Is there something wrong with Glenn Beck? I do not agree with everything he says but when I occasionally tune in. He backs his findings up with plenty of evidence. Just because you disagree it does not mean he is wrong. And I do hope he is wrong by the way.The $95 figure was a typo on CNN's page - they've corrected it to the correct $695.Really? Where? I still see $95 or 1% of income for 2014 rising to $695 or 2.5% of income in 2016 - both on CNN's website and on other sites.Hmm, I can't find now what I read - either they corrected the correction, or I misread it. I see the same thing you see now. It might have said $95 in 2016 earlier, and now that's been fixed? Or I might be crazy... even odds :)
?????
I had no idea where this came from, until I saw Anburaid's post above... but yes, to give my answer to your question, there is something wrong with Glenn Beck. If you hope he is wrong, please apply your critical thinking skills to the "evidence" he presents to back up his "findings".
OK progressives don't like Beck. I get that that. Is it just his tone or editorial conclusions? Is it just ideology?
It just seems like critics don't engage any particular ideas or facts in particular. It seems like it's more about personality.
When I say Bush sucks or Obama sucks I take issue with policy, but I'm not terribly personally invested in the fact that they suck except that the make policy that impacts my life.
I think Rush and Olberman suck, but who cares beyond the market place of ideas. I'm not compelled to consume any of their products, so there is little point in detailing why I think they suck.
The same thing applies to Beck. He doesn't make policy, so i guess it doesn't matter from that stand point. I'm just kind of curious.
EDIT: I don't plan on playing apologist for Beck, so I hope I'm not dragging the thread down some rabbit hole. It's just idle curiosity.
|
OK progressives don't like Beck. I get that that. Is it just his tone or editorial conclusions? Is it just ideology?
It just seems like critics don't engage any particular ideas or facts in particular. It seems like it's more about personality.
When I say Bush sucks or Obama sucks I take issue with policy, but I'm not terribly personally invested in the fact that they suck except that the make policy that impacts my life.
I think Rush and Olberman suck, but who cares beyond the market place of ideas. I'm not compelled to consume any of their products, so there is little point in detailing why I think they suck.
The same thing applies to Beck. He doesn't make policy, so i guess it doesn't matter from that stand point. I'm just kind of curious.
EDIT: I don't plan on playing apologist for Beck, so I hope I'm not dragging the thread down some rabbit hole. It's...
We (progressives) don't hate him because of his personality, although that does factor into it. We hate him because he incites paranoia and rage amongst easily influenced people. We don't hate him because he talks craziness, we hate him because people believe him and he takes advantage of them.
We also don't like his tactics of questioning his guests (although other people do this too) and setting them up with a question that has an answer that really doesn't shine a good light on them whether they answer it or not. A popular example here.
I mean, to sort of sum it up, look him up in wikipedia. The controversies and links to sources are listed there. And on youtube.
Also, the guy reminds me of Greg Stillson.
|
I don't speak for ALL conservatives anymore than those freaking crista-nazi-asshats speak for all conservatives(ann and rush I mean you) but the main reason -I- oppose national health care is because it would raise my taxes even more than they already are.
As a french (french health care system has lots of flaws, but works alright ; Michael Moore's movie about health care system depicted our system in a too optimistic way), I would say that is what I could think now, if I did not think although about my family and my elder days that would inevitably come one day.
It's not a matter of "paying now" but a matter of "paying now, benefiting if needed one day".
Yes, I am in a good health, now.
However, 2 years ago, my mom had a breast cancer.
My parents do (and did) have enough money to pay for the treatment (but it would have been very expensive for them anyway), but most part of it was taken care by the french health care system.
Do you have any idea what is the cost for curing a breast cancer (through chemical and x-rays) ?
IIRC, the whole process cost more than $15,000, in about 6 months. A large part of it was not paid by my parents.
I remember that one pill that my mother took once or twice a month (for 6 month) cost about $800 !!
What would you do if someone very close, an aunt or cousin had to go through this, and di not have enough money to pay ?
Ignore the problem ?
"After all, 'she' is only my aunt, my cousin !"
What about you, or your very close relatives (parents, bros ans sis, wife, children) ?
