee.
7. Once released, the bill goes to the Senate floor for consideration. Bills are voted on in the Senate based on the order they come from the committee; however, an urgent bill may be pushed ahead by leaders of the majority party. When the Senate considers the bill, they can vote on it indefinitely. When there is no more debate, the bill is voted on. A simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill.
8. The bill now moves onto a conference committee, which is made up of members from each House. The committee works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The revised bill is sent back to both houses for their final approval. Once approved, the bill is printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office in a process called enrolling. The clerk from the introducing house certifies the final version.
9. The enrolled bill is now signed by the Speaker of the House and then the vice president. Finally, it is sent for presidential consideration. The president has ten days to sign or veto the enrolled bill. If the president vetoes the bill, it can still become a law if two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House then vote in favor of the bill.
Nice effort but too many words. I simply refer these civics-challenged posters to the 70's cartoon about how a bill becomes a law.
And EZ, here's your chance to answer NY Rep. Weiner's question:
What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
What I still want to know is what are all these other proposed bills that you all keep yammering about.
Mary59 claims "Firstly, there is no health care bill. There are a number of versions of bills being considered."
So, once again, since there are "many" versions floating about, where are the other ones that are being considered?
The only one I can find reference to, that is still under consideration is HR3200.
What are the other ones, so I may read them for myself and make an informed decision on it's merits. You something you, on the left, keep claiming those on the right NEVER do.
Your turn
I couldn't stop laughing when I posted that!
One provision is to provide for a public option. This would save money by offering the opportunity for people to have access to a government-run, non-profit insurance pool. Costs would be controlled because of its size and bargaining power.
Medicare is a "public option", too.The horrible Medicare part D bill passed by the Republicans didn't allow medicare to bargain with the drug companies to control costs...this bill would do away with that prohibition.
"
How'd I do?
There are some but not a majority. The ultra-biased study from those schmucks at Harvard, said that 62% of the people that declared bankruptcy owed some medical debt. (I think at least $1000)
So now you twist to say that all those were caused by medical debt.
That's a reach.
And you high and mighty types accuse the right of distorting the facts.
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascists tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
Today's health insurance policies -- with high deductibles, co-pays, and many exclusions -- offer little protection during a serious illness. Uncovered medical bills averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the start of their illness. People with cancer had average medical debts of $35,878.
Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0PzAkBQP
And:
Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.
Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.
Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care.
Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0PzCkCOWy
The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy. With the cooperation of bankruptcy judges in five Federal districts (in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas) they administered questionnaires to bankruptcy filers and reviewed their court records
Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.
Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.
1. 62.1% of all bankruptcies have a medical cause.
2. Most medical debtors were well educatedand middle class; three quarters had health insurance.
3. The share of bankruptcies attributableto medical problems rose by 50% between 2001 and 2007.
Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007:
Results of a National Study, David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHaa Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass; bDepartment of Sociology, Ohio University, Athens; and cHarvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass....
That statement implies that he isn't dumb to begin with!
How dare you insinuate such a thing!
We both know that Beck is not only dumb, but a complete, total moron, incapable of tying his own shoes!
I hope in the near future you print a retraction on that statement!
Media Matters stands for media integrity! Making such false statements flies in the face of the very principles this site is based on!
BTW - For those who don't get it, this is COMPLETELY written tongue-in-cheek. :-)
Kind of like accusing the Detoit Lions of throwing a football game?
Oil haters
Libruls
Illetist [sic]
Gay
Anarchy
Rude
Communist
Hissy fitters
Socialists
What's that spell? In Glenn's dim-bulb world, proof of something.
OLIGARCHYS?
;-)
What a load of trash.
Are you really serious?
You call people that listen to Beck, followers that will believe anything. And you want people to believe this is real?
You know, you lefties always complain that the right just blindly follow their "leaders", but yet I've never heard any of you be the least bit critical of any of Obama's policies.
You mean to tell me you all agree 100% with everything this administration is doing?
There were many republicans who didn't agree with Bush, and let it be known.
Who are the Sheeple now?
Bill O'Reilly trashes MMFA and NBC/GE/MSNBC just about EVERY NIGHT.
I'm not a lefty, just as you are probably not really a righty, just a Fox groupie, but you are talking about OPINION NETWORKS . . . these networks are NOT news networks.
That's not really an example!
Answering a simple question should be so hard for you intellectually superior denizens of the progressive movement.
