It's really not hypocricy because it's not like he praised Bush...in fact, he didn't like Bush either, so what exactly does this prove? He's called out Bush before for expanding gov't just like he has Obama. They're playing partisan games with someone who is nonpartisan.
Bush had Czars too is your excuse? Bush had deficeits too! OMG no kidding after 2 wars and 8 YEARS not 7 MONTHS! So OBAMA uses that as an excuse to TRIPLE the debt? Now where is the CHANGE?
LOL... the question is, Beck, do you know that you are the laughing stock of all but the dimmest bulbs? He doesn't even have the decency to apologize for being full of shit. I'm embarrassed for the rednecks and trailer park patriots that this cowardly turd is the best representative they have.
If you paid attention to the video you would see all the Czar's listed were those of the Bush administration, not the Obama administration. Bush actually had 15 more than Obama.
Yes, Bush had 15 more than Obama...but that is including everyone who over the entire 8yrs in office. That includes replacements, total Bush czar POSITIONS was 32, which had 47 different people filling them over 8 yrs. Try to keep up, maybe read the other comments before you comment, so we don't have to continue explaining that.
Does 36 = 47? Cause the video shows Bush had 47 czars. Either you are right or the video is right. Which is it? Maybe the DNC inflated their count by including all the replacement czars over the entire 8 yrs? So who is spewing lies and propaganda? Someone in this discussion is ignorant or just blind to the facts. Hopefully you can figure that one out. Thanks for trying.
Bush had 36 positions where the position was headed by an alleged Czar. Those positions were occupied by a total of 47 different people during his presidency.
Now I should have known better than to reply to anyone with '666' in their name. You have no interest in meaningful debate, like your Pickled idle, Glenn Beck, you only wish to empty your hate filled mouth and near empty skull in a public forum.
That's funny, cause I was just thinking the same about you. You just put exactly what I was trying to explain, but you obviously just figured it out...the total the DNC is using is from all the people who held a position as a czar...not the number of czar positions like the DNC propaganda would have you believe.
I am well researched in current politics so "other comments" are irrelevant to my posting. They come from more credible sources than unknown opinions on YouTube. How many newspapers do you read daily, from which countries, how many blogs, both left & right wing? There isn't a news program on all of television I'm aware of that provides unbiased political coverage. I laugh at people like you who get "news" from someone who claims he only offers "opinions" from Fox who defends lying as their right
I don't watch TV news. I watch commentary shows, like Glenn Beck, Olberman, and just whatever else is on that I feel like watching. I don't trust any source. They all have a spin on it. Newspapers? Who the hell still reads newspapers? Do you know they have them online, too? Blogs? Yeah, about as good an information source as the comments on YouTube videos. Glen Beck isn't a news program, he isn't a reporter, he never claimed to be.
I know Beck isn't a news program which is what I told you. You have a habit of repeating back to me the facts I point out to you as if you already were aware. How can you debate politics without any substantial means of collecting information on the very topic for which you're debating. Do you just choose your opinion shows based on the looks of the host or what?
I notice you have never cited a source of any of your information. I replied just as vaguely as you as to my sources, yet that somehow makes my opinion less substantial than yours? Hell, you even agreed with my argument. 47 people who were czars, not 47 czar positions...You are also the one who is trying to have a reasonable argument when you already admitted you were only commenting based on the limited info in this video. I was already aware of them, remember, I didn't just watch this vid.
Beck is smearing Obama's appointments because we have called them czars. In actuality they have no authority except as advisers to the president. They are an extension of the authority of the executive branch, no more, no less. Beck is simply blowing smoke and yelling fire.
So I guess you'd be cool if Obama picked up Fidel Castro as an advisor? Or maybe Hugo Chavez? What about Omar Kadafi? They would just be advisors, so it's cool.
No, you "guess" wrong which is the problem with followers of Glenn Back... they most go through life "guessing" as they lack the base information necessary for critical thinking.