Noone is a 100% safe from cancer or a degenerative disease.
Think about it : you don't pay for "others", but you also pay for what COULD happen to your people.
Have you ever given your blood ?
I did it several times, each time thinking : "I am happy to give my blood, it'll be useful to someone, maybe it'll save a life.
And maybe, one day, I'll be happy that someone gave its blood for me..."
Here, instead of blood, it's money.
Being told I have to buy health care or be fined is the most communist, anti-American thing I can imagine.
Sure, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, for example are communist countries.
Beware, I am sure Norway has nuclear submarines close to US coastal cities...;-))
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don’t believe Australia has close to 15 to 20 million ILLEGAL money sucking, quasi-illiterate immigrants in it's borders, we do that’s what make OUR health care issue different from any other nation.
I'm pretty sure they don't.
However, according to the last figures I've read, US population (legal) is around 308-310 million people, when it's only about 22 million people in Australia (no real comparison is possible ; moreover, Australia is an island, so, illegal immigration is even more difficult) , and illegal US population is more around 13-15 million than 20 !
Then, the rest of it is HIGHLY racist, full of prejudice : "quasi illiterate".
Just because some (maybe most) of them don't speak english ?
Why don't you speak spanish, and verify by yourself ?
And then check for other countries about illegal immigrant population.
All of the european countries do have a high rate of illegal immigration.
I do not approve illegal immigration, but it is a very complex problem.
They [illegal immigrants] don’t pay taxes into our system because they have 19 kids to support back in Mexico or whatever south of the border drug infested cartel of a nation they come from and yet they want to receive the full benefits of living here. They want to get social security,...
"19 kids" !
This is also outrageous and HIGHLY racist."They don't pay taxes" : VAT ?
As a matter of fact, the illegal immigration is much more complex than a "money suckers' problem".
And we do have such a problem in France.
First of all, lots (maybe most) of illegal people DO HAVE a work.
Why ?
Because they cost less.
GOOD and NICE and WHITE US companies (or french companies in France) do use illegal workers, or even US (or french) citizens for nursing or housecleaning.
They check quickly the papers (false ones) and hire those people : less organized (very few union workers), less expensive, more "stretchable", it's difficult to ignore that, for a company that is looking for the highest profits.
So, should we make the companies pay for hiring illegal workers ?
Or should we imprison or send back illegal workers ?
Who's to blame ?
Then, do not forget : your "money sucking" illegal worker has vital needs : house, food, clothes, some leisure.
And guess what ?
They spend that money IN the USA (It doesn't mean they don't send part of it in their countries).
Maybe they even buy stuff from the company you're working for !
Maybe they pay part of your salary !
Gosh, you should be ashamed...
:-/
Glenn Beck. He is the only person I have ever truly despised. I am not joking. I am the kind of person who has always had a place in his heart for forgiveness and I truly understand that people have opinions and they're entitled to them. I think the way GB expresses his opinion hurts our nation. I hate him more than anyone I have ever heard of or met in my entire life. He's taken people's genuine concerns over issues and transformed them into fear. He uses fear to meet his personal goals... he's a f+#&ing terrorist.
I am sure someone with a lot more time this morning can get into the details. For me, I'll let Jon Stewart do my talking for me.
This episode was EPIC. These two videos are amazing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/jon-stewart-glenn-beck-parody_n_50 5329.html
Yeah, I know it's on Huffington Post, but the videos are neatly displayed there for easy viewing. The intro video doesn't do the body of his parody justice. It gets very very good.
|
|
Well, we haven't entirely given up jingoism - we still hate the French, but it's mutual so that's alright.
I've always liked your posts a lot, Aubrey !
Well, as a matter of fact, I do NOT hate the english. ;=)
I'be always figured this was more like a love/hate relationship than french relationship with Germany (where it's a kind of "love/distrust" relationship).
(the only exception "could" be on a rugby field when our team is meeting yours for the 6 nations);
Cheers !
Then, the rest of it is HIGHLY racist, full of prejudice : "quasi illiterate".
Just because some (maybe most) of them don't speak english ?
Why don't you speak spanish, and verify by yourself ?
