|Tigers Johnson| Posted May 16, 2010 Report Share Posted May 16, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='16 May 2010 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1274014368' post='888584'] Nothing? Really? You completely missed the point then. [/quote] Ugh.... Sarcasm gone awry..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 16, 2010 Report Share Posted May 16, 2010 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='16 May 2010 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1274018680' post='888593'] Ugh.... Sarcasm gone awry..... [/quote] ah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalsfansince68 Posted May 17, 2010 Report Share Posted May 17, 2010 [quote name='BengalBacker' date='14 May 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1273864109' post='888431'] [color="#0000FF"]it's very easy for these comedians to take a few words here and there and make him look stupid.[/color] [/quote] Glen Beck is a drama-queen and a hypocritical liar who makes himself look idiotic. I don't know much about you Mr. Backer, but those who ascribe to the outrageous bullshit this punk spews every day is a political FOOL! With due respect, though you get none from me for believing that cogsucker. Phuck Glen Beck!!! and so does drama-queen Beck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMOh9L60FKw[/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 OK, I'll be the first to admit this isn't from a news source...it's from a blog. Journalism requires some cred. It remains to be seen if the ratings drop is true or not. But just for fun, what if it is? Is there "vitriol fatigue" on the right as we on the left have experienced "indignance and superiority fatigue" (don't get me wrong...Barack doesn't deserve our complacence by any stretch). I'm sure the right felt something similar (perhaps mere frustration) as baby-killer William Jefferson Clinton took Republican planks and made them his own. Axe the Welfare Queens? Free trade? They belong to Slick Willie now. It must have been maddening. Almost as maddening as GW's fucking smirking gob. Anyway, I'm laughing on the inside hoping the Beck's ratings drop is true. But only because Glen Beck is up for the Biggest Douche in the Universe Award, taking it away from John Edward (not Edwards, BTW). http://www.politicususa.com/en/glenn-beck-ratings-drop [quote]Glenn Beck has been in denial about his ratings slide for weeks now. First, he claimed that there is no ratings decline for his Fox News show, and then he claimed that the weather was to blame for his 33% drop in viewership. However by attracting only 1.7 million viewers on Friday, Beck hit a new all time low which is now 50% off of his peak audience of 3.4 million. On Friday, Beck pulled an all time low of 1.776 million viewers, and while this is good enough to handily win his time slot, this marked a new low which has quickly turned into a free fall since January. At the close of 2009, Beck was still averaging 3 million total viewers a day. At his peak, Beck could draw 3.4 million plus viewers a day. There was talk of him eventually supplanting cable news king Bill O’Reilly. The story for Glenn Beck last week was the same as it has been for all of the other weeks over the past few months. He starts strong on Monday, but he loses viewers on each of the following days of the week. Last Monday, Beck had 2.3 million viewers. By Tuesday, he had 2.1 million viewers. On Wednesday and Thursday, he had 2 million viewers, and by Friday he was down to 1.77 million viewers. What should be most troubling to Fox News is that Beck did not have one below average day. He had three. Beck’s average number of viewers had fallen to 2.2 million viewers, but on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, he was under that. The root of the problem remains Glenn Beck himself. Beck fancies himself to be a political leader now, not an entertainer. On his radio show on April 20, Beck said, “When we were, and I’ve never told this story before, when we were starting the TV show, there were things that I did that I wouldn’t do now because I had to be more of an entertainer to get people to go what is this show at five o’clock? I never said anything I didn’t believe, but I may have said things in an entertaining fashion.” The problem is that viewers don’t seem to like the new serious Glenn Beck. In reaction to the ratings drop, Beck has tried to spice things up by adding lots more God into his program in an effort to bring back the Evangelicals, and he started the gimmick Founders’ Friday which comes complete with a studio audience. Since Founders’ Friday led to his lowest numbers ever, I would say that it isn’t working. Beck has gone to the three Fox News G’s (God, Guns, and Gimmicks), and yet his audience continues to erode. While Beck refuses to admit that he is losing viewers, Fox News is saddled with a program that generates no ad revenue, and sagging viewership totals. If Beck’s show starts pulling under the 2 million viewers a day Fox News averages on a consistent basis, changes will be made. Whether he wants to admit or not, Glenn Beck has a real problem here. His viewers are slowly eroding away. The Beck fad appears to be over, and what Fox News has left is redundant, repetitive, one trick pony of a host.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Nothing would make me happier if that is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Nothing? What about a freebie from a $200 hooker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 [quote name='CincyInDC' date='18 May 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1274211366' post='889014'] Nothing? What about a freebie from a $200 hooker? [/quote] Well, ok... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 20, 2010 Report Share Posted May 20, 2010 http://blog.sojo.net/2010/05/19/why-glenn-beck-is-a-danger-to-true-evangelical-theology/ [quote]Why Glenn Beck is a Danger to True Evangelical Theology by Efrem Smith 05-19-2010 I watched the Glenn Beck show on Fox News yesterday. His topic was how churches that are using the term, “social justice” are misinterpreting scripture in order to spread Marxism. Now I don’t want to say that in some cases this might be true, but to provide a wide-spread brush stroke of all uses of the term social justice to be Marxist and in no way biblical is a major blow to true evangelical theology. One of the hallmarks of evangelical theology is the authority and centrality of scripture. The scripture is full of Kingdom mandates from God that call for a justice that goes beyond individualism. For those that don’t believe this is the case, they have to wrestle with the Exodus story as well as the book of Esther and the words of Jesus in Matthew 25, beginning with verse 31. This mission of God in the world includes salvation, which is individualistic in nature, but also includes what the corporate church should do concerning the widow, the poor, the orphan, the stranger, and the sick in society. The