Glenn Beck is a Neocon Not a Libertarian

Do you mean that your perception carries weight< when by your own admission you say you don't pay heed to Beck et al?
The apoplectic response from the left against Beck was essentially nil until he started to question what was going on within the Obama administration and began stepping on socialist hallowed toes.
Ironically Beck and a few others are responsible for much of what the liberal left seemingly does not wish exposed, i.e. Van Jones and ACORN as examples.
It is way past time to clean governments house...or is ignorance bliss?

I said that I watched a couple of clips...I think that was sufficient to understand Mr. Beck's M.O. As to whether my perception -- or my opinion -- carries any weight? This is not a courtroom, and I am not testifying, so my opinions should not be treated like evidence any more than anybody else's opinions here.

From the comments I have received in the past, my GUESS is that some people give my opinions little or no weight, some give them great deference and the rest fall somewhere in between...again, just like everybody else here. Like the rest of the people here, I am a product of my education and experience--along with whatever little trinkets God may have tossed in if you don't buy into tabula rasa.

Admittedly, I have received a number of emotional posts over the past 9 months to the effect of "you think you are so smart" -- I really DON'T think that way. If I give that impression, I can only say that I am not doing so intentionally (that said, I do reserve the right to be a "smart ass" -- why should I be left out of the fun?)

To the contrary, I have been wrong. Repeatedly. In fact, being wrong has been highly beneficial to me because the lessons I learn from cleaning up my own messes tend to stick. One of the few things worse than being wrong is suffering the embarrassment of being wrong twice via the same mistake.

I know almost nothing about ACORN, but I am pretty sure it is not an agency of the U.S. (or any other) government...despite what the conspiracy theorists opine. So I don't want my tax dollars going to "cleaning it up." My understanding is that a bipartison group in Congress has cut off their funding. I thought Van was gone already. I suppose we can chase him down...but there are a LOT of folks from the past 10 years or so who could be chased down...from both sides of the aisle...

Interesting that you ignore the multiple millions of our tax dollars that have been funding this questionable organization, are you at all compelled to find out more, or as I asked earlier, (and I don't believe this of you) is ignorance bliss?

I anticipate paying attention to the ACORN matter in proportion to its importance. It is too early, and I have seen too little evidence thus far to reach final conclusions...but what I have seen thus far leads me to believe that 1) ACORN's problems are less about organized evil than about incompetence and apathy that finally reached criminal proportions, and 2) This is about a troubled organization -- but once again Republicans badly overreach by attempting to use it to demonize an entire party. For example, to the best of my knowledge ACORN does not have an office in my state -- if so, I have never heard of it. Yet from the comments I am getting here at Current, ACORN represents a vast left-wing conspiracy, touching any Democrat or anyone who ever voted for a Democrat. That is simply impossible, because I am on the mailing lists for ALL of the vast left-wing conspiracies, and ACORN doesn't even make the top 100. ; )

Seriously, though, of COURSE I am opposed to illegal conduct. But the notion that because of ACORN the government needs to "clean house" is beyond laughable. There are military contractors ripping the government off for more dollars every DAY than ACORN has siphoned off in the course of the past year. By all means let's take ACORN to the woodshed to the extent wrongdoing is proven -- but one would have to be wilfully naive (or have a totally separate agenda) to believe that it ranks anywhere near the larger issues facing this country. Hell, it doesn't even measure up to Halliburton OR Blackstone, yet there will no doubt be Republicans calling for Obama to be impeached over ACORN by the end of next week *eye roll* Hypocrisy with a capital HYP...

Hmmm,... so out side of ACORN et al, the need of government to clean house is laughable ?
Surely you jest.

Al,

If you are going to ask me a question, I think you could be courteous enough to read the answer -- especially if you are going to pretend to cite it. The safest way is to cut (or copy) and paste. So actual words of the citation you mangled was:

"But the notion that because of ACORN the government needs to "clean house" is beyond laughable."

In other words, the government may need to clean house, but the notion that the reason it needs to do so is ACORN is beyond laughable. There are HUNDREDS of governmental abuses beside which ACORN pales in comparison.