Just to point out some information you might not be aware of. In many parts of the US, it is required to give non-adults education, even if they are not in the US legally. The children of these illegals often are very poor performers, not merely because of their native language issues, though that is also an issue, but because they lack the basics in their own native tongue as well. It is much easier to teach someone to read another language if they are literate in their native tongue, then it is if they are not literate in any language. The places many of these people come from tend to have extremely poor education systems (that is why their economies suck so hard that they feel it is a good idea for them to bring themselves and their family sweating in backs of trucks and such).
To note, this is more a problem with poor communities in general, as demonstrated by poor performing students from poor communities native to the US as well. While one part of this is an issue of wealth directly (poor teaching facilities, poorly paid teachers, etc), the biggest issue is one of social dynamics where education is not valued as much.
|
|
He presents historical evidence, sound clips on speeches by Barack Obama and his appointed czars and cabinet members, historical facts about progressives from FDR, Woodrow Wilson, to modern day progressives... etc. I can go on but I see no need.
Also, the United States is pretty much going down the tube. Mine as well openly admit that. Bankruptcy will ultimately destroy this country and seeing congress has always been so good at spending... We should pass some more social programs while we are at it and just hurry up and bankrupt the country. No need to bleed it out for years and decades.
You're absolutely right: a crazy asshat would never miscontstrue the "evidence" to support their position. He's a shock-jock, analagous to the conservatives' howard stern if you will. He is a waste of space and oxygen and he is dangerous. It's one thing to play on people's fear if there's something to fear. He creates these ideas and concepts and then gets people to fear them.
You're absolutely right: a crazy asshat would never miscontstrue the "evidence" to support their position. He's a shock-jock, analagous to the conservatives' howard stern if you will. He is a waste of space and oxygen and he is dangerous. It's one thing to play on people's fear if there's something to fear. He creates these ideas and concepts and then gets people to fear them.He presents historical evidence, sound clips on speeches by Barack Obama and his appointed czars and cabinet members, historical facts about progressives from FDR, Woodrow Wilson, to modern day progressives... etc. I can go on but I see no need.
Also, the United States is pretty much going down the tube. Mine as well openly admit that. Bankruptcy will ultimately destroy this country and seeing congress has always been so good at spending... We should pass some more social programs while we are at it and just hurry up and bankrupt the country. No need to bleed it out for years and decades.
The funny thing about this whole thing is how so many these people that are up in arms about Beck, were amazingly silent when things like movies describing the assassination of a sitting president were being made and played. Things like effigies of various Republican political leaders were being hung from nooses. And other things. Yes, some on the right, like Beck, push things to the edge, riling people up. But I find some folks offense to that a case of, "Me doth think you protest too much."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
It amuses me to no end that folks are on here railing against Glenn Beck, using Huffington Post quotes to do it.
Hating on Beck... quoting Huffington.
C'mon, take a big step back and look at that picture I just painted for you. If you're going to decry hysterical fear-mongering on one side of the aisle, at least have the decency to decry it on your side, too.
|
|
The funny thing about this whole thing is how so many these people that are up in arms about Beck, were amazingly silent when things like movies describing the assassination of a sitting president were being made and played. Things like effigies of various Republican political leaders were being hung from nooses. And other things. Yes, some on the right, like Beck, push things to the edge, riling people up. But I find some folks offense to that a case of, "Me doth think you protest too much."
I never said i condoned what people were doing while dubya was in office. The only thing is, that has remained largely unchanged (it's just that the conserves are doing it to obama now); you would think that, with the uproar they created about the things being said and done about bush, they would at least have the decency to not be blatantly hypocritical.
It amuses me to no end that folks are on here railing against Glenn Beck, using Huffington Post quotes to do it.
Hating on Beck... quoting Huffington.
C'mon, take a big step back and look at that picture I just painted for you. If you're going to decry hysterical fear-mongering on one side of the aisle, at least have the decency to decry it on your side, too.
It reminds me of the time when someone here criticized me for using the Daily Mail in the UK as a source for a story. This same person then used the Daily Kos as a source a few days later.
I never said i condoned what people were doing while dubya was in office.
