I would be interested in that. You look, I’ll look and I’ll get back to you if I find anything. Also we should compare schedules since there presently is a big delay between us.
I wonder if we find such a site if there will be as much insulting and belittling as there is on this one. If not we could be pioneers!

Take care

I don’t believe it. It did it to me again! Fortunately I hadn’t written much. So I’ll try again…

I had to laugh. You are right. It’s like we are two different people on the other blog.

All I’ve learned is that all religions can be wrong but all religions cannot be right. For the most part religions tend to be exclusive and not compatible with other religions. Some are but again, most aren’t. Since if even one is exclusive the old elephant analogy is untenable.

Well, there you go. I’ll stop before someone yells at us.

Oh dear, the system has unbelievably done the same thing to me… I’m not even being sarcastic… If I end up with two replies, forgive me.

Let’s agree to disagree and both keep an eye on things. You are truly a delight and I wish I had a chance to discuss religion with you. Have you solved any big questions with all your study? I really have not. I am left mostly confused but convinced that some form of life goes on after this one and that someone or something guides our existance to some extent. Pretty poor showing for a lifetime of study, wouldn’t you say? (We both seem more civilized in this blog over the other one, wonder why. )

I still want a public option. I still think Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, and I still greatly dislike guns in any kind of venue. I know people like to hunt but there are very few animals at public meetings. (I think we agreed on that one, actually.) (I said it so much better before… oh well.)

I do not think the people on this blog are stupid at all. I just realize how very cunning some political pundits are and how willing they seem to be to direct people in one way of thinking or another. I just like to call attention to the fact when I can and remind those very clever people to be careful.

Take care.

1. Obama has actual power and is charismatic. Beck has no power. Who fits your profile of a person that can stir people to action better and who is potentially more dangerous? Oh, and Beck’s viewers are no more mindless than you are so quit implying they are easily led.

2. Checking guns and owning guns are two different issues. People have good reason to fear anti-gunners. Their stated goal is to eliminate private ownership of guns…period. If they can’t do it outright they do it incrementally and dishonestly by various methods. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the second ammendment does indeed protect the right to private ownership of firearms and the anti-gunners are now frantically trying to get around this ruling.

3. If Obama had only a couple of questionable associations it wouldn’t be a problem. It is the countless radicals and extremists he surrounds himself with that is a problem. Each association is a piece in a puzzle that when assembled does not make for a very reassuring picture.

4. People don’t need an “Health Care Package”. They just want some common sense laws put in place that alleviate the problems. They don’t have to be in a package. They could be passed separately and right now, like opening states to all insurers, eliminating pre-existing conditions preclusions, etc..

That’s it. See you later.

Having said that, I must stick by my guns when I say that Glenn Beck does, in fact, get people stirred up and angry. Any good speaker can accomplish this feat by beginning rather calmly, directing a person’s attention to commonly held beliefs, slowly raising their voice and getting emotionally upset while drawing the audience along with them. This is especially effective when information is repeatedly given with accompaning gestures and emotional input. Good music does the same thing. We humans are very prone to this form of almost hypnotic progression. Ministers use the same process every Sunday, as does any politician who can stir a crowd.

I am frightened when I see people at public meeting sporting guns and saying that their 2nd Ammendment rights are being challenged. Even in Dodge City they required people to check their guns at the sheriffs office before going into town. I don’t like pictures of our president made up to look like The Joker from Batman, Hitler, a monkey, or any other nasty form. I know people have done this since Kilroy, but when it gets out of hand we end up with people very angry, fist fighting, and even shot.

I love discourse, especially with a worthy sparring partner. I think it is the life and breath of our political system and country. I just don’t like it when it goes too far. I watch Glenn Beck about once a day, maybe a little lesss. He is quite brilliant, I admit. He is also very one-sided and seems to hate the current administration out of proportion to the infractions they have made.