Or is it?
And no, I am not a "Fox Groupie". Sure, I watch them but I also watch your buddies Olbermann and Maddow. (You know, the high priest and priestess of fair and balanced reporting), and others, except that Ed guy on MSNBC. You guys call Beck a loonie. At least he admits he's an entertainer. Of course you guys wouldn't know that because you've NEVER ACTUALLY WATCHED HIM. That Ed guy on MSNBC is a crackpot, total Obama stooge. Yeah, MSNBC is so much more "Fair and balanced"
You see, that's the difference between the right and the left. You guys make us laugh, but we seem to truly get under your skin.
Go ahead....call me names, now!
Yeah, right
Bill O'Reilly. Watch his program once.
<i>You mean to tell me you all agree 100% with everything this administration is doing? There were many republicans who didn't agree with Bush, and let it be known.
Who are the Sheeple now? </i>
Who is the straw man now?
I've got a Rocky Mountain Sheeple I can send you to debate with while it chases you up and down a mountain range of your choice.
You've been living under a rock for the last 8 years!
Republicans didn't publicly disagree with Bush UNTIL 3 months BEFORE he left office!
People like you don't react well to facts, evidence & reality.
Sometimes, the items here are about things that are factually, objectively wrong... incorrect numbers, misquotes, bad statistics, etc.
Other times, it's about things that aren't factually wrong, just meaningless opinions presented as "fact".
Can anybody "prove" that Obama is not a racist? Probably not, racism is pretty subjective, and anybody's idea of whether somebody else is racist or not is just an opinion. It's also not an "either/or" proposition, racism can be subject to different degrees.
Most sane people looking at the evidence would think it ridiculous to call Obama a racist, but it's not something anybody can "prove" or "disprove". It may really be Beck's opinion, and he may honestly believe it.
The point is, Beck doesn't really say very much. It may seem like he does, to his target audience. Inflammatory language, open-ended questions, and vague buzz words are used to trick his ignorant audience into thinking they're hearing political and social analysis, and getting information.
That's how propaganda is often done. Especially with the internet, and more responsible sites keeping an eye on misinformation, the propagandists learn to be more careful, just as petty criminals learn to circumvent certain laws.
Items at this site are not always about a blatant lie. They're sometimes about a little bit of truth, muddled up with a misguided opinion, and spoon-fed to gullible people as "news" or "facts".
BTW, what would you say is one of the more important "facts" Beck presented last week?
No, but I don't have any links of you recently denying (or denouncing) that you're a communist either. What's your point?
Birther: you're not an american citizen!
Obama: Here's a legal copy of my birth certificate.
Birther: The voices in my head says that's fake!
P.S. anti-communist oath, what's next, another McCarthy commission?
not know what the McCarthy commission was
or
think it was a darn good thing
Kydem provided no evidence, and you're expecting other people to come up with evidence to refute his/her claim?
In 2005 the Ella Baker Center expanded its vision beyond the immediate concerns of policing, declaring that "If we really wanted to help our communities escape the cycle of incarceration, we had to start focusing on job, wealth and health creation."[14] In 2005, Jones and the Ella Baker Center produced the "Social Equity Track" for the United Nations' World Environment Day celebration, held that year in San Francisco.[17] It was the official beginning of what would eventually become Ella Baker Center's Green-Collar Jobs Campaign.
The Green-Collar Jobs Campaign was Jones' first concerted effort to combine his lifelong commitment to racial and economic justice with his newer commitment to solving the environmental crisis. It soon took as its mission the establishment of the nation's first "Green Jobs Corps" in Oakland. On October 20, 2008, the City of Oakland formally launched the Oakland Green Jobs Corps, a public-private partnership that will "provide local Oakland residents with job training, support, and work experience so that they can independently pursue careers in the new energy economy."[18]"
Van Jones Wiki
Where it also talked about him saying he was a communist, but apparently, he has disavowed such beliefs, as he's now seeing himself as a capitalist and an entrepeneur.
People can change, and it appears he took these beliefs as a young man after having a few incidents happen to him, and now, he's pushing for more green jobs.
He's so commie, he's a capitalist.
also this just in:
conservipedia is a a truthful site that is the opposite of wikipedia.
im waiting for the sounds of wings telling me that pigs are flying
I really just wanted to see if kydem was able to flesh out the idea that Beck had provided "facts" which nobody was addressing.
