Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
Posted: April 13 2010 at 21:51
Atavachron wrote:
jammun wrote:
Gimme Walter Cronkite, who every night would just calmly, if somberly, give us the latest Viet Nam body count, show us the latest videos of blacks being blasted by fire hoses, and who occasionally would get just barely emotional, such as when reporting that four students had been gunned down by the Ohio National Guard at Kent State. And then he'd say, 'and that's the way it is.'
fair enough but you do know Cronkite was a major liberal, and became more so as Vietnam escalated. Nothing wrong with that, Chris Matthews - who I think is the finest journalist around - also has clear leanings
Yes, I know that. But he let the body counts and images speak for themselves, and was no ranter about it.
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
Posted: April 13 2010 at 21:52
thellama73 wrote:
Maybe I'm a naive idealist, but is it so hard to believe that someone on TV actually has political convictions? Why does everyone assume that everyone is just in it for the money?
I think you're a naive idealist
Edit: I apologize, that was a bit too rude. I don't wan't you thinking I'm a moron or idiot.
I think every person who goes into any job in politics, the media, the law, and many other professions...goes in as an idealist, thinking they can do good, and affect change, and that includes however they perceive 'good' and 'change'. Once inside their profession, after many years it almost invariably corrupts them, and this is particularly true of the media these days, I'd say. Do not kid yourself. It is all about ratings. Nielsen percentage points = $ in their pockets. Given the current state of the U.S., pandering to one or the other of the extremes = more viewers = more % Nielsen = more $ in their pockets = that book deal = that lecture tour. I do not doubt that they had sincerity at some point. I also do not doubt they have none now.
Edited by jammun - April 13 2010 at 22:16
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: April 13 2010 at 22:58
thellama73 wrote:
JLocke wrote:
dude wrote:
Personally i think Glen Beck does have some interesting things to say and some things that need to be said but it often gets lost in a sea of histrionics and silly theatrics, i can take him in small doses.
If you think anything Glenn Beck spouts on about 'needs to be said', you're either very misguided or very unaware. Either way, it's Neocon viewpoints, and they are becoming more and more prominent among the Right-Wing media and political figures. I can imagine the few sane Conservatives left are most likely embarrassed by people like Beck, because more and more people (especially Republicans) seem to buy into this guy's nonsense.
What exactly does he say that you feel is worth talking about? I guarantee you that I'll be able to name anybody else who talks about the same stuff, and with actual sense and sanity applied.
First of all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon Look it up. It really annoys me how many people use that term without the slightest clue what it means. Beck is no neocon, he's a classical liberal.
Second, apparently very few people in this thread have actually listened to Beck, because his attacks on George W. Bush for his reckless spending were vicious. Anyone who thinks he is a cheerleader for the Republican party has not listened to his show.
Yes, he's an entertainer, not a journalist, and yes he uses insane stunts to get his point across, but given the ratings he pulls at five in the afternoon, I'd say it's working for him.
Believe it or not, there are a fair chunk of Libertarian minded American's (like me!) who until very recently have had no public figures on their side. All I have to say is that it's sure refreshing to see so much of guys like Beck and Stossel nowadays.
Don't talk to me like I don't know what I'm talking about. I know what a Neocon is, and Beck is one, in my view. Disagree with me? FIne, but he's a clown who pretends to be a news man, and yes, that pisses me off a bit. If he did a show like Colbert or Stewart, I wouldn't have an issue with him, but he presents his talking points in a way that I find insincere.
He doesn't consider himself a Neocon, but that makes no difference. His attitude shows otherwise. He actually claims to be a Libertarian, which is a laughable claim for him to make, I think. He can 'claim' to be anything he wants to be, but as long as he behaves like a Neocon, that's what I'm gonna call him. He's no different or better than Limbaugh or Hannity, and all three of these guys claim to be something other than what they are. To me, they are all cut from the same cloth. I listen to them enough to know what their general attitudes are like, so if you want to disagree with me, okay, but don't say that I am uninformed, alright? If I didn't have a clue, I wouldn't have even jumped into the debate.
As for the Bush argument, when did I ever say that the man was 100% pro-Bush? All I said was that the right-wing has embraced Beck, and they have. Why? Because he compares Obama to Mao and Hitler. Not all the time, of course, but often enough for him to get attention. Yes, I agree that the stunts he pulls get him good ratings, but since when did good ratings automatically mean I should respect somebody? I never said he was a 'cheerleader' for the Republican party; you stuck those words in my mouth in an attempt to build your straw man.
I consider myself a Libertarian as well, and Beck certainly doesn't speak for me. If you want to call him 'refreshing', go right ahead, but as far as I am concerned, 99% of the guys on televised news are all clowns, regardless of what channel they are on, what party they represent, or what philosophy they claim to follow. And yes, I include Beck in that.
EDIT:
Oh, why, look at this. I went to YouTube just now in search of some footage of Beck that supported my case, and look what came up right away in the search!
But hey, I'm sure all that stuff was just 'quoted out of context', right?