President Obama was on a board of directors with Ayers. They weren’t best buddies. Obama acted as a lawyer one time for ACORN, he didn’t work for them as an employee nor did he ever act in any kind of management position there. I would wager that anyone who is a liberal has known and even worked with people who have made some pretty big mistakes in their lives. So have Republicans, Progressives, Conservatives, Centrists, etc. We really can’t base our judgement of a politician or a whole party based on very slim associations. If we could, we would have to assume that JFK could sing and act, Ronald Reagan was really a Russian spy because he liked Gorbachof (I spelled that phonetically and incorrectly, I know.). and that Eisenhower was a terrible man because he had an affair with his driver (a woman).

I want health care reform with a public option. I want our young people out of foreign wars as soon as possible without endangering their or our lives. I think illegal aliens should be sent home unless they are in danger there, however, if they are sick we should treat them out of simple humanity. (I will never be a rich person, I know, but I can sleep at night and I do love to sleep.)

I like you. In fact, I would say that I like everyone on this little blog. Especially I like it when young people get involved in politics. Bully for them, I say! Either side, in fact. It makes the world go round and life entertaining. Peace to you and take care. But, to make this one lady happy, just note how Mr. Beck manipulates his audience and remember what the big picture shows. ACORN, Ayers, Van Johnson, etc. are pretty small potatoes writ large by FOX News, I believe in service to R. Murdock’s adjenda: Money for insurance companies and himself along with regaining the Congress in 2012 for Republicans.

Becks viewership numbers are as crooked as Murdoch and Beck.

He went to his hometown and took a 350 seat hall into 7500 people, or his lies about how many morons were in the tea-bag march.

Who watches Beck at 5 pm?

It’s white trash welfare collectors while the rest of us are working or driving home from work.

On Oct. 4th 3;24 p.m. you gave a three paragraph explanation of Germany after WWI, why Nazi’s came to power and how hateful they were and how Hitler stirred up the masses with hateful speech and the subsequent escalation from words to violent actions. In the next paragraph you said, “I hate to see people get so angry and so “led” by anyone who is spewing hate. Unfortunately, I see Glen Beck as such a person.”

Erg Beck is akin to Hitler, who was a Nazi. Or as I put it, you are likening Beck to a Nazi; Hitler to be specific.

Don’t say, “Well, you may have read it that way.” You constructed it that way. It’s no one’s fault but your own if people read it that way. If you don’t want to say such things then don’t say them.

Further, you must not watch Beck very often or read his books or
you’d know he not only covers every thing you mentioned you wished he’d deal with but a host of other things as well. And don’t tell me you do. If that’s true then you obviously don’t pay attention.

I never said Beck was like a Nazi. In fact, I specifically said that I do NOT like people saying anyone is like Hitler or Nazis. Hitler and the Nazis were so very vile that I never compare others to them anymore than I would compare them to Joseph Stalin, the devil, or Ted Bundy.

What I do say and have said is that I would love to see Glenn Beck tackle some more worthy problem, like health care/unemployment/the war in Afghanistan/ or maybe the economy.

I am not upset. Peace, Sir.

Oh, it is nice to read GBD and Blaffie again too.

Why don’t you guys like Rachel Maddow? I think she is adorable.

Is it just me or does anyone else think GBD and CON-FREE are on the verge of nervous breakdowns?

“Every other major country in the world has health care for all of their citizens. We are listed as number 29 in mortality, way down the list in infant mortality, and we pay way, way more than the next closest country for our medical care.”

Darla, I urge you to do some research to get at the facts behind healthcare. Search for Dr. Brent James (from Intermountain Healthcare in Utah) and you’ll find the following:

40% of a nation’s health (hence, mortality) is due to the behaviors of it’s people, for example level of drug/alcohol abuse, inactivity, etc.

30% is from genetics

20% is from environmental factors (access to clean water, vaccinations, etc.)

10% is from the healthcare system in the country.

So, why do you think our mortality isn’t #1? The two biggest reasons are our poor habits – e.g. obesity which leads to diabetes which leads to early death – and the diversity of our population, a great mix of good an bad genetics.