Pretty predictably, the most important Beck fact to kydem was something that is not a fact at all, nor very important except to those who've been conditioned to wet themselves on hearing the word "communist"..
I'm not sure if Beck said that he is now, or if kydem just heard it that way, I just wanted to see if one of these Beckies could single out any of these "important facts" they keep asking everybody to prove wrong.
Maybe Beck's next bombshell will be outing himself as a self-described Republican, or exposing the many self-described republicans currently serving in the U.S. government.
When some communists start engaging in the sort of destructive un-American behavior that the (R)s have been wallowing in for the past few decades, I'll start worrying about the commies.
If your only view of the world is from a small island, don't assume all the rest of the planet is water.
His outrage over the [Rodney King] verdict radicalized him to the point where he became a communist. Jones said he was "a rowdy nationalist" before the King verdict was announced. By August of that year, he said, "I was a communist."
Do you never tire of displaying nothing but abject ignorance and lack of logical thought?
"I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."
Just what "radical ends" is he trying to achieve?
"By the late 1990s, Jones began promoting eco-capitalism,[15] and he has emerged as one of the foremost champions of green business, entrepreneurship and market-based solutions.[16]
In 2005 the Ella Baker Center expanded its vision beyond the immediate concerns of policing, declaring that "If we really wanted to help our communities escape the cycle of incarceration, we had to start focusing on job, wealth and health creation."[14] In 2005, Jones and the Ella Baker Center produced the "Social Equity Track" for the United Nations' World Environment Day celebration, held that year in San Francisco.[17] It was the official beginning of what would eventually become Ella Baker Center's Green-Collar Jobs Campaign.
The Green-Collar Jobs Campaign was Jones' first concerted effort to combine his lifelong commitment to racial and economic justice with his newer commitment to solving the environmental crisis. It soon took as its mission the establishment of the nation's first "Green Jobs Corps" in Oakland. On October 20, 2008, the City of Oakland formally launched the Oakland Green Jobs Corps, a public-private partnership that will "provide local Oakland residents with job training, support, and work experience so that they can independently pursue careers in the new energy economy."[18]"
Van Jones Wiki
Van Jones as a self-described communist should not be a close adviser of the president. Communists should not have an active role in our government.
So, on the other side of the spectrum then - you would not want neoconservatives involved in our government either. Right?
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies...the purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
This is disturbing coming from someone appointed to the FCC by this president. Again, another unelected position.
P.S. Why the double standard? I bet it's because he's black, because y'all don't mind Cheney saying it.
But he didn't, and they didn't, and it is the lack of evidence of any kind that shows that Obama is not a racist, but it cannot prove that he isn't. Just as no one has ever proven that Obama is racist.
Now that's your FIRST problem!
Beck IS NOT a journalist, and Beck DOES NOT do research, therefore ANYTHING Beck "reports" is a load of bull!
Prove what? It's all piffle. The man has been proven wrong time and again. What else should we do?
I mean, wow.
One more time, understand what you are watching. It isn't news.
I'm having a hell of a time of it. There's no evidence at all. None. But if Glenn says they exist, they must.
That's how diabolical this president is. Not only has he created these camps but he's made not only the camps, but the guards and that secret army, invisible.
As far as I know not one of the advertisers has actually pulled ads from the network itself. They have just moved to different time slots.
Glenn Beck did explain his comments, at least on his radio show.
It dealt with Obama's 20 years in a black theology church including quoting Wright's racist comments "white man's greed runs a world in need" in his audio book Dreams of My Father, Obama's remarks about his Grandma being a "typical white person" who has "reactions bred into her". Obama's remarks about Gates' arrest where Obama admitted he did not "know all of the facts" about how race played a role, said the police acted "stupidly", and then aligned it with a "seperate and apart" history of racial profiling of blacks and hispanics. Obama made a judgment based on preconceived notions, not the facts. Obama also supports affirmative action which may be viewed as racist policy since one race over another is treated differently based solely on the color of their skin.
The passages from Obama's book don't show racism at all. You might try reading it sometime instead of relying on the right-wing to interpret it for you.
The incident involving Gates was an honest assessment of the situation involving a close friend.
Pity you have stooped low enough to listen to Glen's dim-witted garbage.
