• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Glenn Beck

VanC

Well-known member
Glenn Beck seems to be one those people that folks either love or hate. I've never heard him or read anything written by him, so I have no opinion of him. I do, however, have a fairly high opinion of John Stossel. Thought some of you might find this interesting:

A Refreshing Spin on Cable TV
John Stossel
Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Few of us had heard of Glenn Beck a few years ago. Now the conservative talk-jock is everywhere. His radio show reaches eight million people. He's performing live before sold-out crowds on a comedy tour.

He's had No. 1 bestsellers in both fiction and nonfiction -- plus a new book, "Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government" came out this week.

And now he's host of his own Fox News show, which, even though it airs in the ratings desert of late afternoon, has a bigger audience than every show on the other cable news channels.

Why is he so popular? Beck says it's because he really believes what he says. I don't buy that. Rachel Maddow and Lou Dobbs believe what they say, but their audience is a fraction of Beck's. I hope he's popular because of what he says, like: "Both parties only believe in the power of the party"; "if we get out of people's way, the sky's the limit"; and the answers to our problems "never come from Washington."

Much of the mainstream media despises Beck. "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart quipped, "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has repeatedly named Beck "worst person in the world," and one of his MSNBC colleagues compared his TV show to watching a "car accident." On "The View," Whoopi Goldberg called him "a lying sack of dog mess."

Some of his critics dislike Beck because they consider him a Republican lapdog, but he attacks both parties. He criticized the Bush administration's spending and bailout of AIG. He says that politicians from both parties are "lying to the people that they're supposed to serve," "flushing our country down the toilet for power" and ignoring the Constitution.

He points to the takeovers of General Motors and AIG as examples of government grabbing power it doesn't legitimately have. "We're giving our freedoms away," Beck says. "The American experiment was about freedom. Freedom to be stupid, freedom to fail, freedom to succeed."

Though Beck is a success now, he struggled for years with serious personal problems. His parents divorced when he was a teenager. "My mother was an alcoholic and a drug addict," he told me when I interviewed him for a "20/20" profile. She later committed suicide.

"When I hit 30, I was going down that same path. I tried for almost two years to stop drinking. I was a jerk. I fired a guy one time for bringing me the wrong kind of pen,"

Yet, Beck says, "I'd look myself in the mirror every day, and say, "You're not an alcoholic. You don't have a problem."

"One morning," he says, "my kids came down for breakfast, and they said, 'Dad, tell us the story of Inky, Blinky and Stinky and the Island of Cheese.' And I realized that not only could I not remember the story I told them, I didn't even remember tucking them in. So I said, 'You see how much you remember. You tell me what was the story.'"

That night he went to Alcoholics Anonymous. Not long after, he became a Mormon. I asked him why.

"I apologize, but guys will understand this. My wife is, like, hot, and she wouldn't have sex with me until we got married. And she wouldn't marry me unless we had a religion."

I asked Tania Beck about that. She laughed, saying, "He's not joking."

Now Beck says that Mormonism has grounded him, so he's grateful to his wife.

Whatever grounded him, I'm glad something did. Because it's good to have a super-successful cable-TV host arguing that life would be better if government -- Democrats and Republicans -- just left Americans alone.

"We should reject big government and look inside ourselves for all the things that built this country into what it was," Beck says.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
I like Glen Beck, but I have a hard time watching his shows in entirety. I usually fast forward through it. Closer to election times I will probably watch it more.

I am burned a little on Political shows, way to much politics during the long election.

But beck is a libertarian with some strong points to be made!
 

jodywy

Well-known member
Listen to his radio show last summer every afternoon moving and stacking round bales... love that new tractor, actually quiet in the cab.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
I listen to him often and try to watch the clips from his show on foxnews.com. He's been really digging into the history of the progressives lately. He's been following ACORN, he's the only one I've heard talk about these two guys caught in Italy with $134 Billion in US Treasury Bonds on their way to Switzerland. He's also had the IG who got fired by the White House on his show recently.