Now search for facts and you will find this:

For the most prevalent form of cancer in women, breast cancer, the five year survivability is HIGHEST in the US. As much as 25 points higher than in countries with nationalized health systems. For men, the same is true for prostate cancer survivability.

The same is true for survivability of a major trauma, heart attack, premature birth.

Now go search for the facts and debate around infant mortality. You will find that many rates look better because the country under-reports infant deaths while the US is the best at reporting.

Please go search for the facts. I think you will find that we don’t want to model our healthcare system after other countries. They want to model theirs after ours.

KD

If Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly and FNC are so wrong about everything, then WHY do any of you even pay attention to it?
Why are they such a threat to your existence?
Why are the political figures and organisations that are being scrutinized by the above running away to hide?
Why are they not fighting back and PROVING that all that has/was reported is false?

Fact is, no one under scrutiny (to date) has been able to prove their innocense on ANY level. And now by Beck (and others), they’re being exposed. Beck did the same thing he’s doing now when he was at CNN just without the theatrics, he hasn’t changed.

So to GBD, Darla and the rest of you, provide FACTUAL data to the claims you make, submit them to Beck and the people that were scrutinized. I am quite confident that neither of you will be able to refute the evidence. See, you will only believe what YOU want to believe. You’re probably among those that are blaming Bush for Chicago not winning the Olympic bid too. I wouldn’t put it past you people.

If your all so threatened by Beck and Fox, then why don’t you all band together and have your own version of “the Tea Party”? You can call it the “Truth Party” and you can march all over the country and tell the rest of us the real truth about everything!

Actually I don’t see THAT happenning any time soon. It’s much more easier for all of you to sit on your butts and complain from the shadows. Bottom line is… if you and the figureheads that you support are so right and the rest of us and the world is so wrong… then get up off your asses and prove it! THEN we’ll shut up and bow in defeat and commit ourselves to the institution of your choice.

And on a side note here, who ever it was that claimed earlier here (or another thread) that they had read the proposed health care bill.. you’re full of sh*t! Since there are SEVERAL versions under review all exceeding 1000 plus pages and by the senate and house members own admission (on tape, not made up), unable to understand ANY of it, and where NOT ALL of the versions are yet made available to the public. So that makes you either a friggin genious or a bullsh*tter.

I think that most of the people on this site have illustrated that they are intelligent enough to discern between propanda and a logical fact based presentation. Beck might be a bit histrionic but he does back up what he says. His book “Arguing with Idiots” has exhaustive documentation. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the conclusions he draws in a couple of areas but he hasn’t lied or intentionally misrepresented any facts. He just comes to different conclusions than his critics would given the same information, hence the title of his book.

What you are really balking against with Beck is that you are afraid he will influence others NOT TO THINK LIKE YOU DO. You think your take on things is correct. That’s normal. I think it is evident that none of the people on this site who disagree with you have shown any evidence that they blindly believe everything Beck says. They simply are in agreement with him and not you.

So far you haven’t convinced them and never will if you keep calling him a racist or liken him to a nazi and so on. They stop listening to you. Your ad hominem attacks serve no purpose other than to provoke others. It doesn’t further your(or anyone’s)argument in the least.

You have no proof that Beck just says what he says for ratings. He said the same things at CNN and had meager ratings. Your argument is dismissive and without merit.

As for other issues, you have offered some anecdotal evidence as proofs for some of your arguments and that never works either. Such an argument is limited to your own experience. Another’s experience may be entirely different so it proves nothing.

You are not alone in this. Most people commit one or more of the same and other errors. I know I do if I don’t keep on my guard. Especially if I’m tired like now!

Anyway, I apologize for upsetting you.

When I said that Glenn Beck is, in my opinion, a racist, I meant it. I also meant it when I said that I did not mean to imply that anyone who watches his show is also a racist. I watch his show and do not consider myself to be a racist in the least. I am anxious to know what is being said in the media because I think it greatly influences people and the decisions they make regarding our country.