Really? Please tell me why having Fidel Castro, Omar Kadafi, or Hugo Chavez as advisors would be a problem, but having other communists, radicals, and extremists isn't a problem? Please clear that up for me? Please clear up this contradiction. How are some avisors ok, cause they are "just advisors, no real power", but yet having people with the same political opinions, but just more well known for them, as advisors would be a problem? They are JUST ADVISORS...what does it matter?
So belief that another type of government is better ISN'T a conflict of interest? So Bush, or other Reps, brought in people who were familiar with the concept of a successful business, and a extensive background in their fields, yet that is a problem? Why? They might advise policies that might make it easier for companies be more successful? Oh my, the humanity...encouraging business...what a radical thought.
...so they can't help out business, but they can help out labor? Really? I don't remember being told that I can expect to be protected and looked after by Big Government. What about protecting labor from the unions? TX is a right to work state, but UPS employees still have the option of joining the Teamsters Union. Even here with it's limited power, it's a big pain in the ass.
It is a matter of balance. In end game capitalism the only thing the labor can use to get a decent wage without government interference is unions. Should unions be held up to the same scrutiny as corporations? Absolutely. But right now corporations are far more powerful than unions and so more deserving of our attention.
In some situations, yes, and in some situations, no. How do you draw the line to say when you have given too much to one side? I'm sure unions are good for some things, but it always comes with a cost. My brother was a supervisor at UPs. 2 workers got in a fight, he fired both. Teamsters complained, so they were re-hired and my brother got written up, which made him decide to quit. I think that's too much power, so am not for them getting more.
No, the point of this video was to clearly display the hypocrisy of Glenn Beck in his own words... but it is beyond your comprehension, just take my word for it. - The Democratic Rapid Response Team does not post video's attacking a Democratic President, lmao.
If you ONLY consider what is in this video, then, YES, it is showing GB as a hypocrite. But if you actually do some research on GB and his shows, you'll get the entire picture. Obviously the DRRT/DNC didn't, or are hoping the people who view this won't. You must be one of those people, cause you haven't done your research. So you go on believing the half-truth this video shows, continue making the DNC proud.
If I only watched this video, and had no other info regarding this matter, then, YES, it would show GB being a hypocrite. But I have more than just this video on which to base my responses. Maybe you should go do some research on your own, instead of just basing your argument on a video that purposely skews the truth to support their agenda...IE propaganda.
DNC handing to Glenn Beck. Go Glenn!!! Now you got some attention. You are making a difference. You are now a threat to them for exposing their corrupt ways. DNC is losing ground for no running individual. How a person carrying the truth can touch DNC like that. Good Job Glenn. Keep smashing them.
Beck LIES you fucking idiot. I think the DNC should go after all the fucking talking head liars. It is obvious that is who is leading the republicans nowadays. They don't have any candidates worth talking about. They all grovel at the feet of the talking heads and their insane followers.
Wow...you caught me in a typo. Sorry. "....definitely have them covered when it comes...." Corrected. Reading your other comment, "....now do you own part..." Either you meant to put "your" or you are just as incompetent. I, too, can use the same tactic.
I 'typo' is when you inadvertently hit the wrong key on the keyboard or hit it in the wrong order. You typed out an entire sentence, that was no typo, it is just ignorance.
An entire sentence...really...so 2 letters is an entire sentence? Difference between "covers" and "comes" are the 2 letters I am referring to, "M" and "R". Using your own standards, you are just ignorant.
2 letters is an entire sentence? "Comes" and "Covers", that is only 2 letters. I think you meant "A", not "I", but I guess that means you typed out half a sentence wrong, so you are ignorant as well. Yes, I just used your argument against you, AGAIN.
Approval ratings, voting records, far fewer ties to lobbyists and corruption, no child molesters, you know, all the typical differences between republicans and democrats.
Obama is in the low 50s for approval rating. He is among only 3 Pres to have that low of a rating in only 8months. Clinton is also one. We can find people in both parties with corruption, lobbyist ties, and deviant sexual tendencies. There is no side which can claim fewer.
That is HILARIOUS. One of the best Pres of all time?