He just had a new book released that everyone should read. Common Sense, A Case For An Out of Control Government. Inspired by Thomas Paine. I hope to buy it today, it goes after BOTH of the big parties with facts that are backed up with the references that you can look up yourself.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Ben H said:
I listen to him often and try to watch the clips from his show on foxnews.com. He's been really digging into the history of the progressives lately. He's been following ACORN, he's the only one I've heard talk about these two guys caught in Italy with $134 Billion in US Treasury Bonds on their way to Switzerland. He's also had the IG who got fired by the White House on his show recently.

He just had a new book released that everyone should read. Common Sense, A Case For An Out of Control Government. Inspired by Thomas Paine. I hope to buy it today, it goes after BOTH of the big parties with facts that are backed up with the references that you can look up yourself.

Ben, as a student of political science, both historical and current, I want to ask you what you mean by "Progressives".

I have found that the characterization of people in these broad groups and then the magnification of unrepresentative samples within these groups is an ongoing effort to define, many times incorrectly, a group's views in the light of others.

I would like to know exactly what you think a "progressive" is, whether it is just another term for a "liberal" and whether or not you actually know what it means and doesn't mean. I hope you don't get all your information from one biased network. You often only get one view which may or may not be accurate.

Thanks,

Tex
 

Ben H

Well-known member
Not all liberals are "progressive", not all "progressives" are liberals.

I guess the simplest way to say it is control because the people are too stupid.

Progressivism shares its roots with classical fascism. The mercury dime, minted under Wilson, had what is almost identical to the fascism symbol on the back. The bundle of rods ,representing the collective, tied together, with the battle axe behind them representing the strong government. Progressivism has brought us ever increasing government control, they brought us things like prohibition, eugenics, income tax. Concepts like the Constitution is a living document. The most dangerous movement is trying to take God out of our lives, if there is no God then who gave us the bill of rights? If it is man then what man gives he can take.

I believe in the Constitution, what that document doesn't specify the Federal government CAN do is up to the States. I see progressivism as increasing government size and control.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
I've just recently started watching/listening to Beck...he does what all the media is suppose to do...question and dig into ALL government actions. The main stream media, being Obama's lapdog and cheerleader, is not only disgraceful, but harmful for the country. The media was dubbed "the forth branch of government" to watch after the interest of "the people" in a non-partisan manner. Only one network is doing that with this administration!
 

Tex

Well-known member
Ben H said:
Not all liberals are "progressive", not all "progressives" are liberals.

I guess the simplest way to say it is control because the people are too stupid.

Progressivism shares its roots with classical fascism. The mercury dime, minted under Wilson, had what is almost identical to the fascism symbol on the back. The bundle of rods ,representing the collective, tied together, with the battle axe behind them representing the strong government. Progressivism has brought us ever increasing government control, they brought us things like prohibition, eugenics, income tax. Concepts like the Constitution is a living document. The most dangerous movement is trying to take God out of our lives, if there is no God then who gave us the bill of rights? If it is man then what man gives he can take.

I believe in the Constitution, what that document doesn't specify the Federal government CAN do is up to the States. I see progressivism as increasing government size and control.

Well, let me back you up there and refer you to some books on the progressive movement from a historical perspective. One of them is The Populist Moment. Another is The Robber Barons.

These books will give you a historical context of these two movements, Populism and the Progressive movement, both of which came from the changing structure of the economy with Populism containing much of the agrarian issues.

I think that Glenn Beck sometimes simplifies these issues and takes them out of their historical context. On some of these issues he is just a moron. Most of us don't have the time to understand the issues and know whether a Glenn Beck or a Rush Limbaugh, or whoever it is on the left that is spinning things really know what they are talking about. I like to listen from time to time to Rush or Beck but I have a background big enough that I don't take their often uninformed view as the gospel truth because sometimes they are just plain stupid and without thought. Most of us don't have the time to know the subject they are talking about so we have no other point of reference than the one they give. That is a problem with not being more informed.