I will say again that I think Mr. Beck is a very cleaver speaker who uses every trick from the orator’s book to get people involved and convinced that he is right. I wish he would get into the health care insurance debate with his eye to making the future better for his children, as he often states, instead of just trying to get higher and higher ratings and an even larger ego. R. Murdock owns the station and his adjenda is to make even more money and to promote the Republican Party. FOX News is nothing but a 24/7 political ad for the Republicans. Mr. Beck is wasted on the channel. He could be working for campaign reform, getting rid of lobbyists, finding answers to pressing problems like the economy, unemployment, health care, and our various wars.

Thanks for the explanation. I understand the historical reasoning. I’m not sure I buy all of the proponents’ reasoning … but I’ll keep an open mind as I study the subject more.

Earlier today I looked up the current electoral votes assigned to the various states and did a little “what if” analysis to see what the worst case scenario would be. From what I pieced together, a president could theoretically be elected by winning only 11 states (the ones with the most electoral votes of course). Those 11 states also tended to be the ones with the largest urban populations (NY, CA, IL, etc.) and ones that tend to go democrat because of that same urban population. Furthermore, Obama won all but two of these states in 2008 (he didn’t get Texas and one other state near the bottom of the list … don’t remember which one at the moment). The fact that only slightly more than half of the people in these states had to vote for Obama to give him 100% of the electoral votes still seems like it ‘amplified’ the influence of those states over some of us in more rural and conservative areas of the country?

It’s not clear to me that we are doing ourselves any favors by keeping the electoral college in place. But again, I’ll keep an open mind for now.

Thanks again for all your effort in explaining this.

I’m terrified that I’ll choke while I’m laughing hysterically at him.

Prevents an urban-centric victory

Proponents of the Electoral College claim the Electoral College prevents a candidate from winning the Presidency by simply winning in heavily populated urban areas. This means that candidates must make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote.

Maintains the federal character of the nation

The United States of America is a federal coalition which consists of component states. Proponents of the current system argue that the collective opinion of even a small state merits attention at the federal level greater than that given to a small, though numerically-equivalent, portion of a very populous state. The system also allows each state the freedom, within constitutional bounds, to design its own laws on voting and enfranchisement without an undue incentive to maximize the number of votes cast.

For many years early in the nation’s history, up until the Jacksonian Era, many states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature, and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the President must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government.

In his book A More Perfect Constitution, Professor Larry Sabato elaborated on this advantage of the Electoral College, arguing to “mend it, don’t end it,” in part because of its usefulness in forcing candidates to pay attention to lightly populated states and reinforcing the role of the state in federalism.

Enhances status of minority groups

Far from decreasing the power of minority groups by depressing voter turnout, proponents argue that, by making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing affair, minority groups can provide the critical edge that allows a candidate to win. This encourages candidates to court a wide variety of such minorities and interest groups.
Encourages stability through the two-party system

Many proponents of the Electoral College see its negative effect on third parties as a good thing. They argue that the two party system has provided stability through its ability to change during times of rapid political and cultural change. They believe it protects the most powerful office in the country from control by what these proponents view as regional minorities until they can moderate their views to win broad, long-term support from across the entire nation.

Death or unsuitability of a candidate

The Constitution grants each state the right to appoint electors in a manner chosen by that state. While it is common to think of the electoral votes impersonally, as mere numbers, the Electoral College is in fact made up of real people (usually party regulars of the party whose candidate wins each state) with the capacity to adapt to unusual situations. That capacity might be particularly important if, for example, a candidate were to die or become in some other way unsuitable to serve as President or Vice President. Advocates of the current system argue that these electors could then choose a suitable replacement (who would most likely come from the same party of the candidate who won the election) more competently than could the general voting public. Furthermore, the time period during which such a death or the onset of such an unsuitability might call for such an adaptation extends, under the Electoral College system, from before Election Day (many states cannot change ballots at a late stage) until the day the electors vote (the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December). Thus, until the electors cast their votes, it is not a federal issue, per se, but a state’s rights issue and state laws (should) regulate the situation. In Virginia, for instance, the law clearly states that the electors must vote for the name of the candidate whom they represent on the ballot, and therefore these electors are not able to adapt to unusual situations, unless they are willing to violate the law, and suffer the penalties for so doing.