society makes up the social structures. This isn’t a political ideology, nor Marxist philosophy, this is the Word of God. Glenn Beck’s show on social justice and the church included guests from Liberty University and Westminster Theological Seminary who stated that the gospel is individualistic in nature. The guest from Liberty University even said that the parable of the talents (which just happens to come before a parable about feeding the hungry and visiting the sick and those in prison) is about free market enterprise. So the gospel of Jesus Christ according to the opinions of the guests are rooted in individualism and capitalism. It is about a person, as an individual, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and then investing their resources into the marketplace. This is a very limited and unbiblical view of salvation. Salvation itself is communal because it includes the community of the Trinity and in many cases the community of the person that God used to bring the person to Christ. This is why the evangelical church has a strong history of global missions. If the gospel is rooted in individualism, we should shut down every department of world missions in every evangelical denomination. Read the Old Testament and the gospel letters and it won’t take you long to realize that justice in society is a biblical theme presented as an act out of the overflow of an intimate relationship with God through Jesus Christ, as well as a significant part of the mission of the church. The church is called by God, through scripture to be about the whole mission of God, which includes evangelism, discipleship, mission, compassion, mercy, and justice. The church is called to make disciples and to do justice and love mercy. Let the Word of God drive the evangelical church and its theology, not a political talk show host.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xombie Posted May 20, 2010 Report Share Posted May 20, 2010 Why are people still giving this fearmonger the time of day? Fortunately, this is one of the few universal problems that would go away if you ignore it. Everytime someone rails against him, it only grants him, and those like him, more publicity. Make Beck, Olbermann, Michael Moore, O'Reilly, Cunningham personae non grata... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted May 21, 2010 Report Share Posted May 21, 2010 [quote name='Xombie' date='20 May 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1274399985' post='889566'] Why are people still giving this fearmonger the time of day? Fortunately, this is one of the few universal problems that would go away if you ignore it. Everytime someone rails against him, it only grants him, and those like him, more publicity. Make Beck, Olbermann, Michael Moore, O'Reilly, Cunningham personae non grata... [/quote] Don't forget Coulter and Maher.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xombie Posted May 21, 2010 Report Share Posted May 21, 2010 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='20 May 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1274401489' post='889567'] Don't forget Coulter and Maher.... [/quote] *shrugs* We could fill an endless list with names... It really doesn't matter who they are or what 'team' they represent... They abuse the medium of their fame by blindly spreading propaganda for profit and popularity. The polarization the cause only serves to strengthen their pockets' agendas that pay them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-3-2010/glenn-beck-airs-israeli-raid-footage Oops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 [url="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/glenn-beck-goldline/"]Beck and Goldline[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 This idiot is also for the privatization of national parks. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587359,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='28 July 2010 - 10:28 AM' timestamp='1280338111' post='900019'] This idiot is also for the privatization of national parks. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587359,00.html [/quote] Yeah, because drilling platforms are what is really needed to make the upper geyser basin in Yellowstone truly magical. Fucking wankers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 [quote name='Elflocko' date='28 July 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1280340201' post='900033'] Yeah, because drilling platforms are what is really needed to make the upper geyser basin in Yellowstone truly magical. Fucking wankers... [/quote] Can you imagine the water rides at Paramount's Yellowstone Park though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='28 July 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1280340600' post='900038'] Can you imagine the water rides at Paramount's Yellowstone Park though? [/quote] Don't forget the Disney theme park at Gettysburg. Fuck our history! Mouse ears for all!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 [quote name='Elflocko' date='28 July 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1280344640' post='900100'] Don't forget the Disney theme park at Gettysburg. Fuck our history! Mouse ears for all!!! [/quote] Reminds me of that Disney's America park they wanted to put in my county when I was in high school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xombie Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='28 July 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1280338111' post='900019'] This idiot is also for the privatization of national parks. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587359,00.html [/quote] I think there is marginal room for compromise on this one... As long as a significant percentage of revenue be diverted to cause in which they are profiting and they are able to avoid any lasting harm to flora, fauna, or landscape. Why not create a profitable environment that can enlighten the upcoming generations of American children, help maintain a wealth of natural habitat, and create jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 [quote name='Xombie' date='29 July 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1280449647' post='900730'] I think there is marginal room for compromise on this one... As long as a significant percentage of revenue be diverted to cause in which they are profiting and they are able to avoid any lasting harm to flora, fauna, or landscape. Why not create a profitable environment that can enlighten the upcoming generations of American children, help maintain a wealth of natural habitat, and create jobs? [/quote] And only the private market can do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='29 July 2010 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1280449802' post='900732'] And only the private market can do that? [/quote] Hey now, hippie! We can't be wasting all of that money on trees and shit when we need to keep dropping $2 billion per week or so on a couple of