Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: Glenn Beck on O'Reilly WOW

  1. #1

    Glenn Beck on O'Reilly WOW

    Beck is out of his mind.

    [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AZ-a2KPvpU&feature=player_embedded#at=379"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AZ-a2KPvpU&feature=player_embedded#at=379[/URL]

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;3958378]cr, Beck may not have it exactly right, but history tells us his general thesis is correct, revolutions are rarely what they seem to be, bottom up and entirely spontaneous insurrections and uprisings.

    Quite the contrary, revolutions are almost always guided by the elites and that was true of the American revolution as well, it never would have blossomed into a full scale revolt if not for the intellectuals and elites (Jefferson, Adams, etc.)

    That was true of the Bolshevik revolution, the French revolution, the Spanish revolution and you name it.

    And in many instances the connections were indeed philosophical and trans-national.

    Any student of revolutions knows that applies almost across the board and without exception.

    So even if Beck does not have all the details and all of the players exactly right, I would much rather listen to someone who speaks and thinks outside the box, people like Ron Paul and Glenn Beck, then members of the club who spoon feed people the same slight-of-hand which always amounts to [B]"nothing to see here beyond the obvious"[/B] :dunno:

    Having said that, I'm not a huge fan of Glenn Beck, I don't watch much TV and I don't have the time to follow anyones show on a daily basis, but on those occasions I have watched Beck I find him to be extremely detailed in connecting the dots with actual quotes and data, so its not like he's just theorizing, he usually backs it up with plenty of data and then encourages his audience to look it up for themselves and to not just take his word for it.[/QUOTE]

    Beck thinks the US is going to have a revolution after all the nutty people band together in Europe.

  3. #3
    If anyone ever cuts the Social Welfare State in the U.S., in a meaningful , deep and widespread way......yes, I could absolutely see Greece-Style Riots and Uprisings over it.

    Revolution? No.

    Not yet.

    That day will come when Left and Right realize they don;t just oppose each other, they hate each other, and become willing to resort to violence over it.

    And yes, I do think that day will come. No idea when, but as we move further and further from a strict Constitutionalism towards a "living document, that means what we want it to mean to fit today's world", i.e. no strict meaning at all, the time will eventually come where violence over the two very divergent left/right idealisms will occur.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;3958378]..I have watched Beck I find him to be extremely detailed in connecting the dots with actual quotes and data, so its not like he's just theorizing, he usually backs it up with plenty of data and then encourages his audience to look it up for themselves and to not just take his word for it.[/QUOTE]

    I completely agree!

    I catch Beck every once in a while and he just presents his case with actual evidence. Rarely does he have a guest. Switch to MSNBC and it's just annoying reporters and journalists from Time, Newsweek, etc, with opinions and constant polling data.

    Beck discovered a format. The liberals who hate Beck probably hate him because they weren't smart enough to present a Beck like program when Bush was in office. It would have been just as successful.

    :jets17

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=AlbanyJet;3958440]I completely agree!

    I catch Beck every once in a while and he just presents his case with [B]actual evidence[/B]. Rarely does he have a guest. Switch to MSNBC and it's just annoying reporters and journalists from Time, Newsweek, etc, with opinions and constant polling data.

    Beck discovered a format. The liberals who hate Beck probably hate him because they weren't smart enough to present a Beck like program when Bush was in office. It would have been just as successful.

    :jets17[/QUOTE]

    He is a successful entertainer and his actual evidence is his interpretation of his information. Few facts on his program.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Warfish;3958409]If anyone ever cuts the Social Welfare State in the U.S., in a meaningful , deep and widespread way......yes, I could absolutely see Greece-Style Riots and Uprisings over it.

    Revolution? No.

    Not yet.

    That day will come when Left and Right realize they don;t just oppose each other, they hate each other, and become willing to resort to violence over it.

    And yes, I do think that day will come. No idea when, but as we move further and further from a strict Constitutionalism towards a "living document, that means what we want it to mean to fit today's world", i.e. no strict meaning at all, the time will eventually come where violence over the two very divergent left/right idealisms will occur.[/QUOTE]

    Beck feels the labor unions and Green party members are getting ready to revolt.
    What type of revolutionary cuts are you talking about to the entitlements?