"The Gallup poll Feb07 - name the greatest president in U.S. history; Clinton came in 4th.
2006 Quinnipiac University poll - best president since World War II, Clinton ranked 2d. In the same poll - name the worst president since World War II, Clinton was 3d"
damn right i am obama's idiot czar. My official position is idiot extermination advicer to the president. I am advicing him on how to castrate idiots like you so the next generation of americans don't carry scum genes. We are going to sneak up in the night and chop off your ball. It will be painless, I promise. You can tell that to your pimp beck so he can start working on getting me fired.
Advicer? Not Advisor? You are definitely qualified for the Idiot Czar position. I think you might be reading too many MSNBC reports, cause you don't even know your own official title.
"Anti-Idiot Discimination Panel Chief", and you work to ensure that noone's opinion is overlooked just for how stupid the individual who stated it is. You work closely with the DNC to ensure that all those people who are a less than average IQ aren't discriminated against, and are registered to vote (Dem).
They know you aren't running for office. But they also know that you spoon - feed the GOP base and an increasing number of elected Republicans their talking points.
Right - wingers can't stand it when they're reminded of their own words. Whether it's the Atlas Shat acolytes, the C Street gang , or the worshipers of the original Republican Middle Class Wrecking Ball, Ronald W. Reagan, they cannot stand it when voters hear their words in context, or become familiar with their real beliefs.
Besides that there are no republicans to attack as they have already sealed their own fate. Very few currently pose any threat to Democrats so the DNC is using money to prevent this crap from going mainstream.
And who do the Dems have? Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Frank? Good luck with that, cause I find it very unlikely they will be there after the 2010 and 2012 elections. Hopefully most politicians from both sides will be voted out and we'll have some no-names with no affilitation with teh lobbyists who actually care about the people!
Obama isn't going anywhere I assure you. Don't listen to your halfwit republican governors, senators and radio talk show hosts for political insight, they will fail you.
Personally I wish Reid would get kicked to the curb. I am not a die hard Democrat, not even a Democrat actually. I know corruption when I see it and have never liked Reid or Pelosi and would not miss either of them.
Yet is is VERY unlikely Pelosi will lose her seat. Reid is possible but odds would be against it also.
Not for thew next 3 yrs he isn't, but I assure you he isn't getting a second term. I am not a dem or a rep. Both are equally worthless. I consider the PERSON, not the party affiliation.
The only show that you might consider "right-wing" I watch is Glenn Beck. I don't even watch the local news, cause it has been found to woefully inadequate. I get my news from several online sources, Yahoo being the primary one. If something catches my attention, I look it up on as many sites as possible.
Well frankly you appear to take my attacks against your comments then attempt to turn them around and use MY arguments against me.
Obama will get a second term, there isn't a republican in this country with nearly enough political clout to beat Obama and the third party candidates are still a good decade from being serious contenders.
In the future when "something catches your attention" you should read it at it's source, rather than several online sources fool.
I can't help it that your arguments are weak and easily used to support my side as much as support yours. And Obama had alot of clout?? No, he was a new face for most of America. He just had the advantage of the dis-approval of Bush, that was reflecting badly on the Rep candidates. Hell, Obama didn't do anything special, they could have gotten a house cat elected with the level people were unhappy with Bush. You'll see how that works next Pres election, cause it will be the same towards Dem
Nothing special? He raised more money during a campaign than any official in the history of the planet.
Had record crowds and his speaking engagements.
This in lieu of the fact when he entered the race less than 10 percent of Americans claimed to have heard of him & of those over fifty percent believed he was a terrorist.
That is something special, as it is completely unprecedented.
Hillary Clinton was all but guaranteed to Democratic nominee, so your argument once again falls flat.
Again, people were willing to throw everything at whoever was the Dem nominee. I can't explain why Hillary didn't get the pick instead of Obama. Maybe it was the allure of the unknown in Obama, or just the fact we already had one Clinton (get) suck(ed) in the office, and were trying to prevent a repeat? But now he is there for all to see, to evaluate without the campaign confusion, and I have yet to find anyone who will vote for him again the next time around.