I do listen to Glenn Beck. I also listen to Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, Hannity, and O'Reilly. I even try to catch some Rush when I can stomach it. Such a shame, I know, lol :-)
Well, find a new source of info. It is not a black theology church. You sound ridiculous when you say it.
in planet wing-nut you don't need any. You don't have to actually think, study, reflect or look at something with reason, objectivity, and gather the whole picture.
You have a nasty little church in your planet created by right-wing snippets, where "white" people aren't welcome and the hungry are not fed, both physically and spiritually. It's the opposite of reality; but then, your opinions matter to you more.
"Trinity is a racist church."
"How is it a racist church?"
"Uh, because of the racism and anti-semitism."
Do you see how ridiculous this makes you look?
BTW, my 96 year old Grannie is also a typical white person of her time who had reactions bred into her. I knew exactly what Obama was talking about. My grandmother is not a racist, but she has some fears based upon cultural norms and truths of HER time, just as Obama's grandmother did. That didn't mean he hated her or hates white people, he just recognized her upbringing.
As for the Crowley incident, he said he didn't know all of the facts when asked if he felt that Crowley had acted in a racist way. He then said, he though that Crowley had acted stupidly. Crowley DID act stupidly. He arrested a man in his OWN HOME for being upset that he had been questioned about being in his OWN HOME. The police officer got his ego damaged and he arrested this man STUPIDLY on an illegitimate charge. Obama's race had nothing to do with what he said.
Obama said nothing about the role that race played in the arrest of Gates. Nothing. He stated that he felt the police acted stupidly, and they did.
Affirmative action is not racist.
1. the Mormons softened their position on blacks when they wanted to improve BYU's football team.
2. pigs are sensitive, intelligent animals.
Who, where why?
At least she didn't end up dead for knowing too much, like Vince Foster did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo3ltG0gwjY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_wMmV0IyiM
Glenn doesn't know which end is up! Or a Fascist from a Marxist or a Socialist from a Communist. They are just big scary words to him as are unions, racists, anarchy and oligarchy, make that oligarh. He throws these words around at random, to impress, shock and scare his ignorant, sad fans. Fans that unfortunately have the freedom to vote.
That is just a generality, and simply not true. The rest of your post is simply a rant.
Far from "playing dumb about the "racist" controversy", I think FOX NEWS is revealing the real bigotry of its management and most of its on-air personalities.
Pick any of the righteous righties featured on FOX NEWS and examine how they present the worst of human behavior and the images will almost always show dark-skinned people.
Nearly all of FOX's pulse pounding stories about crime, immigration, religious zealotry, America-haters, entitlement programs - you name it, the story will feature darker-than-white folks.
Borrowing from Lou Dobbs, FOX's new slogan should be: "It's The Darkies, Dammit!"
As a post script, I urge the scrubbing of all forms of the word "race" from articles such as this. There is only the human race. Glenn Beck is not a racist, he is (among other things) a bigot.
Glenn, is that you?
yeah, the racists as victims side.
Don't worry, you're not leading anyone. You're way too far behind.
But good luck with the bumper stickers.
Also, people only have so much time and energy for protesting, so it is to be expected that the protestors would run out of steam after all these years. I bet the numbers were down considerably year by year, even dirung the Shrub Administration.
Someone in our area tried to pull off that talking point, because she didn't see us out when she was driving by shortly after 6p.m. What she didn't know was that we end at 5:30p.m. Of course, facts matter little to people who like their opinions more.
david.friend@carbonite.com
Their competitors are Hewlett Packard, iBackup and Symantec Corporation, they do on line back up services.
Can anybody tell me what Glenn Beck believes that makes him a racist?
Let me get this straight, though. You believe that Glenn Beck hates black people. Is that true?
At minimum, he's a race baiter, but he sure doesn't mind supporting racists. The teabaggers have since been taken over by fascist and racist groups, but he still keeps plugging them. And the racists he brings on his show to spew, and then agreeing with them? Yeah, that points the dial towards racist...
And since when are the tea party protesters led by fascist and racist groups? What does that even mean? Do you mean to say that the majority of these people showing up at the tea party rallies are there because some fascist/racist told them to be there?
Just give me one direct quote that shows that Glenn Beck believes that some races are inferior to others.
And Beck loves to enable them. Sounds like love to me...
If I go to one of these events and some idiot starts spouting off racial remarks, does that make me racist? Even if I choose to stay simply because I don't want to leave. Does that make me racist?
Anyways, let's go to the source. What has Beck says that proves he thinks the white race is superior to the black race?