    Your Constitutional theory is pretty entertaining.

  7. #7
    You are not entitled to anything you work for it. Entitlements are just a new form of slavery!

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Midland Park, NJ
    Posts
    3,704
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;3958378]cr, Beck may not have it exactly right, but history tells us his general thesis is correct, revolutions are rarely what they seem to be, bottom up and entirely spontaneous insurrections/uprisings.

    Quite the contrary, revolutions are almost always guided by the elites and that was true of the American revolution as well, it never would have blossomed into a full scale revolt if not for the intellectual elites (Jefferson, Adams, etc.)[/quote]

    Not for nothing, but that's because democracy on it's own is probably the most difficult government structures to wield and start. Even as the model for a free domocracy we couldn't and still to some extent get it right. Democracy means that every person, rich or poor, no matter what color, creed, or faith (or lack there of) gets a say. It took us nearly a century to gives africans the right to vote and even longer for women to get that same privilege. Even in it's initial frame work the structure of our government only gave the richest dudes in cities like New York Boston and Philadelphia the voice for the citizens they governed. Not that far of a cry from what we just broke away from when lands and colonies were owned by lords, only difference was that we elected our president, he wasn't a born aristocrat.


    [quote]That was also true of the Bolshevik revolution, the French revolution, the Spanish revolution and you name it.[/quote]

    We also had huge disagreements on the structure of our government which brought fourth the articles of confederation, and after that had proved to be a failure. It wasn't until the first implication of the Constitution close to 10 years later that the actual frame work of our government began to at least take it's first breaths. Between another war with the British, a civil war, several social revolutions, all the way to today we [B]STILL[/B] don't have it 100% right. We just happen to be more "stable" than other failed democracies or failing ones but to say that we have this locked out is laughable.

    [quote]Any student of revolutions knows that applies across the board, they are orchestrated by intellectuals, they are philosophical in nature and in many instances the tenticles are indeed trans-national.[/quote]

    Agreed

    [quote]So even if Beck does not have all the details and all of the players exactly right, I would much rather listen to someone who speaks and thinks outside the box, people like Ron Paul and Glenn Beck, then members of the club who spoon feed people the same slight-of-hand which always amounts to [B]"nothing to see here beyond the obvious"[/B] :dunno: [/quote]

    There are people in history that align themselves along the conservative/libertarian perspective of life that made larger strides than Beck or Paul and still fell short and were forgotten by history for the simple reason that like Communism, libertarianism is a pipe-dream.

    [quote]Having said that, I'm not a huge fan of Glenn Beck, I don't watch much TV and I don't have the time to follow anyones show on a daily basis, but on those occasions I have watched Beck I find him to be extremely detailed in connecting the dots with actual quotes and data, so its not like he's just theorizing, he usually backs it up with plenty of data and then encourages his audience to look it up for themselves and to not just take his word for it.[/QUOTE]

    Anybody can "connect the dots" to their side of the opinion so long as the audience had the notion that they were going to agree with them to begin with. US news is absolutely laughable, its like reading the outragous tabloits int he supermarket and believing it's real... both right and left it's all just a joke. Anybody that can honestly listen to any of it and try to reiterate anything said on these amateur hour programs in a civil and intellectual conversation is an out right boob. It's not being an elitist (being an elitist can come from both right and left) its called legitimacy of information, and the garbaged turned out by CNN, FOX, MSNBC is about 3% interesting information and 97% drivel.

    /rant

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=cr726;3958461]Beck feels the labor unions and Green party members are getting ready to revolt.
    What type of revolutionary cuts are you talking about to the entitlements?

    Your Constitutional theory is pretty entertaining.[/QUOTE]


    the revolutionary cuts to the "white welfare" pension systems for municipal employees are coming, bubba....

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=cr726;3958460]He is a successful entertainer and his actual evidence is his interpretation of his information. Few facts on his program.[/QUOTE]

    Beck shows direct quotes and taped interviews. No interpretations needed. Pollyannish libreals would rather just stick their heads in the ground and ignore the world we live in.