So you take a sentence I wrote, twist it so that it says something completely different, and then attempt to make me look like an idiot by pointing to the twisted version you created. 1) I don't need any help looking stupid. I am doing that well enough on my own without your help. 2) On a MUCH less friendly note, do you still wonder why I ignore 90% of your posts? Am I supposed to respond so you can continue to do this? I am 48 years old, Ak. This is so childish that the word "infantile" comes to mind.

Thanks a lot.

I was kicking the can down the block one more time...Bwahahahahahaa

So you are saying he uses small words and caters to a shorter attention span?

Have you ever watched the film "Idiocracy" by any chance?

The few times I have tuned in. . . back when I had cable. . . he would take a story and spin it around and around so much that no matter what it was, it was sure to be the end of the world if people didn't "WAKE UP" and do something about it.

He was all over Sars. Loves to go on and on about Terrorists and have very very close we are to annihilation at their hand. . .

He peddles fear and mocks and attacks the people who think differently to them instead of talking about the ideas themselves.

I just don't like his style. Its not entertaining for me at all and I consider myself a Libertarian/Constitutionalists/Conservative.

Much better. An order of magnitude more subtle. The ending where you confidently point out that confidently pointing things out can just mean one is an even bigger idiot is a great touch. Best yet! 4 bridges.. More if you get angry replies.

I'd agree with you on that. Well said.

intellectually naive. . .

Wow. How is it possible to be naive to look past both major parties and see a better way? How is it possible to be naive yet see the inherent flaws of a fiat monetary system. . . or being the policeman of the world. . .

Naive. . .

Unimatrix0. . . you might want to do some reading before belittling Libertarians.

Wegg, you give unimatrix0 too much credit in their analysis. You credulously assume that this person has the capacity to understand anything more complicated than a 50-piece jumbo jigsaw puzzle with two pieces missing. I'd be impressed if they are capable of producing speech without drooling.

@wegg umm.. How do i put this... You need to look up that term again before you chastise people for using it in that manner.
This reminds me of that old joke where you claim "gullible" is not actually a word and get them to look it up in the dictionary.

@thefatbear mmm... Straight insult trolling is pretty passe'. 2 bridges. Tops.

Libertarianism is an intellectual position most people pass through at the end of high school or the beginning of college.

Reading Ayn Rand is often part of the passage.

Most mange to think their way out of the position. It is a utopian fantasy that is simply not practical on any level.

I appreciate kids getting excited about ideas. Same sort of thing happens in philosophy. Folks get a taste and an understanding and all of a sudden they become Idealists, or better, solipsists. If they study long enough they think their way back to reality.

With luck my libertarian friends on Current will do the same.

unimatrix0 is there a better "ism" that you prescribe too?

humanism

Humanism is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities, particularly rationality. Although the word has many senses, its meaning comes into focus when contrasted to the supernatural or to appeals to authority.[1][2] Since the nineteenth century, Humanism has been associated with an anti-clericalism inherited from the eighteenth-century Enlightenment philosophes. Twenty-first century Humanism tends to strongly endorse human rights, including reproductive rights, gender equality, social justice, and the separation of church and state. The term covers organized non-theistic religions, secular humanism, and a humanistic life stance.[3]

Sounds like your a Libertarian. To me. :-)

Libertarians would allow some one to starve or freeze to death, rather than have the state help people by providing for social welfare programs.

Nice try to spin it, you ron paul nuts are always being deceptive, just part of your cult like behavior.

Libertarians are selfish bastards when you get down to it and have nothing to do with humanism.

I wouldn't. All the time and money that I donate to the Chruch I attend would more than cover my fair share of looking after the sick and the afflicted, poor and un-wanted etc. You have to take responsibility for your friends, family, neighborhood and community or it would turn into a crap fest real fast. Leaving it up to the government in my opinion is immoral and damaging to the soul. You have no personal stake in your fellow man's well being.

Thats the way it always was before the goverment took over. Community hospitals, Rotary International, Red Cross, Lions club etc. We have a long tradition of being a giving nation with our time and our money. No need to have the Federal Government steal from one group to inefficiently manage what happens naturally in society.

Life is good. Share it.