wars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xombie Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='29 July 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1280449802' post='900732'] And only the private market can do that? [/quote] Well. I guess I could be a smart ass and point to the deficit, but I would also be tempted to point out that this could the real litmus test of the green industry boom; who else would be better suited to profitably run a nature reserve than a company touting the benefits of a green business model? But, in all sincerity, the marriage of capital driven motive and regulated by the Department of Education, and not Environment, would be the most advantageous, as it would generate positive tax monies without conflicting with their payroll, be able to entice people to come and enjoy these seldom seen aspects of this country through more effective advertising dollars and experience, and the companies and organizations would be able to utilize their capital more effectively and avoid typical government red tape and bureaucracy. I see this no differently than President Obama privatizing space travel and exploration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 [quote name='Xombie' date='29 July 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1280450762' post='900739'] Well. I guess I could be a smart ass and point to the deficit, but I would also be tempted to point out that this could the real litmus test of the green industry boom; who else would be better suited to profitably run a nature reserve than a company touting the benefits of a green business model? But, in all sincerity, the marriage of capital driven motive and regulated by the Department of Education, and not Environment, would be the most advantageous, as it would generate positive tax monies without conflicting with their payroll, be able to entice people to come and enjoy these seldom seen aspects of this country through more effective advertising dollars and experience, and the companies and organizations would be able to utilize their capital more effectively and avoid typical government red tape and bureaucracy. I see this no differently that President Obama privatizing space travel and exploration. [/quote] When I hear and read people suggest that private industry take over (or even have a large part in managing of said treasures) it makes my skin crawl. The trepidation and disgust is almost palpable. You do realize that if it were up to private industry, the rim of the Grand Canyon would be lined with hotels and cheap amusement parks, as would Yellowstone? That more than the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite would be underwater? We don't need PI to have *any* hand in managing or financing our National Parks (aside from the customer service companies like Harvey), we need our government to stop pursuing idiotic policies that [b]create[/b] $13 Trillion national debts (oh, like unneeded wars and huge tax cuts for the richest %1 of the population) that sap needed resources from some of the most beautiful and valuable places on earth. Please keep in mind that those comments are directed towards your argument and not at you. I don't want you to perceive it as a personal attack as that is in no way my intent. And yes, I'm an unabashed conservationist and patron of our National Park system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 [quote name='Xombie' date='29 July 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1280450762' post='900739'] Well. I guess I could be a smart ass and point to the deficit, but I would also be tempted to point out that this could the real litmus test of the green industry boom; who else would be better suited to profitably run a nature reserve than a company touting the benefits of a green business model? But, in all sincerity, the marriage of capital driven motive and regulated by the Department of Education, and not Environment, would be the most advantageous, as it would generate positive tax monies without conflicting with their payroll, be able to entice people to come and enjoy these seldom seen aspects of this country through more effective advertising dollars and experience, and the companies and organizations would be able to utilize their capital more effectively and avoid typical government red tape and bureaucracy. I see this no differently than President Obama privatizing space travel and exploration. [/quote] And I could be a smart ass and say Dick Cheney said "deficits dont matter". But I'll just hijack a friend of mine's view on this who shared the info on it with me. [quote]Piratization, also known as privatization, is largely a means of getting something for nothing and .gov isn't supposed to be able to even OWN anything now. If it is something of value, you can rest assured that someone wants to obtain title to it for free, via some mechanism. The last big privatization proposal was Social Security, floated just before the bubbles burst--timely for a crash. Compare to19th Century land lotteries, homesteads and rail road charters--conveyances with nominal considerations. In today's context, Government becomes an empty shell holding only liabilities and no assets. One of the major roads to serfdom. Where does record title vest for the Public Domain? See Louisiana Purchase, Alaska Purchase and Gasden Purchase, among others. If you sell the land to BP, will you be able to fish on it? Is GB's proposal not a land grab? And what value will be placed on oil bearing lands and resources, among others? Nominal: Ten Dollars and other valuable considerations. The Federal Government has always owned these lands in fee simple since they purchased them. They sell timber, they lease land, just like a regular property owner. Beck simply doesn't like the idea of the government earning money by using assets that it owns. I mentioned Homesteading and Rail Road charters. Those were give aways. Now, the resources of these lands have been explored, unlike in the 19th century, when the government was just giving land away to have people settle it or to build a rail road. BTW: Railroads, the ones that didn't defraud their investsors and go bankrupt several times over, their primary source of income was selling land to people. They were given vast amounts of land on either side of the rights of way that Congress granted them, in a checkerboard fashion. 50 square miles on either side of the right of way, alternating. The Gasden Purchase was done to acquire a right of way for the southern most transcontinental rail route. GB's proposal is like someone telling you that you have to just give us your field. He is trying to garner support for a land grab, unlike any land grab that has ever been in history, including the nationalizations done by the commies. So, why on earth would we just give something of value away to these people, in fee simple, in perpetuity, so they can then set themselves up as feudal masters? [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.