I am supposed to rationalize how the Dems nominated Obama over Clinton? You are just a classic example of how impossible that would be. You don't use logic or common sense, you just go with whatever the DNC tells you (this video and your inability to research beyond it is evidence), and defend it's inaccuracies, half-truths, or mis-direction with all your heart. There's no way to explain that, no way to make it seem logical. It just is what it is.
No, you said the only reason Obama won was because Bush was so bad and I merely pointed the flaw in your argument being he also beat several prominent democrats in order to run.
Glenn Beck speaking in his own words doesn't require additional research or evidence. It is impossible to refute.
I can't explain why Obama beat Clinton. Maybe he had a better advertising campaign? Maybe people didn't want another Clinton in after the first one's fuck ups. Maybe it was when Hillary cried on national TV?
Exactly what the DNC expected. Just listen to one ad, and take it for the whole truth. They missed the other parts where he mentioned some of their radical beliefs being the problem, not the number of them.
OK, next time I'll jump a plane and get a first-hand account. There won't be a need to have a nominee with enough political clout, just like Obama didn't. It just takes an outrage among the population, much in the same way Obama got elected.
It requires intelligence, passion and a plan. Three things the republicans are lacking en masse.
The republican party is nearly completely occupied by political hacks, lobbyists tools, war profiteers... no real politicians interested in bettering the country or serving the people.
Unless someone arises from the dust between now and 2012 the republicans do not have a chance at winning back the presidency.
I can say the same about the Dems. They are both on equal footing, they both suck. The Reps could run Howard the Duck and Mickey Mouse in 2012 and they would win. Just as the Dems could have done in 2008. The outrage is just starting, it's only been <1 yr under Obama and we have yet to see the change he is gonna go for the next 3, but based on his results so far, I don't see that making anyone happier.
Reversed Stem cell order-SCHIP passed and signed into law-Ledbetter bill passed and signed into law-Major Green energy initiatives started-EPA rules revised to address Climate Change-Executive order signed to protect large areas from drilling-Car emission standards revised-National Science Foundation funding boosted-Stimuls bill passed-Finacial system reform plan implemented-Gitmo closing ordered-
"Howard the Duck and Mickey Mouse" are better options than Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin. As I have said before I am not aware of a single strong republican candidate. Republicans wont take back the White House in 2012. The Democrats have a half dozen strong candidates other than Obama, Republicans not a single one.
And better than Obama/Biden. Like I said, it was pretty well determined that whoever won the Democratic nomination was gonna be the Pres. That was the sentiment in this country at that time. Well, it's looking to be a complete opposite in 2012, if things continue this way under Obama. Whoever gets the Rep Nomination will be assured the win. It could be Palin, it could be Peter Pan, wouldn't matter. The media edge is already in the Rep side. It was with the Dem in 08.
A lot of people listen to Glenn Beck, a LOT of people. Glenn Beck is trying to claim that because there are Czars in the Obama administration that Obama is a socialist. This ad was to calm Republicans down and show them "Hey. You guys had Czars too, shut the fuck up hypocrites.".
Obviously you aren't one of those watchers, or you would know that it's their AFFILIATION, not QUANTITY, that is the issue. The fact that some of them are:
I think it is you who completely missed the message based on your comments. While they show Glenn Beck complaining about the number of Czar's that Obama has they are actually showing the Czar's for each position, as they are named, from the Bush administration.
No kidding, really? If you watch Glenn Beck you would realize the only issue he has with them is their radical/extreme/communist backgrounds some have. He admits Bush had czars, but none that were COMMUNISTS. You are trying to base an opinion just on this video, I'm basing it on watching the show. Again, just like a dem/liberal to never research anything and just take it as fact cause it's from their propaganda media source.
Correct, I am basing my comments on the video. Hence, beneath the video you click "comments"
to share your thoughts of the video. I am well researched politically and if you care to partake in a live chat guarantee I know far more about politics, politicians and our political structure than you. I also know the definition of communist, socialist, liberal, conservative, democratic, republican, etc.. and you do not.