But did you speak out against it? You are making an effort to speak out against "conservative" folk like Beck, I assume that you made the same effort to speak out when similar tactics were used from the other radical side. If not then it seems you are as guilt as the people you describe.
...they would at least have the decency to not be blatantly hypocritical.
It amuses me to no end that folks are on here railing against Glenn Beck, using Huffington Post quotes to do it.
Hating on Beck... quoting Huffington.
C'mon, take a big step back and look at that picture I just painted for you. If you're going to decry hysterical fear-mongering on one side of the aisle, at least have the decency to decry it on your side, too.
It's Daily Show quotes on Huffington. Way to dismiss the points Jon made by just meta-arguing.
Yeah, I know it's on Huffington Post, but the videos are neatly displayed there for easy viewing. The intro video doesn't do the body of his parody justice. It gets very very good.
I don't feel shame at my bleeding heart. Comments like that certainly won't make me feel it.
Get your lazy ass up and work or achieve something. Maybe that would help and you could have what you want instead of complaining what you don't have.
This made me think of a quote I saw the other day.
[quote=]“It’s easy to villainize these guys with the big paychecks,” he says. “But they’re not all bad. I’m a pretty left-wing character, and I come from whatever collar is lower than blue. But meeting these guys really opened my mind a lot. I’ve never seen people with more drive and determination in my life.”
(Shia LaBeouf talking about wall street people he met doing research for his part in Wall Street 2.)
Get your lazy ass up and work or achieve something. Maybe that would help and you could have what you want instead of complaining what you don't have.This made me think of a quote I saw the other day.
[quote=]“It’s easy to villainize these guys with the big paychecks,” he says. “But they’re not all bad. I’m a pretty left-wing character, and I come from whatever collar is lower than blue. But meeting these guys really opened my mind a lot. I’ve never seen people with more drive and determination in my life.”
(Shia LaBeouf talking about wall street people he met doing research for his part in Wall Street 2.)
It sounds nice, but I still say that we may not like what a society based on perhaps a darwinistic level of competition/drive would look like.
It sounds nice, but I still say that we may not like what a society based on perhaps a darwinistic level of competition/drive would look like.
That's why I didn't move down to New York City. F#$@ that place.
|
|
But did you speak out against it? You are making an effort to speak out against "conservative" folk like Beck, I assume that you made the same effort to speak out when similar tactics were used from the other radical side. If not then it seems you are as guilt as the people you describe.
Given that dubya was my CiC at the time, yes I was apalled by what people were saying about the president. It didn't matter that i didn't agree with him on pretty much anything nor does it matter that I agree with obama on his policies; if nothing else, you must have respect for the office of the POTUS, regardless of who is holding that office.
|
I never said i condoned what people were doing while dubya was in office.But did you speak out against it? You are making an effort to speak out against "conservative" folk like Beck, I assume that you made the same effort to speak out when similar tactics were used from the other radical side. If not then it seems you are as guilt as the people you describe.
...they would at least have the decency to not be blatantly hypocritical.
I was, Hell I'm a libertarian who believes our party should have a more broad view as to what qualifies (which I defended when I heard people say bill mar isn't a libertarian) and I hate the fact that Beck calls himself a libertarian.
I defended bush when democrat friends called him stupid, I defended the decision to stay in Iraq (although I was opposed to going into Iraq) on the simple belief that "you break it, you bought it". I defended and lambasted those who used unsupported attacks on Bush, although the only thing I couldn't in conscious argue against was the idea that he wasn't democratically elected, as I find myself for and against the electoral college sometimes, so I sometimes find myself wavering on the fairness of his original election. However his second election I supported his policy while at the same time expressing my concerns in a reasoned manner.
All that said, Glenn Beck is the biggest douchebag I've ever heard, followed shortly by Pelosi. I've heard his "evidence", and I have to say that I'm honestly tired of slippery slope arguments on either side, but he has the gall to continually tirade on a slew of logical fallacies that are staggering in their lack of coherence, especially when over the years he has literally reversed positions on certain standards dependant on who's in office/power. I don't like hannity or limbaugh (I'm more of a clark howard/neil Bohrs kinda guy), but at least they are more consistent in their ideas, Glen beck however I have nothing but disdain for.