    :jets17

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;3958578]the revolutionary cuts to the "white welfare" pension systems for municipal employees are coming, bubba....[/QUOTE]

    Hate to break it to you, but if the pension was part of the terms of employment (and it surely was), it's no more a "welfare" than your paycheck is. When you accept a job, you accept all the restitution for doing that job.

    You, I and the masses may not like it, but terming it "white welfare" is so incredably intelltellectually dishonest, it's almost laughable.

    We can certainly have a debate about Govt. Employees and how much they make in total compensation vs. total comp. for private sector workers, thats legit (although it's not as imbalanced as some seem to think), but describing a benefit of employment as "welfare" is just misguided and misdirected sillyness.

    If one wanted to go down that route, one could describe the paycheck of many a Coporate Worker as "Corporate Welfare" given how many tax breaks and loopholes and outright subsidies they get. Which would also be foolish and misdirected and wrong. It ignores the larger point to attack the smaller individual, a foolish direction to take the debate IMO.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,516
    [QUOTE=Warfish;3958654]Hate to break it to you, but if the pension was part of the terms of employment (and it surely was), it's no more a "welfare" than your paycheck is. When you accept a job, you accept all the restitution for doing that job.

    You, I and the masses may not like it, but terming it "white welfare" is so incredably intelltellectually dishonest, it's almost laughable.

    We can certainly have a debate about Govt. Employees and how much they make in total compensation vs. total comp. for private sector workers, thats legit (although it's not as imbalanced as some seem to think), but describing a benefit of employment as "welfare" is just misguided and misdirected sillyness.

    If one wanted to go down that route, one could describe the paycheck of many a Coporate Worker as "Corporate Welfare" given how many tax breaks and loopholes and outright subsidies they get. Which would also be foolish and misdirected and wrong. It ignores the larger point to attack the smaller individual, a foolish direction to take the debate IMO.[/QUOTE]

    Except corporate employment has fallen dramatically due to technology and outsourcing to cheaper alternatives. Government employment should be just fair enough to make a government job comparable to a similar private job and THAT my friend is not the case. Most corporations today have NO pensions, NO carryover of sick or vacation days, have the ability (and do) to terminate based on performance, just to name a few differences.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;3958672]Except corporate employment has fallen dramatically due to technology and outsourcing to cheaper alternatives.[/quote]

    An absolutely fair issue to raise.

    And absolutely unrelated to the "pension is white welfare" comment I took exception to.

    As I said rather clearly, there are no shortage of legit issues to discuss regarding how our Govt. operates and staffs and works.

    [QUOTE] Government employment should be just fair enough to make a government job comparable to a similar private job and THAT my friend is not the case.[/QUOTE]

    I've seen the stats as well as you. Lets just say they are just that, general stats. They are certainly not true for all Governemnt workers vs. private. Not at the Federal level, and certainly not at the State and local level.

    For example, I know a married couple friend of mine, both working in general finance/accounting. One Govt., one Private. The private makes over 30K a year more, but has much fewer bennies and less time off/sicktime. After counting it all up, it comes out remarkably close in total compensation.

    [quote]Most corporations today have NO pensions, NO carryover of sick or vacation days, have the ability (and do) to terminate based on performance, just to name a few differences.[/QUOTE]

    And as stated (getting tired of having to repeat myself tbh), thats NOT the fault of the individual who accepts the job. If you offered me $100K with Pension/Timeof/Etc. vs. $100K with nothing, fauling me (the individual) for choosing the better benefit offer is laughable.

    The system is the issue. Not the individual, who (if he's smart) is taking the best offer available, period.

    Somehow my friend, I doubt you'd turn down a great job offer on principle, because it was "Govt" and "offered too much pay and benefits". Easy to say you would on a forum, of course....
    Last edited by Warfish; 02-14-2011 at 10:09 AM.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;3958578]the revolutionary cuts to the "white welfare" pension systems for municipal employees are coming, bubba....[/QUOTE]

    Maybe the gov't will bail them out just like the other "white welfare", you know TARP.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,516
    [QUOTE=Warfish;3958681]An absolutely fair issue to raise.