Listen you fucking moron you are the imbecile who implied nobody reads newspapers. You are the self-admitted fan of the other idiot in question, Glenn Beck.
I told you long ago that I will prove to you in a live chat you know nothing about politics, politicians or the political structure of this country. You conveniently failed to respond.
My opinions on THIS video are based solely on this video but all other opinions are based on a broader media spectrum that you will likely encounter in life
Already at the point of calling names? It's ok, I can understand how you are running short on ways to support your opinion. I have no interest in doing a live chat with you, sorry, but I get enough left-wing idiocy on youtube to want to dive into a discussion with you on how you see things from your warped point of view. I could watch 45 seconds of a movie and write a review, but then I would look like an idiot cause I didn't bother seeing the whole thing to base my opinion on, much like you.
Yeah, prove my ignorance. I have been proving your ignorance right here in these comments. I don't need to go to a private chat to do it. I have defended my postion, and you haven't. You missed that? Go and re-read some. And it's easy to aggravate someone when they have no truth to their stand. You are obviously one of those, cause it appears that you are getting aggravated.
Okay I will. Define for me the difference between conservatism and liberalism, then the difference between being a conservative and being a republican.
(you wont respond with an answer because you don't know, so you will instead spew some self delusional rhetoric about having already done so.)
If there's nothing to worry about...then why the fuck is Glenm Beckkk talking about it...oh that's right, because he gets PAID to make an ASS out himself and misguide the ignorant.
And it's a good thing (in more ways than one) because then you could be called HYPOCRITE on the House floor as you soon eliquently pointed out the other day, YOU HACK!!!!!!!! You just got OWNED!!!!!!!!
You obviously don't watch Glenn Beck, or you would know that the only reason he cares how many czars Obama has is because of how many of them have Communist or radical backgrounds. It's not THE NUMBER, but their BACKGROUNDS. That is why he didn't respond to the "rebuttal" in the commerical, cause he never said he gave a rat's ass about how many, just their politics.
Than where was ALL this concern over Bush's CZARS??? Some of them had "questional" social skills??? If memory serves me right, one of them got off on anally raping his wife while she was sleeping...and he was an OB. Besides his aim, I'd say he was a little "off"...where's the outrage now??? Yeah...I didn't think so.
I agree that that is pretty poor conduct. That was a sexually deviant act, which is just wrong on lots of levels. I'm right with you on him. But if you can consider sexual conduct an issue, than surely you can consider politically ideology and affiliations an issue, as well as a conflict of interest being in the position of advising the leader of a democratic nation.
And let's not forget Glenn Beck--the BIZZ-czar!
Thebeautiful11 2 years ago
It's really not hypocricy because it's not like he praised Bush...in fact, he didn't like Bush either, so what exactly does this prove? He's called out Bush before for expanding gov't just like he has Obama. They're playing partisan games with someone who is nonpartisan.
jimb024 2 years ago 2
This is somehow meant to make Beck look better? He's a cretinous idiot.
ninonu34 2 years ago
you are not running but the people who do are your bitches, got it fag ??
parulkarg 2 years ago
OLIGARCHY - OLIGATHY ...... thank you for that Mr. Beck.
Profairpotm 2 years ago
Bush had Czars too is your excuse? Bush had deficeits too! OMG no kidding after 2 wars and 8 YEARS not 7 MONTHS! So OBAMA uses that as an excuse to TRIPLE the debt? Now where is the CHANGE?
20thCenturyManIAC 2 years ago 3
Some guy at work told me today that "they" are attacking Beck because he is running for office and would make a great President.
My reply was "I hadn't heard a thing about it"
Which was true, until now. But his reaction is what got me. He was stunned and insulted that I didn't know about this attack on his hero.