I defended the decision to stay in Iraq (although I was opposed to going into Iraq) on the simple belief that "you break it, you bought it".
Well-said. I also defended staying in Iraq because, like you and Powell said, we created the problem so its up to us to fix it.
Besides, why the hell would we LEAVE Iraq before we can reap the rewards of reconstruction????
Is there something wrong with Glenn Beck? I do not agree with everything he says but when I occasionally tune in. He backs his findings up with plenty of evidence. Just because you disagree it does not mean he is wrong. And I do hope he is wrong by the way.The $95 figure was a typo on CNN's page - they've corrected it to the correct $695.Really? Where? I still see $95 or 1% of income for 2014 rising to $695 or 2.5% of income in 2016 - both on CNN's website and on other sites.Hmm, I can't find now what I read - either they corrected the correction, or I misread it. I see the same thing you see now. It might have said $95 in 2016 earlier, and now that's been fixed? Or I might be crazy... even odds :)
?????
I had no idea where this came from, until I saw Anburaid's post above... but yes, to give my answer to your question, there is something wrong with Glenn Beck. If you hope he is wrong, please apply your critical thinking skills to the "evidence" he presents to back up his "findings".
OK progressives don't like Beck. I get that that. Is it just his tone or editorial conclusions? Is it just ideology?
It just seems like critics don't engage any particular ideas or facts in particular. It seems like it's more about personality.
When I say Bush sucks or Obama sucks I take issue with policy, but I'm not terribly personally invested in the fact that they suck except that the make policy that impacts my life.
I think Rush and Olberman suck, but who cares beyond the market place of ideas. I'm not compelled to consume any of their products, so there is little point in detailing why I think they suck.
The same thing applies to Beck. He doesn't make policy, so i guess it doesn't matter from that stand point. I'm just kind of curious.
EDIT: I don't plan on playing apologist for Beck, so I hope I'm not dragging the thread down some rabbit hole. It's...
I don't know if it really qualifies as ideological for me - I despise Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter and Malkin, but have respect for O'Reilly and Huckabee. At least the latter two seem sincere in their arguments and aren't as foaming at the mouth insane when they make their points, even though I substantively disagree with them often.
I'm not sure who on the left compares with those four. I can't think right now, but I might agree if someone is brought up.
The reason those four in particular raise my ire is that they seem to deliberately distort facts to promote an agenda that I view as extremist.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I just want everyone to know that my brother-in-law once said that liberals should be ground up into hamburger. If you didn't protest him saying that, you are no longer allowed to complain about any extreme comment or violent provocation made by any other person, even if they have a show that millions watch and a major political party embraces the ideas of that person. These two are exactly the same thing! Your failure to heap scorn upon my brother while complaining about this show makes you the worst kind of hypocrite!
I just want everyone to know that my brother-in-law once said that liberals should be ground up into hamburger. If you didn't protest him saying that, you are no longer allowed to complain about any extreme comment or violent provocation made by any other person, even if they have a show that millions watch and a major political party embraces the ideas of that person. These two are exactly the same thing! Your failure to heap scorn upon my brother while complaining about this show makes you the worst kind of hypocrite!
Personally, I always protest anything the pony and people even loosely related to them say. It doesn't really matter what they actually say, it is just on general principle.
I just want everyone to know that my brother-in-law once said that liberals should be ground up into hamburger. If you didn't protest him saying that, you are no longer allowed to complain about any extreme comment or violent provocation made by any other person, even if they have a show that millions watch and a major political party embraces the ideas of that person. These two are exactly the same thing! Your failure to heap scorn upon my brother while complaining about this show makes you the worst kind of hypocrite!
Put some conservative bacon and Libertarian cheese on it, with French bread, and I'd be ok with it :)
(joking - I have no idea who your brother-in-law is, nor have I heard that before - so I will contain my outrage for now :)
|
Well, we haven't entirely given up jingoism - we still hate the French, but it's mutual so that's alright.I've always liked your posts a lot, Aubrey !