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
Posted: April 13 2010 at 23:04
Actually, now that I think about it, maybe that was part of Cronkite's genius. Just put up a graphic of the Viet Nam body count every evening. Not get histrionic about it. Not actually comment about it one way or another.
Just put up the factual graphic every night at 6:00 PM:
Here's the number of your sons (and daughters? maybe not so much back then) killed and/or gone missing today or this week.
Obviously, not much entertainment value, no matter how you spin it.
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: April 13 2010 at 23:12
jammun wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Maybe I'm a naive idealist, but is it so hard to believe that someone on TV actually has political convictions? Why does everyone assume that everyone is just in it for the money?
I think you're a naive idealist
Edit: I apologize, that was a bit too rude. I don't wan't you thinking I'm a moron or idiot.
I think every person who goes into any job in politics, the media, the law, and many other professions...goes in as an idealist, thinking they can do good, and affect change, and that includes however they perceive 'good' and 'change'. Once inside their profession, after many years it almost invariably corrupts them, and this is particularly true of the media these days, I'd say. Do not kid yourself. It is all about ratings. Nielsen percentage points = $ in their pockets. Given the current state of the U.S., pandering to one or the other of the extremes = more viewers = more % Nielsen = more $ in their pockets = that book deal = that lecture tour. I do not doubt that they had sincerity at some point. I also do not doubt they have none now.
I didn't think you were rude. The winky makes it all okay
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: April 14 2010 at 08:26
I apologize for being a little sharp in my comments to you, JLocke.I was feeling a little testy and my post was unnecessarily rude. I'm used to dealing with idiots on youtube comments, and I sometimes forget that the people here actually know what they are talking about. I don't agree with you about Beck being a Neocon, but I can see you've done your homework and have good reasons for your opinions.
Again, I apologize and I hope we can focus on celebrating our common belief in Libertarianism.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 14 2010 at 11:26
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I've been trying to explain this or years. No one seems to get it. Countries are referred to by the last word in their official name. Hence "the kingdom of Norway" is called "Norway" not "The Kingdom." The United States of Mexico is called Mexico and The United States of America is called America. The fact that North America is also a continent changes nothing.
Actually, that makes the crucial difference. Mexico and Denmark are discrete units within America and Europe, whereas the US just gobbles up the entire continent with its name.
I can't believe I agree with Walterdigstunes but I do. Of course it's much simpler and "comfortable" to just say "America" but it takes up the name of an entire continent. There's no continent named Mexico or named Norway. A good way to call "americans" would be "citizens of the United States". But 5 words where 1 could do, oh that's so against "American" simplicity.
Even I have been using that word to refer to people in the US! It's so much easier... As always, it shows disdain for the rest of the world...
There must be a reason why all countries of the continent decided to create a new OAS-style organization without the US... (well, there are MANY reasons, but the "love" the country generates in all other american countries certainly doesn't help).
Anyway, Glenn Beck is a clown. We know that. All of us know he's an entertainer. But people with less insight and less education certainly don't. They think he's actually REAL. And that's the problem. Not everybody is as educated as a bunch of progressive rock fans...
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Posted: April 14 2010 at 11:45
I don't think it shows disdain for the rest of the world. It's just what we call ourselves. The rest of the world apparently chooses to be offended over nothing.
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Posted: April 14 2010 at 11:52
What can I say? I find the issue to be one of the silliest, most frustrating "non-issues" I've ever come across. With all the problems we have, people are going to lose sleep about the term millions of people use to refer to themselves. It's insane.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: April 14 2010 at 12:23
"Citizens of the United States" makes no sense because Mexico is also a "United States." I believe there are others as well.Until people start calling Liechtenstein "The Principality" I'm sticking with America.
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
Posted: April 14 2010 at 12:52
I think Glenn Beck has infected this topic, because the debate has gone from cliche, to just plain banal. Seriously, I don't give a crap if we call ourselves the Flying Satan Biscuits, good grief. Why quibble over semantics when there's a perfectly good Glenn Beck to argue about? :P
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: April 14 2010 at 14:37
thellama73 wrote:
I apologize for being a little sharp in my comments to you, JLocke.I was feeling a little testy and my post was unnecessarily rude. I'm used to dealing with idiots on youtube comments, and I sometimes forget that the people here actually know what they are talking about. I don't agree with you about Beck being a Neocon, but I can see you've done your homework and have good reasons for your opinions.
Again, I apologize and I hope we can focus on celebrating our common belief in Libertarianism.
Oh, that's okay. I'm sorry too, as I may have been a little too testy as well. It was late and I was tired, so I probably responded more harshly than I would have otherwise.
Anyway, no harm done, and now we can both go back to defending our 'wacko' Libertarian viewpoints to others.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.176 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
FoxNews' Glenn Beck
Topic Options
Atavachron wrote:
Edit: I apologize, that was a bit too rude. I don't wan't you thinking I'm a moron or idiot.
Oceaneans???