These movements were complex but both came out of great suffering by many people in the economy, often at the hands of the all powerful oligarchs of the day, the Robber Barons, who controlled greatly who in the economy had opportunities and imposed now illegal methods of taxing the public economy for the perpetuation of their own wealth and power.

I warn you that the labels that shallow commentators place on others may sound good, and to a limited information person may hit a chord, but are oftentimes totally inaccurate.

As an example, here is an excerpt from a book on some of the Progressives: ".....Progressive journalists multiplied as new styles of magazines appeared. The last chapter focused on enemies of Progressives like trusts, unions, and political machines. Leaders expressed the need for entrepreneurship, individualism, and moral responsibility rather than organization."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reform

Many of the issues we have today are the same or will be in the near future: Monetary policy (populists wanted a looser money policy as evidenced by the great orator William Jennings Bryant and his "Crucify Me on A Cross of Gold"), disparities of wealth and power, abuse of that power (similar to the Wall Street Crisis and the too big to fail government policy of catering to the oligarch's interests).

In short, I would be careful of the labels. They hide a lot of information needed to make good decisions as they hide the real issues behind an often inaccurate loaded label. Often times this is done out of pure ignorance and not a conscious or conspiratorial effort. That is easily accomplished with the news commentators we have today.



Tex
 

Tex

Well-known member
Ben H said:
Not all liberals are "progressive", not all "progressives" are liberals.

I guess the simplest way to say it is control because the people are too stupid.

Progressivism shares its roots with classical fascism. The mercury dime, minted under Wilson, had what is almost identical to the fascism symbol on the back. The bundle of rods ,representing the collective, tied together, with the battle axe behind them representing the strong government. Progressivism has brought us ever increasing government control, they brought us things like prohibition, eugenics, income tax. Concepts like the Constitution is a living document. The most dangerous movement is trying to take God out of our lives, if there is no God then who gave us the bill of rights? If it is man then what man gives he can take.

I believe in the Constitution, what that document doesn't specify the Federal government CAN do is up to the States. I see progressivism as increasing government size and control.

Ben, the Progressive Movement brought a lot of controls to the Robber Barons. Is this what you are talking about here? What law do you not like that the Progressives brought?

Are you saying you are for deregulation at all costs?

Why do you say Progressivism gets its roots from classical fascism? The Progressive ovement predated Mussolini's fascism but Mussolini adopted some of the Roman symbols, like that in your example. If you knew a little about Progressives, you would know that the Fascism of Mussolini was diametrically opposed to much of the Progressive thought.

I would like to know a little more about your views and where they come from. The dime story doesn't impress me much because we have a republic which could be said represents exactly the same thing and probably more historically accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces

The history of the fasces that you refer to goes all the way back to the Roman Republic, was put on the "Mercury" (not really Mercury but mythological Liberty) dime in 1916, well before Mussolini and his using it for Fascism. Mussolini wanted to recapture the power and reputation of the Roman Empire and so took the fasces (the bundle of sticks) for his own representation of his capture of the old Roman power but before that it was on the U.S. Liberty (Mercury) head dime.

You got a few facts in there but in the wrong order and out of context.

I think this is exactly the kind of thing the labels you hear on shallow talk show hosts.

Tex


Tex
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
I watch Glenn Beck on occassion. :oops: (If I recall right I believe Faster Horses talked about him ~if I'm not recalling right opps!)

He is conservative but the part of him that I like is he not only dishes on the democrats but will call out the republicans too. Most won't. Most think what their party does is just it.

As a labeled progressive :D I should be :oops: for my admittance. :?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
I watch Glenn Beck on occassion. :oops: (If I recall right I believe Faster Horses talked about him ~if I'm not recalling right opps!)

He is conservative but the part of him that I like is he not only dishes on the democrats but will call out the republicans too. Most won't. Most think what their party does is just it.

As a labeled progressive :D I should be :oops: for my admittance. :?

I would call him more of a libertarian than a Conservative. But I am sure he has some Conservative leans as well. I believe he would also, but not sure on that!
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex said:
Ben H said:
I listen to him often and try to watch the clips from his show on foxnews.com. He's been really digging into the history of the progressives lately. He's been following ACORN, he's the only one I've heard talk about these two guys caught in Italy with $134 Billion in US Treasury Bonds on their way to Switzerland. He's also had the IG who got fired by the White House on his show recently.