Scared of him? More like nauseated by him. He is a really ugly man, physically and mentally.

well how comfortable do you feel about the smelly guy in the subway wearing four raincoats that squats by the newspaper machine and tries to touch people's socks as they go by? Is scared the right term?

yes. Through a fascinatingly unlikely coincidence. Beck is an editorial guy. He sits in a chair and makes quips. He does not do investigative journalism.

He made some really offensive and false quips and was about to go down in flames, and low and behold for some inexplicable reason an investigative piece "spontaneously" falls into his lap out of basically nowhere that is much more in keeping with something like 60 minutes or another really high end news show. It had no business being on his program any more than say an on camera live performans of the the spontaneous reunification of the Beatles complete with resurrected band members. News? Hell yeah! If it's true. But why right there and right then?

Even if the charges turn out not to be false there remains something very very fishy about that piece.

If I might make a terribly geek comparison it's a lucky break on the level of Hitler's misinterpreted message to hold his panzers away from the d-day invasion till it was too late. Those kinds of breaks don't happen without help. We had the ultra/magic program which could read and intercept Hitler's mail. what did Beck have?

That piece was literally worth his career. How did he acquire it?

the boycott is working, Beck's ratings are up but his ad revenue has been cut in half.

Ad revenue cut in half according to who? Last time I watched his show, every commercial break was full..no black outs due to lack of advertisers. Just because some advertisers left, doesn't mean there weren't others to fill the void.

Boycott still failed.

@mgerlach22 yes, but how much did each ad cost them?

I don't know anything really about how TV media buys are done. AFAIK though, Ad spot pricing is very complicated, but it's also very closely followed. There will always be someone to buy the spot even if it's just some company with mail order cd compilations or phone sex networks. They won't be paying what Ford can though. What I assume unimatrix0 is referring to is the total take for all the ads sold for the show that day. If the revenue is halved it means the station has had to cut their prices 50% to fill the slots.

It's not so much a boycott of viewers it's his advertisers that are leaving. This continues as his number of lost advertisers has now hit 70 including Walmart. If you watch nothing but fox news as I suspect you do, then you wouldn't be hearing about it. Fox thinks by ignoring the problem it will go away.

bombastinator....
You could be right. I have no idea how TV advertising works either. But I make sense of what you're saying as far as reducing prices of ad slots to fill spaces. It may be accurate. Either way, he's still filling ad spaces and his rating are at record highs. Besides, how many of the advertisers just switched to different time slots within FoxNews' primetime shows? As far as Murdoch is concerened, that's fine. His pockets are still fat. That still indicates the Glenn Beck boycott was counter productive.

Sedititous....
By your comments, I assume you watch liberal media. And you're indicating they're more concerned with Glenn Beck's advertisers leaving him than the real news like...say...ACORN or Van Jones. They're ratings also paint the same picture. Their ignorance is laughable as they desperately try and sway public perception of this President. Time to change directions maybe...

The boycott is going to be a long row to hoe. networks have kept shows on the air for as long as an entire season with no sponsors at all. It was only once, and back in the 50's but the did it. Murdoch doesn't need the money. He can keep the guy out there forever if he wants. Murdoch is a hard core dirty tricks strike breaker from way back in Australia. He may do it just to do it.

No other 5 pm EST show on cable is pulling in 3 million viewers. The boycott is ineffectual at best.

I was wondering if I was the only one seeing this. Any looming credibility LOST with the "Fox News is better." Are you kidding me???? You da bomb!!

How can this article lose credibility because of a comment someone else made?

I think he was referring to hunzedog's post above and the reply was accidentally posted on the wrong comment.

I really hate quoting Rush Limbaugh, but what on earth are you babbling about? I think there is a step missing in your logic train.

deying truth like always

to freaking much electric coo-aide, to be sure.

I really need you to define the term 'better' here.

... in the comments. where the majority of readers won't find it. i appreciate the existence of the opt out option even if it is in the fine print and comes pre-checked.

Mike, for the most part, I agree with you, here however, I part company - - as opinionated that Beck is, what matters is that he is among the few activists that are enlightening America of the atrocities being perpetrated upon us by our bureaucracy...
Wtf, why are you throwing rocks?