Well, as a matter of fact, I do NOT hate the english. ;=)
I'be always figured this was more like a love/hate relationship than french relationship with Germany (where it's a kind of "love/distrust" relationship).
(the only exception "could" be on a rugby field when our team is meeting yours for the 6 nations);
Cheers !
You can't post something like that and invalidate my spleen!
(Though it must be said I'm posting this from a very pleasant French hotel near Perpignan where I have had a very relaxing holiday with my wife for the last week. Hypocrite, moi?)
I don't know if it really qualifies as ideological for me - I despise Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter and Malkin, but have respect for O'Reilly and Huckabee. At least the latter two seem sincere in their arguments and aren't as foaming at the mouth insane when they make their points, even though I substantively disagree with them often.
It's so crazy that O'Reilly has become the reasonable one on that channel. It blows my freakin mind.
I'be always figured this was more like a love/hate relationship than french relationship with Germany (where it's a kind of "love/distrust" relationship).
I can't imagine why...?
LOL
It sounds nice, but I still say that we may not like what a society based on perhaps a darwinistic level of competition/drive would look like.That's why I didn't move down to New York City. f*@~ that place.
HEY! I LIVE here!
I'm not sure who on the left compares with those four. I can't think right now, but I might agree if someone is brought up.
Keith Dolbermann? Maybe Chris Matthews.
The problem is, left political talk shows are less successful (financially, spewing hate/ignorance they tend to be equal) than right ones, that is why you have more right people that jump out when you think about it.
Maybe Al Franken.
Since he does write political articles, I guess we could say Henry Rollins maybe.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Way to dismiss the points Jon made by just meta-arguing.
I didn't dismiss any of his points. I didn't even watch the video. I didn't defend Beck, either. I just pointed out your hypocrisy in accusing a right-wing biased commentator of right-wing bias by citing a left-wing biased source. It's like accusing ketchup of not being mustard because you prefer mustard.
I am sure someone with a lot more time this morning can get into the details. For me, I'll let Jon Stewart do my talking for me.
You could have bought health insurance for that price easily. Health insurance is a choice not a right.
Here's what I don't understand. If healthcare is a choice not a right, and choosing to not get health insurance increases the cost burden on people WITH health insurance (because the costs of treating you in the emergency room are shifted by the hospital to the insurers who shift it onto the insured by upping premiums, or by dropping them completely when they get sick, like a twisted game of hot potato), does that not impinge on the personal freedom of other Americans to be able to keep health insurance?
Doctors are mandated, by law, to treat people who are sick. If you go to the emergency room, they have to treat you (or at least determine you don't need treatment). If you can't pay for it, everyone else pays instead. A libertarian can say that taxes are an unfair seizing of personal property by the government, but what does the current system amount to? If you can't afford insurance and go to the hospital and can't pay your bills, you are essentially taxing the healthcare system and everyone who pays insurance. Whether or not you like the new healthcare bill, you were being taxed, you are being taxed now. Its not a matter of personal freedom/responsibility when your "choice" impinges on your neighbor's freedom.
I removed a personal attack.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
It amuses me to no end that folks are on here railing against Glenn Beck, using Huffington Post quotes to do it.
Hating on Beck... quoting Huffington.
C'mon, take a big step back and look at that picture I just painted for you. If you're going to decry hysterical fear-mongering on one side of the aisle, at least have the decency to decry it on your side, too.
And here I thought the Huffington Post was all about Tiger Woods and Jesse James mistresses, miracle cures, and the evils of child vaccination.
Huh.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
And here I thought the Huffington Post was all about Tiger Woods and Jesse James mistresses, miracle cures, and the evils of child vaccination.
Huh.
You know, it's been quite a while since I've read the Huffington Post. You prompted me to go back and take a look at it, if for no other reason than to confirm (or not) my first impression of its leftist bias.
Sure enough, there were plenty of celeb shenanigans pieces, but I think that's true of all news sources these days. Do you remember when the US pulled out of all cities in Iraq? Probably not, because it happened the same day Michael Jackson died. Lurid stories sell (as you well know; you're a publisher who's driving a revival of interest in lurid pulp stories with the Planet Stories line--which I appreciate, btw, don't misconstrue this as a blanket condemnation of lurid stories).