Boomer1949 2 years ago
LOL... the question is, Beck, do you know that you are the laughing stock of all but the dimmest bulbs? He doesn't even have the decency to apologize for being full of shit. I'm embarrassed for the rednecks and trailer park patriots that this cowardly turd is the best representative they have.
idlefritz 2 years ago
I am reading comments by what is apparently that "Dimmest bulb" group that you are referring to, and find they are the biggest laughing stock yet.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Maybe we're sick of having assholes like you telling lies. It's open season you fuck.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Yet they didn't mention any lies in this video. They merely showed that Obama isn't really "change" at all.
Nathan666 2 years ago
If you paid attention to the video you would see all the Czar's listed were those of the Bush administration, not the Obama administration. Bush actually had 15 more than Obama.
Axekick11 2 years ago
Yes, Bush had 15 more than Obama...but that is including everyone who over the entire 8yrs in office. That includes replacements, total Bush czar POSITIONS was 32, which had 47 different people filling them over 8 yrs. Try to keep up, maybe read the other comments before you comment, so we don't have to continue explaining that.
Nathan666 2 years ago
No imbecile, george w. bush had 36 czars, not 32.
I am keeping up, now do you own part or drop out due to ignorance.
Axekick11 2 years ago
Does 36 = 47? Cause the video shows Bush had 47 czars. Either you are right or the video is right. Which is it? Maybe the DNC inflated their count by including all the replacement czars over the entire 8 yrs? So who is spewing lies and propaganda? Someone in this discussion is ignorant or just blind to the facts. Hopefully you can figure that one out. Thanks for trying.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Bush had 36 positions where the position was headed by an alleged Czar. Those positions were occupied by a total of 47 different people during his presidency.
Now I should have known better than to reply to anyone with '666' in their name. You have no interest in meaningful debate, like your Pickled idle, Glenn Beck, you only wish to empty your hate filled mouth and near empty skull in a public forum.
Axekick11 2 years ago
That's funny, cause I was just thinking the same about you. You just put exactly what I was trying to explain, but you obviously just figured it out...the total the DNC is using is from all the people who held a position as a czar...not the number of czar positions like the DNC propaganda would have you believe.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Yet you said Bush had 32 czar positions where he actually had 36.
Axekick11 2 years ago
Where are you getting your numbers? I have found anywhere from 30 to 37 Bush czars. Please site a source. Thanks.
Nathan666 2 years ago
I am well researched in current politics so "other comments" are irrelevant to my posting. They come from more credible sources than unknown opinions on YouTube. How many newspapers do you read daily, from which countries, how many blogs, both left & right wing? There isn't a news program on all of television I'm aware of that provides unbiased political coverage. I laugh at people like you who get "news" from someone who claims he only offers "opinions" from Fox who defends lying as their right
Axekick11 2 years ago
I don't watch TV news. I watch commentary shows, like Glenn Beck, Olberman, and just whatever else is on that I feel like watching. I don't trust any source. They all have a spin on it. Newspapers? Who the hell still reads newspapers? Do you know they have them online, too? Blogs? Yeah, about as good an information source as the comments on YouTube videos. Glen Beck isn't a news program, he isn't a reporter, he never claimed to be.
Nathan666 2 years ago
I know Beck isn't a news program which is what I told you. You have a habit of repeating back to me the facts I point out to you as if you already were aware. How can you debate politics without any substantial means of collecting information on the very topic for which you're debating. Do you just choose your opinion shows based on the looks of the host or what?
Axekick11 2 years ago
I notice you have never cited a source of any of your information. I replied just as vaguely as you as to my sources, yet that somehow makes my opinion less substantial than yours? Hell, you even agreed with my argument. 47 people who were czars, not 47 czar positions...You are also the one who is trying to have a reasonable argument when you already admitted you were only commenting based on the limited info in this video. I was already aware of them, remember, I didn't just watch this vid.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Beck is smearing Obama's appointments because we have called them czars. In actuality they have no authority except as advisers to the president. They are an extension of the authority of the executive branch, no more, no less. Beck is simply blowing smoke and yelling fire.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
So I guess you'd be cool if Obama picked up Fidel Castro as an advisor? Or maybe Hugo Chavez? What about Omar Kadafi? They would just be advisors, so it's cool.