He just had a new book released that everyone should read. Common Sense, A Case For An Out of Control Government. Inspired by Thomas Paine. I hope to buy it today, it goes after BOTH of the big parties with facts that are backed up with the references that you can look up yourself.

Ben, as a student of political science, both historical and current, I want to ask you what you mean by "Progressives".

I have found that the characterization of people in these broad groups and then the magnification of unrepresentative samples within these groups is an ongoing effort to define, many times incorrectly, a group's views in the light of others.

I would like to know exactly what you think a "progressive" is, whether it is just another term for a "liberal" and whether or not you actually know what it means and doesn't mean. I hope you don't get all your information from one biased network. You often only get one view which may or may not be accurate.

Thanks,

Tex

Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

today,.. most far left liberals call themselves "progressives" despite facts.. they just like the term.. facts seldom govern liberal beliefs..


just as many liberals attacked republicans for the "neocons" when the fact is, it was a group of moderate liberals who felt they could get more done by switching to the conservative republican side.. so in reality.. left leaning liberals were whining about moderate liberals


but if you want to act like your smarter then most and change the way today's liberals think.. feel free and good luck..
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex said:
Ben H said:
I listen to him often and try to watch the clips from his show on foxnews.com. He's been really digging into the history of the progressives lately. He's been following ACORN, he's the only one I've heard talk about these two guys caught in Italy with $134 Billion in US Treasury Bonds on their way to Switzerland. He's also had the IG who got fired by the White House on his show recently.

He just had a new book released that everyone should read. Common Sense, A Case For An Out of Control Government. Inspired by Thomas Paine. I hope to buy it today, it goes after BOTH of the big parties with facts that are backed up with the references that you can look up yourself.

Ben, as a student of political science, both historical and current, I want to ask you what you mean by "Progressives".

I have found that the characterization of people in these broad groups and then the magnification of unrepresentative samples within these groups is an ongoing effort to define, many times incorrectly, a group's views in the light of others.

I would like to know exactly what you think a "progressive" is, whether it is just another term for a "liberal" and whether or not you actually know what it means and doesn't mean. I hope you don't get all your information from one biased network. You often only get one view which may or may not be accurate.

Thanks,

Tex

Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

today,.. most far left liberals call themselves "progressives" despite facts.. they just like the term.. facts seldom govern liberal beliefs..


just as many liberals attacked republicans for the "neocons" when the fact is, it was a group of moderate liberals who felt they could get more done by switching to the conservative republican side.. so in reality.. left leaning liberals were whining about moderate liberals


but if you want to act like your smarter then most and change the way today's liberals think.. feel free and good luck..

Steve, I don't care what term is applied, I think we needed a change from Bush/Cheny. I just wish there was a viable alternative other than McCain (I actually liked McCain but he had no real policies in regards to the impending financial mess) who had Phil Gramm on his arm during the campaign. Phil Gramm was what was wrong with republicans and what needed to be changed. Unfortunately the republicans were too bent on their party and its members to realize that fact. Policies do matter. Political personalities are only a means to policies. Allowing those personalities to be the policy, which is what the republicans did in not changing, left them in the dirt heap of rejected policies.

Being a conservative shouldn't mean that you are not going to change your mind when your course of action is proven to be wrong. Granted I appreciate a bit of hard headedness to get the job done but it also requires discernment and a change of course from time to time. If your bike is going over the cliff, it is time to turn the handlebars, not be so hardheaded that you ride over the cliff to your certain demise.

McCain with Gramm showed me that he wasn't even aware there was a cliff ahead.

If conservatism means you don't change no matter what, you are headed for the cliff. Right now they have fallen off of it, especially if you happen to be a republican that cuts taxes but keeps government spending high, a republican that believes government is so incompetent that you insert incompetence into government functions (like almost all regulatory agencies), are a republican who believes that the public interest is represented by the campaign dollars you get (pay to play or bribe me or else policies).