Sorry, your definition isn't what the world goes by. The statements above are proof enough by the actual definition that beck is a racist. Nice try though...
rac⋅ism –noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
There, I've pointed out you're wrong. You're welcome.
If you simplify every issue to the point where both sides are exactly the same, you can make a double standard out of any area requiring judgment and critical thinking.
If a white conservative called the President a racist without proof --> I'd be horrified and demand he provide the proof.
If a white liberal called the President a racist without proof --> I'd be horrified and demand he provide the proof.
That's how I would react. You?
"anit-American idiots?" Is that you, Glenn?
Boy, he's got you fooled! Beck is a comedian, an entertainer who makes a lot of money making you believe that he REALLY CARES about the crud he shovels. He's LAUGHING at people like you.
As for falling revenues from companies that have been hounded by ‘colorforchange’ , well, it would seem to me that Fox is still making money-the NY Times has been losing readers on a regular basis.
Name a news paper or tv news programe for that matter that hasn't been dropping viewers or readers for quite a while.
The fact is that an apology from Beck will not do a darn thing expect bring back attention to this. It will not calm the 2-bit protests and weak petitions against him one bit. You would love for him to apologize for this reason alone, but why should he? Maybe he is not sorry. Maybe he truly believes what he said, in fact, i'm sure he does or he wouldn't have said it. Not my problem. I don't have to agree with everything Beck says and neither do his advertisers. I will watch something else if choose to.....just like I do with Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews and the like. In fact, where were you when Olbermann insinuated that those in the Bush Administration were war criminals and suggested that Bush "shut the hell up!"? Wait...you agreed with it, so it was ok.
What Beck says is his opinion. And, like I said in another post, some of the advertisers (Walmart I know for a fact) have stopped running on ALL political commentary shows, not just Beck. So, it warms my soul to think that maybe Olbermann has lost some advertisers over this as well....if he had any to begin with.
Yea, but Beck is still wrong, isn't he?
It's also why McDonald's makes the best hamburgers in the world, Lady GaGa makes the best music, and the Transformers Movie is much better than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Ratings don't mean diddly to anybody except networks.
If what Beck says is to be his opinion, then he has to stress that it is his opinion. More "I think..." and less "He is...!" And people that listen to Beck have to treat what he's saying as opinion and not fact.
If he's to be treated as an op-ed, then he shouldn't be treated as the front page.
50 lost advertisers for just 25 cents.
I tune into him once or twice to week for his radio program (really third most listened to?) for as long as I can take it; just to hear what he's froathing about.
He spews vile hatred slanted literary vomit with a few yes men behind him. He labels people from bits and bites from their past and for his audience, removes anything credible or actual.
There is also a "gun show" on the same station on the weekend with a similar audience. Of the passing of Sen. Kennedy; this knee jerk reactionary said he wouldn't shed a tear because of his stance on gun control. How sad. I'm actually all for the right to keep and bear arms even though I don't own one but given Kennedy’s hard undying work and success in so very many other areas, I too view him as one to look up to with great respect.
I think that is really the point, problem and concern of these idiots that plague these great united states. In my mind I am stereo typing guys with T-Shirts barely covering well developed table muscles as they sit in their Lazy boy chairs raising a beer and holler’n “Hell Yea” to Glenn Beck’s dribble in between a couple of NASCAR taped races – flies buzzing in the background amid a heavy atmosphere of beer, crank fumes and dirty dishes in the trailer.
The problem really is that my stereotype extends well beyond this distinctively unique segment of Americana. It’s our neighbors, our co-workers and members of our families who are sucked into this lock-step of ignorance.
I am truly afraid!
Not of Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, Sarah Palin and a seemingly endless que of greedy flame throwing face pigs; nope, not of them but the poor and easily herded folks – idiots. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txrikNFX-8E&feature=related
I’m afraid.
Can you back this up?
No, thanks.
Further more on unions why does somebody need to have there job spelled out for them. So they wont be asked to do anything other than whats on the paper? I call that lazy.
Other than name throwing can anyone make a logical answear?
I'll make sure that i only shop at Home Depot from now on and other companies with the courage not to bow to pressure from COMUNISTS!!
You have no absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
You honestly think that's that's the purpose of a labor agreement?
How about salaried positions? Do employers not make their offer to an individual in writing? Does that offer usually not include some of the employer's stipulations and expectations?