In the election of 1872, Democratic candidate Horace Greeley did in fact die before the meeting of the Electoral College, resulting in Democratic disarray; the electors who were to have voted for Greeley split their votes across several candidates, including three votes cast for the deceased Greeley. However, President Ulysses S. Grant, the Republican incumbent, had already won an absolute majority of electors. Because it was the death of a losing candidate, there was no pressure to agree on a replacement candidate. There has never been a case of a candidate of the winning party dying.

In the election of 1912, after the Republicans had renominated President Taft and Vice President Sherman, Sherman died shortly before the election, too late to change the names on the ballot, thus causing Sherman to be listed posthumously. That ticket finished third behind the Democrats (Woodrow Wilson) and the Progressives (Theodore Roosevelt), and the 8 electoral votes that Sherman would have received were cast for Nicholas Murray Butler.

Isolation of election problems

Some supporters of the Electoral College note that it isolates the impact of any election fraud, or other such problems, to the state where it occurs. It prevents instances where a party dominant in one state may dishonestly inflate the votes for a candidate and thereby affect the election outcome. For instance, recounts occur only on a state-by-state basis, not nationwide.

Neutralizes turnout disparities between states

There are factors that affect the turnout around the country. Weather can vary greatly across a large nation, rain or winter storms can impact voter participation in affected states. In addition, when a state has another high profile contest, such as a hotly contested Senate or gubernatorial race, turnout in that state can be affected. Because the allocation of electoral votes is independent of each state’s turnout, the Electoral College neutralizes the effect of all such turnout disparities between states.

Maintains separation of powers

The Constitution separated government into three branches that check each other to minimize threats to liberty and encourage deliberation of governmental acts. Under the original framework, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state legislatures, the President by the Electoral College, and the judiciary by the President and the Senate. The President was not directly elected in part due to fears that he could assert a national popular mandate that would undermine the legitimacy of the other branches, and potentially result in tyranny.

EH2zed:

There have been several references here that illustrate Beck’s missteps and lies (First, Beck has NEVER claimed he is a journalist, he has ALWAYS stated he is a commentator.

I’ll try and put this simply as a person with such a full brain it must be difficult to focus on one thing at a time.
My beef is with people taking this man seriously when he puts his disinfomation out there. He is an infotainer nothing more. Its nice to see you agree with me. ( You ignore the point that he is NOT a journalist, you claim it is disinformation, but you still provide NO proof that he was wrong about the claims made by him of the Obama admin. As to people believing him, whats wrong with you, if they choose not to believe you , that is their god given right to believe what they like. You have no right to deny them the right to believe what they will. That is one of the protections in your constitution, or do you only allow rights to those you agree with? Did you ever wonder that you might be wrong? Ever?)

he has a 3 person research staff, which was expanded to 8 when he started nailing the Obama admin, compared to, oh, lets see, the NYT who have over 200 researchers and fact checkers, or CBS who has over 400. Paranoia is not an attractive quality nor does it do much to substantiate your intellectual claims( What does this statement have to do with paranoia, other than your own.)

Second, You still haven’t named one instance where he was wrong about the above named people, groups, organizations in my previous response to your warped posting). I’ve on several occasions. Clearly you’ve a comprehension issues as well. Between that and your paranoia? Seek professional help. (Again, you claim you have about the entities I mentioned, but you still haven’t pointed out the lies. As to paranoia, you seem to be exhibiting enough for everyone on this site)

Even from his own mouth for that matter (He, if you ever actually watched his show even ONCE, states that he sometimes may be off or wrong and insists his viewers go out and find out the truth for themselves and not to take what he says as the gospel truth). Gospel, eh? Speaks volumes. (Is this an example of your religious paranoia? Are you afraid some evil christian will convert you?)