    Somehow my friend, I doubt you'd turn down a great job offer on principle, because it was "Govt" and "offered too much pay and benefits". Easy to say you would on a forum, of course....[/QUOTE]

    You are incorrect. I quit a VERY good government job in 1986 making 32K at the time (decent pay) to take a job making 27K with a LARGE int'l CPA firm with MUCH LESS benefits because I wanted to like what I do and KNEW I would make even more if I just worked hard. I was also offered a full time university teachers job here at a local university which I turned down after fulfilling a 2 year contract. I also had the opportunity to become a NYC police officer when all my buddies did that. they are all under 50, retired on pensions of 60 to 75K playing golf everyday.

    I am NOT anti civil servant as much as I am anti big government. We need good people in government just not x as many as REALLY needed. It crowds out the private sector and causes a tax burden on the taxpayer to provide NOW benefits that are NO WHERE in reach for most other than civil servants.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;3958692]You are incorrect. I quit a VERY good government job in 1986 making 32K at the time (decent pay) to take a job making 27K with a LARGE int'l CPA firm with MUCH LESS benefits because I wanted to like what I do and KNEW I would make even more if I just worked hard. I was also offered a full time university teachers job here at a local university which I turned down after fulfilling a 2 year contract. I also had the opportunity to become a NYC police officer when all my buddies did that. they are all under 50, retired on pensions of 60 to 75K playing golf everyday.

    I am NOT anti civil servant as much as I am anti big government. We need good people in government just not x as many as REALLY needed. It crowds out the private sector and causes a tax burden on the taxpayer to provide NOW benefits that are NO WHERE in reach for most other than civil servants.[/QUOTE]

    I remember when the 1st Bush tax cuts were approved and all the people were bragging how the gov't is actually getting more tax money and this is a great thing. What happened?

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;3958692]I am NOT anti civil servant as much as I am anti big government. We need good people in government just not x as many as REALLY needed. It crowds out the private sector and causes a tax burden on the taxpayer to provide NOW benefits that are NO WHERE in reach for most other than civil servants.[/QUOTE]

    We're not in general disagreement at all on the issue of Govt. spending, inefficientcy or management of workforce/labour.

    But you'll just have to forgive me if I doubt your "I'm not Anti-Civil Servant" rhetoric, because everything else you post here makes it clear you are.

    So either you're painting with a vastly too-wide brush, or you're not getting across you specific issue very well, because in general you just come across as a man who hates anyone and everyone who works for Govt., so much so that you've repeatedly tried to McCarthy-Ctyle "name names" here on forum of people you even suspect might work in some way for some Government.

  18. #18
    the GOp talks a good game, lets see if they really have the stones to cut entitlements.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,516
    [QUOTE=Warfish;3958715]We're not in general disagreement at all on the issue of Govt. spending, inefficientcy or management of workforce/labour.

    But you'll just have to forgive me if I doubt your "I'm not Anti-Civil Servant" rhetoric, because everything else you post here makes it clear you are.

    So either you're painting with a vastly too-wide brush, or you're not getting across you specific issue very well, because in general you just come across as a man who hates anyone and everyone who works for Govt., so much so that you've repeatedly tried to McCarthy-Ctyle "name names" here on forum of people you even suspect might work in some way for some Government.[/QUOTE]

    I have NEVER singled out an individual, it is a systemic problem. I personally don't care/mind who works for the government. We need good people in government NOT the lazy bloated who go there for "The bennies". I can tell you however, that human nature being what it is, there are those individuals in civil service, perhaps a minority, that have an entitlement mentality.

    We talk budgets..but the reality is 70 percent of government costs are people costs once we leave infrastructure and DOD. i.e. There can be NO meaningful reduction in deficit unless government is made smaller and people costs are made like private co's. That is, less people. No IF's AND's or BUT's.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,516
    [QUOTE=cr726;3958707]I remember when the 1st Bush tax cuts were approved and all the people were bragging how the gov't is actually getting more tax money and this is a great thing. What happened?[/QUOTE]

    Bush happened. The TSA, Larger Dept of education, Dept of Energy etc... HE was a spending nightmare "white knuckle drunk" to quote Martin Sheehan.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us