Then I clicked on the Politics button at the top of the page. Reading a couple of headlines, the left-wing bias was pretty immediately obvious. Which I'd fully expect from a news source that is up front about its own left-wing bias. The Huffington Post doesn't pretend to be objective any more than Glenn Beck does. Both are "what it says on the tin." I don't condemn Arianna Huffington for her biases, or for promoting them on her site, even when I disagree. Quite the contrary. In a way, I can respect her and Beck for owning up to their own biases more than I can Fox News or CNN, who claim journalistic objectivity. TBH, I don't read or listen to US news sources, or political commentators of ANY stripe, very much because hardly anybody covers global events that actually matter.
I was considering starting up a thread to discuss the validity of the news in general, the increasing shift from journalism to commentary, and the rhetorical polarization of public discourse. Maybe I should.
|
|
And here I thought the Huffington Post was all about Tiger Woods and Jesse James mistresses, miracle cures, and the evils of child vaccination.
Huh.
You know, it's been quite a while since I've read the Huffington Post. You prompted me to go back and take a look at it, if for no other reason than to confirm (or not) my first impression of its leftist bias.
Sure enough, there were plenty of celeb shenanigans pieces, but I think that's true of all news sources these days. Do you remember when the US pulled out of all cities in Iraq? Probably not, because it happened the same day Michael Jackson died. Lurid stories sell (as you well know; you're a publisher who's driving a revival of interest in lurid pulp stories with the Planet Stories line--which I appreciate, btw, don't misconstrue this as a blanket condemnation of lurid stories).
Then I clicked on the Politics button at the top of the page. Reading a couple of headlines, the left-wing bias was pretty immediately obvious. Which I'd fully expect from a news source that is up front about its own left-wing bias. The Huffington Post doesn't pretend to be objective any more than Glenn Beck does. Both are "what it says on the tin." I don't condemn Arianna Huffington for her biases, or for promoting them on her site, even when I disagree. Quite the contrary. In a way, I can respect her and Beck for owning up to their own biases more than I can Fox News or CNN, who claim journalistic objectivity. TBH, I don't read or listen to US news sources, or political commentators of ANY stripe, very much because hardly anybody covers global events that actually matter.
I was considering starting up a thread to discuss the validity of the news in general, the increasing shift from journalism to commentary, and the rhetorical polarization of public discourse. Maybe I should.
It'd be interesting
|
Do you remember when the US pulled out of all cities in Iraq? Probably not, because it happened the same day Michael Jackson died.I remember that... but I couldn't tell you the date because I was so busy crying. We miss you MJ!
;P
I do recall the rash of incendiary (read: locked by the Paizo staff) threads about MJ...
|
|
I do recall the rash of incendiary (read: locked by the Paizo staff) threads about MJ...Do you remember when the US pulled out of all cities in Iraq? Probably not, because it happened the same day Michael Jackson died.I remember that... but I couldn't tell you the date because I was so busy crying. We miss you MJ!
;P
If the threads get locked by Paizo, does that mean:
1 Michael Jackson = 1 Godwin?
If the threads get locked by Paizo, does that mean:
1 Michael Jackson = 1 Godwin?
You rang?
Is there something wrong with Glenn Beck?
Yes there’s something wrong with him. What kind of sissy cries because of a 30 year old Coca-cola commercial on national television?
Yes there’s something wrong with him. What kind of sissy cries because of a 30 year old Coca-cola commercial on national television?
Is there something wrong with Glenn Beck?
Hey, thats not fair... I'm sure sissys would take offense at that comparison. :)
I'm not sure who on the left compares with those four. I can't think right now, but I might agree if someone is brought up.Keith Dolbermann? Maybe Chris Matthews.
The problem is, left political talk shows are less successful (financially, spewing hate/ignorance they tend to be equal) than right ones, that is why you have more right people that jump out when you think about it.
Maybe Al Franken.
Since he does write political articles, I guess we could say Henry Rollins maybe.
For me, Olberman is in the same category as O'Reilly, but on the left. Maybe Matthews too. But you're right, I probably haven't heard as much of the really crazy stuff (if there is any) that they've said.