Nathan666 2 years ago
No, you "guess" wrong which is the problem with followers of Glenn Back... they most go through life "guessing" as they lack the base information necessary for critical thinking.
Axekick11 2 years ago
Really? Please tell me why having Fidel Castro, Omar Kadafi, or Hugo Chavez as advisors would be a problem, but having other communists, radicals, and extremists isn't a problem? Please clear that up for me? Please clear up this contradiction. How are some avisors ok, cause they are "just advisors, no real power", but yet having people with the same political opinions, but just more well known for them, as advisors would be a problem? They are JUST ADVISORS...what does it matter?
Nathan666 2 years ago
They are all citizens and heads of other states(countries), some of which are considered hostile towards the United States and it's interests.
Axekick11 2 years ago
So if they came here and got citizenship, it would be alright? Is that all it would take?
Nathan666 2 years ago
They would have a significant conflict of interest, not unlike the top tier CEO class that republicans like to appoint to watch the hen houses.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
So belief that another type of government is better ISN'T a conflict of interest? So Bush, or other Reps, brought in people who were familiar with the concept of a successful business, and a extensive background in their fields, yet that is a problem? Why? They might advise policies that might make it easier for companies be more successful? Oh my, the humanity...encouraging business...what a radical thought.
Nathan666 2 years ago
More like caving in to business and failing to negotiate on behalf of LABOR.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
...so they can't help out business, but they can help out labor? Really? I don't remember being told that I can expect to be protected and looked after by Big Government. What about protecting labor from the unions? TX is a right to work state, but UPS employees still have the option of joining the Teamsters Union. Even here with it's limited power, it's a big pain in the ass.
Nathan666 2 years ago
It is a matter of balance. In end game capitalism the only thing the labor can use to get a decent wage without government interference is unions. Should unions be held up to the same scrutiny as corporations? Absolutely. But right now corporations are far more powerful than unions and so more deserving of our attention.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
In some situations, yes, and in some situations, no. How do you draw the line to say when you have given too much to one side? I'm sure unions are good for some things, but it always comes with a cost. My brother was a supervisor at UPs. 2 workers got in a fight, he fired both. Teamsters complained, so they were re-hired and my brother got written up, which made him decide to quit. I think that's too much power, so am not for them getting more.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Not knowing the full details it is hard for me to comment but the problem it seems to me is taking to much authority into your own hands.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
No, the point of this video was to clearly display the hypocrisy of Glenn Beck in his own words... but it is beyond your comprehension, just take my word for it. - The Democratic Rapid Response Team does not post video's attacking a Democratic President, lmao.
Axekick11 2 years ago
If you ONLY consider what is in this video, then, YES, it is showing GB as a hypocrite. But if you actually do some research on GB and his shows, you'll get the entire picture. Obviously the DRRT/DNC didn't, or are hoping the people who view this won't. You must be one of those people, cause you haven't done your research. So you go on believing the half-truth this video shows, continue making the DNC proud.
Nathan666 2 years ago
If I only watched this video, and had no other info regarding this matter, then, YES, it would show GB being a hypocrite. But I have more than just this video on which to base my responses. Maybe you should go do some research on your own, instead of just basing your argument on a video that purposely skews the truth to support their agenda...IE propaganda.
Nathan666 2 years ago
DNC handing to Glenn Beck. Go Glenn!!! Now you got some attention. You are making a difference. You are now a threat to them for exposing their corrupt ways. DNC is losing ground for no running individual. How a person carrying the truth can touch DNC like that. Good Job Glenn. Keep smashing them.
OliverPeterful 2 years ago
Beck LIES you fucking idiot. I think the DNC should go after all the fucking talking head liars. It is obvious that is who is leading the republicans nowadays. They don't have any candidates worth talking about. They all grovel at the feet of the talking heads and their insane followers.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago 2
And who does the DNC have? Pelosi, Barney Frank, Obama?
Nathan666 2 years ago
Far better than McConnell, Boehner, Palin...
or joe the plumber !