Because those accusations have no basis in reality.
Got literacy?
Many people have pointed out how ridiculous Beck's scaredy-pants commie rants are. Most sane people don't really waste time offering "rebutles" to every word of a propagandist's panicky rants.
If you're a beck fan, you'll probably remain one, in spite of any facts, reality or rebutles put in front of your face.
Beck serves easily digested pablum for lazy thinkers and the easily frightened and manipulated.
He also seems to appeal to those Americans who hate punctuation and spellcheck.
I don't buy this gobblygook that FNC isn't being hit by this.
Beck's share since 2006 - 7.7
O'Rielly's share since '96 - 6.8
Hannity's share since '96 - 6.5
As found at tv.com
OT, I've got your caps lock key, and will be auctioning it off for personal gain.
Nyahahah!
8oP
Thanks for the laugh, Col. I appreciate how hard that must have been. After all, "It gives me a headache thinking down to your level" (Marvin the Paranoid Android).
My sentiments exactly, Eric. What is he afraid of?
Then there is re-hurling; a new reactionary sport created by watching Beck on a regular basis. Now, get off my phone!!!
try it, you'll find that ignorance is CURABLE!
If there weren't such a thing as the First Amendment.
Please provide your legalese definition of "making mince meat".
the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.”
So that makes another point you're wrong on.
As for the "rebutle", only one Beck fan has tried to provide one of these "facts" to address. Although no source was given, the "fact" was shown to be wrong.
Which is sort of sad, because if you're just going to post stuff with no evidence to support it, you should be able to make something up that's true.
Aside from that, Beck doesn't always have his facts wrong, he often uses facts, misleading questions, and wacky opinions in combination to confuse idiots.
Advertisers may have distanced themselves from G.Beck, but the tree of racism stands. The network will not feel an axe. A fruit, in the tree of racism may be ripe for picking. The network will let G.Beck rot on the limb, leaves and all. G.Beck is a current cover photo for racism. A new recipe for baking, the same matter.
G.Beck may drop from the tree. If no one picks the fruit up, it continues to rot. The tree continues, without him. G.Beck produces seeds that follow him, as he rots on the ground. The seeds will germinate, for the taste of blood. Will we feed the ground that fear holds?
Poison fruit pie can make you sick enough to kill, for no other reason than fear.
It be it,
Ronin Kannushi.
I know some good psychiatrists. Let me know if you want their contact info.
It's about Obama claiming in the Sgt. Crowley/Professor Gates case that the police acted stupidly, and it's about Professor Gates claim of racism. It's about Janeane Garafola claiming the tea partiers are upset about a black man in the White House and saying it is racism straight up. It's about Dianne Watson and her constant race-baiting, including her recent statement that Limbaugh and conservatives are trying to see to it that the first president that looks like her, fails. It's about Obama's bestowing czardom on Green Czar Van Jones, an avowed communist who, in an interview while he was head of the Ella Baker Center, said this:
The white polluters and the white environmentals are essentially steering poison into the people of colored communities.
It's about NUMEROUS false claims that tea partiers, town hallers, (and anyone who doesn't support Obama, his czars, his healthcare plan, and his left-controlled Congress) - are racists!
It’s all about color with THEM. So, you tell me - just where is racism coming FROM?
Racism is still coming from all the traditional places that it has come from here-to-fore. Calling it out is nowhere near it.
There is a small population of stupid liberals whose political action begins and ends with the racist call. Bob Somerby (The Daily Howler) has written on this several times and why its a losing position.
I don't see anyone like that arround here. Some maybe a little eager to make a hitler/nazi call, but its rare.
Now imagine all the great NEW advertisers Mr. Beck will have streaming in as he expostulates himself into lunacy rarely seen even on Faux:
Depends Undergarments, Mr. Sludgie's Septic Sucker, Grassley's Manure Spreader, Prozac Pastries, Mad Tea Patsy Express.....
Should have added that as another possible advertiser for Becky: Ben Stein's Perky Prune Juice: Industrial strength for wing-nuts.
"Grass Roots" is the PUBLIC....the American people.....tuning in to watch Glenn Beck (and Fox) in record numbers--numbers that Media Matters could only dream of accruing for MSNBC and Olbermann.
The people have spoken. They could conceivably bring these fleeing advertisers to their knees, given enough provocation.
Oops, too late, you did none of those things.