Maybe Al Franken, when he was attacking Limbaugh (though I loved his book title - at least for its audacity). But I really respect the job he's done as a senator.
For really out there radical left stuff, maybe Nader or Chomsky (I know his linguistic stuff, and he is very smart, but his politics are too radical for me, I think, though I don't know them well at all).
It's also true that the radical left stuff won't rub me the wrong way as much as the radical right stuff. I think I tend towards the center (which these days is practically communist compared to the views of Coulter et al), and am willing to give politicians some leeway with "the ends justify the means" nature of things, so long as I support the ends. I suppose that's true for everyone. I do more often identify with the goals of the democrats, but not always.
|
|
I'm not sure who on the left compares with those four. I can't think right now, but I might agree if someone is brought up.Keith Dolbermann? Maybe Chris Matthews.
The problem is, left political talk shows are less successful (financially, spewing hate/ignorance they tend to be equal) than right ones, that is why you have more right people that jump out when you think about it.
Maybe Al Franken.
Since he does write political articles, I guess we could say Henry Rollins maybe.
For me, Olberman is in the same category as O'Reilly, but on the left. Maybe Matthews too. But you're right, I probably haven't heard as much of the really crazy stuff (if there is any) that they've said.
Maybe Al Franken, when he was attacking Limbaugh (though I loved his book title - at least for its audacity). But I really respect the job he's done as a senator.
For really out there radical left stuff, maybe Nader or Chomsky (I know his linguistic stuff, and he is very smart, but his politics are too radical for me, I think, though I don't know them well at all).
It's also true that the radical left stuff won't rub me the wrong way as much as the radical right stuff. I think I tend towards the center (which these days is practically communist compared to the views of Coulter et al), and am willing to give politicians some leeway with "the ends justify the means" nature of things, so long as I support the ends. I suppose that's true for everyone. I do more often identify with the goals of the democrats, but not always.
Olbermann is much more like Coulter. Just as bile-filled. Just as ridiculous.
I'm not sure who on the left compares with those four. I can't think right now, but I might agree if someone is brought up.Keith Dolbermann? Maybe Chris Matthews.
The problem is, left political talk shows are less successful (financially, spewing hate/ignorance they tend to be equal) than right ones, that is why you have more right people that jump out when you think about it.
Maybe Al Franken.
Since he does write political articles, I guess we could say Henry Rollins maybe.
For me, Olberman is in the same category as O'Reilly, but on the left. Maybe Matthews too. But you're right, I probably haven't heard as much of the really crazy stuff (if there is any) that they've said.
Maybe Al Franken, when he was attacking Limbaugh (though I loved his book title - at least for its audacity). But I really respect the job he's done as a senator.
For really out there radical left stuff, maybe Nader or Chomsky (I know his linguistic stuff, and he is very smart, but his politics are too radical for me, I think, though I don't know them well at all).
It's also true that the radical left stuff won't rub me the wrong way as much as the radical right stuff. I think I tend towards the center (which these days is practically communist compared to the views of Coulter et al), and am willing to give politicians some leeway with "the ends justify the means" nature of things, so long as I support the ends. I suppose that's true for everyone. I do more often identify with the goals of the democrats, but not always.
Olbermann is much more like Coulter. Just as bile-filled. Just as ridiculous.
I'll take your word for it - I haven't seen much of him (almost nothing actually), and probably won't tune in anytime soon :)
So, just to quickly pop in (I'm actually surprised the thread hasn't been shut down) . . . .
When President Obama said "If you like the health insurance play you have, you'll be able to keep it," was he lying, or was he simply uninformed?
It's not like some of us didn't see this coming.
You may now return to expressing love for media pundits.
No, I agree the Olberman/O'Riley comparison. Coulter is very mean-spirited, but closer to Olberman than Beck is. Glenn Beck is in a class all by himself.
I'd like to say that the left doesn't do well at the hate radio and TV crazytalk because we don't fall for it as easily. I don't think I'd put money on it though.
You mean my copays might go up this year because some kids with freakin bone cancer are getting health care?
F@*&ING SOCIALISM SUCKSSSSSZZZ!!!!!!!!