That there are those here that do not want or are unable to see them seems to be a dilemma (I ignore Beck when he is wrong on the minor matters, such as confusing Calgary and Vancouver, but, he HASN’T been wrong yet about the MAJOR issues in regards to the Obama admin, and the Obama admin HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY FALSEHOODS in his major claims about them). What planet are you from? If you choose to NOT see or hear or read what is here methinks you have issues with denial as well. (You exhibit signs of paranoia and denial…hmmmm, you wouldn’t happen to be a little schyzoid, would you?) IF he confuses simple locales it leads to questioning his legitimacy ergo his credibiltily ergo what else is he “confusing?” (Oh, you mean Obama traveling to 57 states? Yeah, I agree with you, he SHOULD have his credibility questioned.)

Your sophomoric diatribe is full of so many contradcitions and errors that you fail to make any point (It was YOUR sophomoric (or should I say moronic) statements that were full of contradictions and errors without any point but bashing conservatives, but PLEASE, show me in my response where I was wrong? Where?). You contradict yourself (Again, WHERE?). Firstly, you used moronic so before you whine and cry like the Beckster or whatever his real name is, I’m replying in kind. I mentioned Beck is similar (You used the term IS Jerry Springer of Cable news, I pointed out what type of moral and political belief someone like Springer believes in to bring that pathetic crap to the public airwaves, and the same for those who watch it. Its not my fault that you don’t like the comparison.) to Jerry Springer. Never once did I claim contextually. You started off on the correct tangent and then your argument morphed into their respective political ideologies. I know that may’ve been difficult for you to follow but with your IQ I’m sure you did it with ease! (Actually, reading your wandering statements, with all the typos and incoherent thought process behind your statements, makes it very difficult to follow what you are trying to blather. But we should continually encourage those of lower intelligence to keep trying to expand their ability. As they say,”You can’t fix stupid”, but you should at least try.)

I’m sure a class or three at your local community college if you can get accepted would help with your comprehension and organizational skills ( At the age of 10, my IQ was tested at 167. By age 12 I was writing about Nuclear non-proliferation and the MAD theory of Nuclear Deterrence. By the age of 13, I was reading and comprehending at a PHD level while just finishing high school.At 18, I graduated in the top 2% of my grad class from the University of Alberta with 2 dgrees. At 21, I finished number 3 from Royal Military College when I was in the Military, and I graduated top of my class when I went for my degree in Military History and Global Strategic Studies, Canadian Command College Kingston and West Point). Good Luck with THAT. Perhaps you’re child prodigy status kept you from proper societal interaction? (Not really, still played team sports, dated girls, fought bullies, and got drunk with my friends on a saturday night or two, just like any other man out there. Well, except for you of course.)Perhaps that is why you seem to walking around with a chip on your shoulder the size of the debt the Neo Cons left this Administration? (Not a chip at all, just the realization from living and traveling in the real world that people like you are blind to truth and like to live in a fantasy land, because reality is to harsh for your Id and ego to deal with.) Perhpas this is why you are insecure enough to ramble on and prounounce your intellectual acumen on a freaking TV Ratings site? ( Why would this bother you? would it be because you are Jealous? or that even on a TV ratings site, I own you like Obama’s ancestors did with their fellow tribesmen? Before selling them to the Portuguese). What’s wrong Mommy and Daddy not give you enough attention? Still craving positive re enforcment? On a Tv ratings web site? Really? (Sounds like someone is a little jealous. Please don’t let the green eyed monster cause you to hate me. Look up the Parable of the Talents from the bible, OK? I used my abilities to improve myself and protect and defend others. In fact I have had more combat time with your countries military when on special and temporary duties, protecting your interests than I have had with my own. Well, Maybe I should add the British Military also.)