This fight against Fox has been going on for awhile...
Your text to link here...
No, wait, you didn't.
You really need to walk away from the television. Apparently, you have a difficulty with critical thinking.
Hang in there Glenn!
OK. That's my new favorite line by a nut ever! Intelligents?! Brilliant.
You know, that might be fun. Let's see... You have more stupids in your whole body than Glenn Beck has in his little toe.
And that statement is just as accurate as yours.
So we can safely assume that you are also foursquare against Obama's plan to urge America's kids to stay in school.
As for Beck's "intelligents," I'd say your use of the word "intelligents" shows your lack of standing to declare Beck intelligent.
BTW, I"m not a liberal any more than you are a conservative.
Yesterday, he showed a speech given by Van Jones discussing environmental change and changing the system (environmental). Then Beck talked about Van Jones a bit, and then cut to a clip of Reverend Wright giving a sermon. Glenn Beck had then showed a video clip of Reverend Joseph Lowery, from the end of his delivering Obama's inaugural benediction, in which he said the following:
Glenn Beck then focused on the last line "when white will embrace what is right". Beck then showed a clip to tie everything together, and he showed a clip from the campaign trail, five days before election day, where Obama said we were going to "fundamentally change" America.
I forgot to mention that Beck also showed a clip of Van Jones discussing how Americans took away Indian land with treaties, only to send them to areas rich in wind and solar energy, and now it is time that Indians get some wealth (capitalize on some renewable resources maybe?), and he asked the question "Can you believe wealth should be taken from one group and given to another based on race?"
How did Glenn Beck go from Van Jones, to discussing Reverend Wright, to Reverend Lowery, to Obama, and then come to the conclusion that Van Jone said Communistic things, and Obama will make them happen because that would equal fundamentally changing America? Was there even a need to mention Wright?
Like a subliminal message, or like previous Karl Rove tactics, when he asks the question about race, even though it was referencing the Van Jones speech that mentioned Native Americans. Our neural networks were already activated by Reverend Wright and Reverend Lowery, and so when the question is asked, we associate the taking of wealth from the whites and giving it to the blacks, not the Native Americans capitalizing from their land.
I'd say that it is YOU who needs to show us that you have something "brilliant" to say.
So blinded by your disdain for liberals that you think a 24/7 liberal bashing network is fair and balanced. So corrupted by inflexible ideology are you that you believe you live in some Obama autocracy. So sensitive to criticism, so indoctrinated in the way of victimhood that you take everything as an attempt to shut you down.
It's pathetic and sad. It makes me sorry you have been fed such utter hateful nonsense.
At least insomuch as Glenn Beck and Fox News are representative of white people and white culture.
Our attention spans need to be a bit longer than that, IMO.
I'm glad some companies aren't willing to play along with this game.
"I certainly cannot recall ever seeing a mass exodus of this scale."
Hey remember me? I'm Spocko. 28 Major advertisers fled KSFO in 2007. Visa, Mastercard, BofA, Fed Ex, Netflix, Borders Books, In and Out Burger, etc. It was in the New York Times.
The response that I saw from ABC/Disney (now ABC/Citadel with Disney and majority shareholder of Citadel) was similar. They would not admit why the advertisers left. They even refused to acknowledge that the advertisers left! Melanie Morgan said on the air. "Only one advertiser left!" Reality meet Melanie Morgan, obvious you two haven't met.
In my work this year (I only have time to do a couple month) United Airlines, BA Jobs, LifetimeTV (Project Runway) and Beach Blanket Babylon pulled their ads from KSFO local hosts. When Beach Blanket Babylon was told they advertised on KSFO they denied it until I provided audio proof. KSFO's parent company sales rep from KGO had slipped the ads into the show without BBB's permission. The KGO rep knew that the advertiser wouldn't want to associate with KSFO, so they just didn't tell them. KSFO didn't even respond to the San Francisco Peninsula Press Club request for comment about BBB and LifetimeTV leaving.
I would like folks to look at HOW the advertisers word their letters. This is important and can provide useful in future actions. The reasons given are important. I pointed out to advertisers that their own policies are against violent rhetoric directed toward others. They also usually have diversity policies. It is hard to say that you are for a diverse employee base when you are advertising on a racist program. (By the way that is how I convinced BAJobs to leave. I pointed out the sexism of the hosts who wanted Bush Press secretary Dana Perino to provide them with full frontal nudity in the KSFO studio. BAJobs works with lots of women hiring managers who are professionals. This kind of offensive sexism disgusted them and they pulled their ads AND their back office job search tech support of the station.)