This last batch of republicans were not conservative. They could be more accurately described as charlatans masquerading around as conservatives. Stick with labels if that is as deep as you can think. The conservative movement has been cheated by these people.

Tex
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
What's funny is that so many of you put your faith on the back of an ' actor'/entertainer/member SAG, be it Glenn Beck, Rush or whomever. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
What's funny is that so many of you put your faith on the back of an ' actor'/entertainer/member SAG, be it Glenn Beck, Rush or whomever.

Yes didn't ya know you should put your faith in a foreigner, who can't speak a senntence on his own, pals around with terrorists and radicals, couldn't pass an econ 101 course, spends money like a drunken sailors and can't tell the truth. But I guess he is dark skinned, that helps :wink:






Never forget that they said the Hindenberg would never fail, and the Titanic would never fail. I give the Kenyan's "popularity" six more months, tops.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex said:
Steve said:
Tex said:
Ben, as a student of political science, both historical and current, I want to ask you what you mean by "Progressives".

I have found that the characterization of people in these broad groups and then the magnification of unrepresentative samples within these groups is an ongoing effort to define, many times incorrectly, a group's views in the light of others.

I would like to know exactly what you think a "progressive" is, whether it is just another term for a "liberal" and whether or not you actually know what it means and doesn't mean. I hope you don't get all your information from one biased network. You often only get one view which may or may not be accurate.

Thanks,

Tex

Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

today,.. most far left liberals call themselves "progressives" despite facts.. they just like the term.. facts seldom govern liberal beliefs..


just as many liberals attacked republicans for the "neocons" when the fact is, it was a group of moderate liberals who felt they could get more done by switching to the conservative republican side.. so in reality.. left leaning liberals were whining about moderate liberals


but if you want to act like your smarter then most and change the way today's liberals think.. feel free and good luck..

Steve, I don't care what term is applied, I think we needed a change from Bush/Cheny. I just wish there was a viable alternative other than McCain (I actually liked McCain but he had no real policies in regards to the impending financial mess) who had Phil Gramm on his arm during the campaign. Phil Gramm was what was wrong with republicans and what needed to be changed. Unfortunately the republicans were too bent on their party and its members to realize that fact. Policies do matter. Political personalities are only a means to policies. Allowing those personalities to be the policy, which is what the republicans did in not changing, left them in the dirt heap of rejected policies.

Being a conservative shouldn't mean that you are not going to change your mind when your course of action is proven to be wrong. Granted I appreciate a bit of hard headedness to get the job done but it also requires discernment and a change of course from time to time. If your bike is going over the cliff, it is time to turn the handlebars, not be so hardheaded that you ride over the cliff to your certain demise.

McCain with Gramm showed me that he wasn't even aware there was a cliff ahead.

If conservatism means you don't change no matter what, you are headed for the cliff. Right now they have fallen off of it, especially if you happen to be a republican that cuts taxes but keeps government spending high, a republican that believes government is so incompetent that you insert incompetence into government functions (like almost all regulatory agencies), are a republican who believes that the public interest is represented by the campaign dollars you get (pay to play or bribe me or else policies).

This last batch of republicans were not conservative. They could be more accurately described as charlatans masquerading around as conservatives. Stick with labels if that is as deep as you can think. The conservative movement has been cheated by these people.

Tex

It wasn't me who wanted to sit and argue over how a term is used when there are more pressing issues at hand.. I was just responding to your long winded posts..

as for the charlatans,.. call them what-ever you want.. Neo conservatives, or (liberals) rino's., or (liberals) ,, or progressives, liberals.. if that helps you avoid real debate about their policies and how the liberals avoid real facts and issues. .


but if your excuse for voting for far left Obama is that the moderate liberals, rino's or neocons weren't conservative enough, well that is beyond funny...
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Why are you splitting hairs over "titles"? Its just more "class warfare" and divisionism. We have a problem that needs to be solved.
Why does it matter if someone is an actor? Can they not have the right answer? What about a rancher do you think they could have the answer? Or is it only "experts" who can fix and change the direction we are heading?
 