Since the frothing rabid neo cons (do you even know what neo-con means? Neo Conservatives (But you still haven’t defined the word neo and its context and connotations to the usage that you used. See, you must be precise in your language usage to be understood clearly with no confusion as to word usage and intent, instead of repeating DNC talking points.)? Not to be confused with true Conservatives. Yes, I am aware of them and Dick Cheney is their fearless leader. (Dick Cheney? Does he frighten you too? I do realize he is a strong and powerful persona, but does he really frighten you on the left, that much? Is it because he reminds you of your father when daddy caught you experimenting with the neighbor boy down the block? We know, it was only a “little harmless experimentation”, and that’s OK. We don’t think you sashay that way really. We must forgive the silly mistakes of little children)

From the conservative responses on this site, I think you should be calling these people, true down in the dirt, old school conservatives and constitutionalists. Not neo-cons) Were they, i would.(So conservatives think like you? Wow, you really are delusional.)

here seem so intent on empty debate adn only appear to want to have the last word I’ll allow you what you want (I wouldn’t take away your fun of empty debate, and I will let you have the last word, since they so aptly fit what I would like to express to you.). Thanks for playing. Carry on.

Have a great day Einstein ( I wish, but thanks for the compliment, he’s one of my heroes. Do you think you could call me Nimitz next time, he’s another one also.) and don’t forget to Smile! (Always, mentally challenged people trying to improve themselves always makes me feel good inside. It lets me know that there is always hope out there for your country.) Again, thanks for playing, carry on.

You are a hopeless waste of time… you have no defense whatsoever… and…You are the prime example of what arguing with idiots is all about.

If thats the case… why do you even post here? Why does it bother you so much that Beck beats all his cable compeition combined? If 25 Million more people watch the Liberal media than watch Beck… why do you seem so threatened by him. Why if he is such a fraud then why isn’t Van Jones still the Green Jobs Czar? Why isn’t ACORN still doing the Census and receiving Millions of taxpayer dollars?… why is it that the White House is unable to rebuke his arguments??? that should be what scares you..it sure scares me! So according to you if you watch Beck you become a nutty paranoid hater and an enemy of the country??? I would think by outing a self avowed communist truther, and a corrupt tax funded organization like Acorn, and organizing to protest and stop the Socialist agenda of this administration Beck and his followers should be considered Patriots of the highest order. I’m sure you don’t agree…lol… but your fear is showing and you offer nothing to debate or dispute the truthful facts put forth. Your response follows the Rules for Radicals to a T. All you have left is name calling and insults to fall back on because you certainly don’t have a case!

I’m impressed.

That doesn’t change the fact that 25 million news viewers DO NOT WATCH Glenn Beck.

For the record, I encourage people like Glenn to spew their insane rhetoric on the airwaves. I also encourage people to watch Beck and his nutjob cohorts. The Beck fan club makes it easy to keep an eye on the nutty, paranoid haters that so desperately want this country to fail.

Want to know who the enemy is? Just look for the Beck fans.

Also by your logic:
“For the record – the “liberal MSM” has more than ten times the viewers that Beck has. 25 million plus are NOT watching Beck, …”

If you are watching network news, you are not watching Beck? When he was with HLN, Beck was on at 7 and 9 PM. He is on at 5PM on FNC and again at 2. Network news is on at 6:30. With a flip of the remote, we can get ourselves counted in ALL those broadcasts.

The network news does garner many more viewers than cable news for reasons discussed ad nauseum on this web site. But it is illogical and erroneous to state that viewers watch network news while excluding cable news and vice versa.

Like his methods or not, Beck is performing a vital service for Americans. He says what a lot of them think but would never say. Would you prefer that he be silenced?

We’ll buy any lie thats presented by right wing media? Nielsen is right wing media? Beck is number one in his time slot, and he beats other’s prime time slots combined too.