The whole, "It was a mistake" phrase is interesting to me because when I did my campaign I didn't force the advertisers to provide a reason, I was more interested in them dropping the show rather than holding their feet to the fire about WHY they dropped the show. I now advise clients to get answers. I advised Hate Hurts America and they got statements from the 18 advertisers who left Savage.
The problem with not getting a statement is that if you don't you can't go back to the advertisers and say, "They are still saying violent/racist things and you are advertising again, here is your letter dated 2007 saying why you dropped the ads and you would not advertise unless they apologized. They have not apologized. Please tell your ad buyers to remove the new ads."
I didn't get letters from United or BA Jobs so if they return (because of some great deal or back office apology) I can't hold them to their reasons for leaving. I did get statements from Beach Blanket Babylon and LifetimeTV (Project Runway)
If you advertised as "a mistake" that means you don't support a racist. New advertisers won't have to have a new rational for advertising. They can just say, "It was a mistake, again." They don't want to say, "We support racists." There will be a lot of "mistakes" while they wait for the public to forget or Beck to apologize. Imus apologized. This allowed him to get hired by Citadel Broadcasting.
Beck won't be fired. If he does he becomes a martyr for "free speech". That is how he will position himself. I think leaving him on the show subsidized by Fox is fine. If this was a smaller company this money lost might be come bad enough to become a material event and have an impact on the New Corp stock. But News Corp, like Disney, is big enough to keep subsidizing Beck if he gives them something they want. Buzz. Ratings. But as Eric points out ratings with out revenue is a problem. A "dollar a holler" is okay if you aren't paying your host 3 million a year. Someone else has to make up for that revenue loss. This is something that internally the company will have to deal with eventually.
When Beck reaches the tipping point (cost of keeping him is higher than the revenue he earns) they will figure out a way to dump him. Either that or he will be forced by management to apologize and they will expect all the advertisers to accept that as good enough. Some exec will be thinking, "How can we stop the bleeding?" and will tell them to make an apology. Another execs will say, "The PR is GREAT! The ratings are HUGE!" But the person who is the money guy will say, "Unless we can convert these ratings to money they mean jack squat."
1) Brian Sussman admitted to some vicious remarks but said he apologized on his personal blog. He said his comments about cutting off the finger and then penis of an Iraq during a torture session was a "skit" although it was clear that it wasn't, especially when four years later he said the same thing only this time he talked about shooting the "terrorist" in the leg to get him to talk. He also didn't acknowledge his other anti-Muslim violent comments, as if they never happened.
2) Lee Rodgers didn't apologize, he embraced his violent comments and said he would say the same thing again.
3) Melanie Morgan tried to redefine what she said as something other than what it was or didn't acknowledge what she said, but talked about something else she said. She talked about hanging journalists, but when called on it referred to another conversation and prefaced it with a phrase given to her by her lawyers. "If tried and convicted..."
4) Officer Vic said that his comment to electrocute New York Times Editor Bill Keller was a comedy routine. He also was given the task of saying, "Metaphorically speaking" after each time that Sussman or Rodgers talked about killing someone on the air. Some times his job was to laugh hysterically after a sick comment so that later they can say, "It was a JOKE! Hear the laughing?"
Economically this advertiser alert program worked. (And by the way I was very clear that it was NOT a BOYCOTT. The advertisers decided for themselves not because we said we would pull our support of their goods and services, but because they didn't want to taint their braind.)
KSFO lost a lot of money (but will never break it out so we can't know for sure) and in 2008 Melanie Morgan didn't have her contract renewed because of the financial problems. The parent company said that it was because of an "overall" advertiser slowdown, but if you look at the financial documents filed with the SEC you see that they acknowledge the financial hit they took in SF. And since they had only two stations in SF (KGO and KSFO) and KGO is a big money maker you can conclude that it was the money lost at KSFO that was the real reason they let her go.
Morgan was off the air for over a year. She left the Bay Area and is now in D.C. with a standard right wing sugar daddy (The Washington Times) supporting her. She did not get to be a "free speech martyr.
People who can stay focused and on topic, like Eric, won't let FoxNews pretend that Beck never called the President a racist. At least we can thank him for that effort.