Steve

Well-known member
MsSage said:
Why are you splitting hairs over "titles"? Its just more "class warfare" and divisionism. We have a problem that needs to be solved.
Why does it matter if someone is an actor? Can they not have the right answer? What about a rancher do you think they could have the answer? Or is it only "experts" who can fix and change the direction we are heading?

I wasn't.. Tex had tried to with this question ..

Ben, as a student of political science, both historical and current, I want to ask you what you mean by "Progressives".

at least Ben was smart enough to just ignore Tex.. as I will continue to do in the future..
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex said:
Steve said:
today,.. most far left liberals call themselves "progressives" despite facts.. they just like the term.. facts seldom govern liberal beliefs..


just as many liberals attacked republicans for the "neocons" when the fact is, it was a group of moderate liberals who felt they could get more done by switching to the conservative republican side.. so in reality.. left leaning liberals were whining about moderate liberals


but if you want to act like your smarter then most and change the way today's liberals think.. feel free and good luck..

Steve, I don't care what term is applied, I think we needed a change from Bush/Cheny. I just wish there was a viable alternative other than McCain (I actually liked McCain but he had no real policies in regards to the impending financial mess) who had Phil Gramm on his arm during the campaign. Phil Gramm was what was wrong with republicans and what needed to be changed. Unfortunately the republicans were too bent on their party and its members to realize that fact. Policies do matter. Political personalities are only a means to policies. Allowing those personalities to be the policy, which is what the republicans did in not changing, left them in the dirt heap of rejected policies.

Being a conservative shouldn't mean that you are not going to change your mind when your course of action is proven to be wrong. Granted I appreciate a bit of hard headedness to get the job done but it also requires discernment and a change of course from time to time. If your bike is going over the cliff, it is time to turn the handlebars, not be so hardheaded that you ride over the cliff to your certain demise.

McCain with Gramm showed me that he wasn't even aware there was a cliff ahead.

If conservatism means you don't change no matter what, you are headed for the cliff. Right now they have fallen off of it, especially if you happen to be a republican that cuts taxes but keeps government spending high, a republican that believes government is so incompetent that you insert incompetence into government functions (like almost all regulatory agencies), are a republican who believes that the public interest is represented by the campaign dollars you get (pay to play or bribe me or else policies).

This last batch of republicans were not conservative. They could be more accurately described as charlatans masquerading around as conservatives. Stick with labels if that is as deep as you can think. The conservative movement has been cheated by these people.

Tex

It wasn't me who wanted to sit and argue over how a term is used when there are more pressing issues at hand.. I was just responding to your long winded posts..

as for the charlatans,.. call them what-ever you want.. Neo conservatives, or (liberals) rino's., or (liberals) ,, or progressives, liberals.. if that helps you avoid real debate about their policies and how the liberals avoid real facts and issues. .


but if your excuse for voting for far left Obama is that the moderate liberals, rino's or neocons weren't conservative enough, well that is beyond funny...

You assume a lot Steve, to assume who I voted for.

If you want to use the term "Progressive" or any other label it would be nice if you knew what you were talking about. Shortening your posts to pejoratives tells us how you think but not whether or not your point is based on anything other than a possible uninformed opinion. I would love to argue with you on the points but if I have to shorten them to your grade level I might as well just use pejoratives just like you do with no background reason. I stated my reason so don't cry if it is too much for you to read.

On the real issue I brought up on the "conservatives", how did deregulation and non enforcement of the laws by the executive branch and the basic repeal of the banking laws make any republican "conservative"?

In my opinion, it made me aware of the fact that they were TOO STUPID TO GOVERN and didn't understand what being a real conservative means-- being competent enough to run the biggest operation in the world-- the U.S. government.

I hope sure hope this post isn't too long winded to understand but since you don't seem to be successful at reading other people's minds or voting habits, you might be in trouble.


Whooosh!!!!!!!

Tex
 
Top