Want to talk other outlets he’s number 1 in? Ever looked at book sales? What about the radio? Well you got me there. He’s only 3rd. Right behind Rush with 15+ million, Hannity with 14+ million, Beck is at an oh so distant 3rd (sarcasm) at 9+ million.

By all means be angry at Glenn Beck! We’re a free country, I get agnry at Maddow, Olberman, Matthews among others, however I can actually make sense about why I get mad from watching their shows.

That’s right. Beck was a CNN employee until Fox snapped him up. I guess that doesn’t matter to his fan base. After all, they’ve been known to quote the Communist newspaper PRAVDA while holding up Communist Russian birther nutjob Oily Taint as a hero.

Pathetic, isn’t it?

For the record – the “liberal MSM” has more than ten times the viewers that Beck has. 25 million plus are NOT watching Beck, while 2 million or so rabid rightwing nutjobs think he’s the god of the airwaves.

It’s telling that so many of his fans think he’s Number One. They’ll buy any lie that’s presented by the rightwing media.

Ok votes off.

The only link you’ve posted that works is to the video of Beck saying one thing-CLEARLY, but you saying he says another. I think that speaks for itself.

Who thinks GBD’s “evidence” are examples of Glenn Beck’s lying? And to make it fair I think we should only count names of people that are known on these comments. Because anybody could just start inserting names and emails to spam the votes on way or another.

I know what a web “troll” is. Apparently it takes one to know one.

Again, one last time. I throw your own twisted words back at your simpleton mind and you accuse me of twisting your words, insult me and then accuse me of insulting you? Seek help.

So yes, some of your more recent posts are very troll like. Not an insult, a decription.

Oh and how are you coming with those links that expose what a liar Beck is?

I was going to break this down in very basic elementary language for you so you’d understand what I meant, but on 2nd thought I’m not. If you can’t understand what I said thats not really my problem. Much like your doing with Glenn Beck, your now doing with me and my arguments. Actually that makes me feel altitle honored to be attacked the same way as Beck, by the same people that attack Beck!

What about your broken links? Still haven’t bothered to fix them or post what you meant so we can see all the Glenn Beck lies for ourselves.

But now not once, but twice in a few minutes you have taken small segments of what I’ve said and tried to turn them aroun. No I’m not agreeing with you on anything. Anybody can read that and fully understand that I’m not.

Anybody with reading comprehension can see that I’m not agreeing with you at all. I am saying we can’t see the lies because, there aren’t any, and if there were any like people claim, nobody has shown them to us.

You claim that Beck tells all kinds of lies. Yet can only find some that are lies in your mind.

Your really exposing yourself as not much more than a Troll on here now.

Your ship was blown out of the water along time agon GBD, I think you now have some holes in your life raft.

“Maybe we can’t see Beck’s real lies on serious issues”

So you are STILL agreeing with me that Beckie lies. It is just that he is allowed “real” lies and now “fake” lies???

Everyone should start their day with a good laugh. I thank you!

Notice how I had a whole paragraph around the one sentence you picked out? Yet you single out the one sentence. But go ahead and proclaim minor mistakes, that I haven’t even seen pointed out anywhere but here so I can’t even verify if this is even a mistake by Beck.

You provided broken links too what I can only assume was yet again wrong info from the leftie anti-Beck spin machine. I noticed you’ve made two posts now and not bothered to fix those?

And yet again your pointing at the video. Anybody that watches the video will see what Glenn says. I’m not even sure how anybody can try to spin that any way at all?

You provided very nitpicky mistakes in wording, broken links to your “claims”, and a video that says nothing like what you claim, as your arguments of Beck’s lies and hate. All of which has been smacked down several times now.

And off all beck’s shows, all he has said about the administration and politicians in general. These are the things you come up with as proof that Beck is a hate mongering, fear spreading, liar liar with his pants on fire.

And you want to insult the rest of us here?

Yes, I have a library card and no, as much as you would secretly like to, you did not blow me out of the water. A bit Freudian? I’m still awaiting an actual substantative retort.

Have a great Day!