Axekick11 2 years ago
Far better? By what measure? Incompetence? Cause I will give that one to you, they definitely have them covered when it covers to incompetence.
Nathan666 2 years ago
"incompetence" by what measure? would it be incompetent to compose a sentence including the following;
"...definitely have them covered when it covers..."
Axekick11 2 years ago
Wow...you caught me in a typo. Sorry. "....definitely have them covered when it comes...." Corrected. Reading your other comment, "....now do you own part..." Either you meant to put "your" or you are just as incompetent. I, too, can use the same tactic.
Nathan666 2 years ago
I 'typo' is when you inadvertently hit the wrong key on the keyboard or hit it in the wrong order. You typed out an entire sentence, that was no typo, it is just ignorance.
Axekick11 2 years ago
An entire sentence...really...so 2 letters is an entire sentence? Difference between "covers" and "comes" are the 2 letters I am referring to, "M" and "R". Using your own standards, you are just ignorant.
Nathan666 2 years ago
2 letters is an entire sentence? "Comes" and "Covers", that is only 2 letters. I think you meant "A", not "I", but I guess that means you typed out half a sentence wrong, so you are ignorant as well. Yes, I just used your argument against you, AGAIN.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Approval ratings, voting records, far fewer ties to lobbyists and corruption, no child molesters, you know, all the typical differences between republicans and democrats.
Axekick11 2 years ago
Obama is in the low 50s for approval rating. He is among only 3 Pres to have that low of a rating in only 8months. Clinton is also one. We can find people in both parties with corruption, lobbyist ties, and deviant sexual tendencies. There is no side which can claim fewer.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Good analogy being Clinton was a two term president who today is considered(by presidential historians) as one of the best presidents of all time.
Axekick11 2 years ago
That is HILARIOUS. One of the best Pres of all time?
"The Gallup poll Feb07 - name the greatest president in U.S. history; Clinton came in 4th.
2006 Quinnipiac University poll - best president since World War II, Clinton ranked 2d. In the same poll - name the worst president since World War II, Clinton was 3d"
I guess you are half right. And so am I.
Nathan666 2 years ago
do you have a clue what you are blabberring about ?, like you are glen's parrot
parulkarg 2 years ago
And you must be Obama's Idiot Czar?
Nathan666 2 years ago
damn right i am obama's idiot czar. My official position is idiot extermination advicer to the president. I am advicing him on how to castrate idiots like you so the next generation of americans don't carry scum genes. We are going to sneak up in the night and chop off your ball. It will be painless, I promise. You can tell that to your pimp beck so he can start working on getting me fired.
parulkarg 2 years ago
Advicer? Not Advisor? You are definitely qualified for the Idiot Czar position. I think you might be reading too many MSNBC reports, cause you don't even know your own official title.
"Anti-Idiot Discimination Panel Chief", and you work to ensure that noone's opinion is overlooked just for how stupid the individual who stated it is. You work closely with the DNC to ensure that all those people who are a less than average IQ aren't discriminated against, and are registered to vote (Dem).
Nathan666 2 years ago
yes all taht is aslo part of my job. But the top priortiy is to chop yuur bals. Taht's a promsie
parulkarg 2 years ago
Gay fetish? Let's stop talking about my balls, they aren't in this discussion.
Nathan666 2 years ago
of course they are. its my job to chop
parulkarg 2 years ago
Well, you need to be fired, cause you haven't done your job.
Nathan666 2 years ago
don't worry, the job will be done soon. watch out
parulkarg 2 years ago
I'm NOT shaking in my boots...wait...I mean, I'm shaking in my boots...NOT.
Nathan666 2 years ago
it doesn't matter anymore
parulkarg 2 years ago
just goes to show you that fox news really dont care instead they make jokes
TenRoc382k9 2 years ago
FOX babbles about the Presidents advisers, when they have hired several of Bush's.
Karl Rove has been a FOX contributor for nearly a year, he was the head czar for the Bush administration.
FOX "news" is steadily loosing all journalistic integrity From the "fist bump" to Oreilly attacking Larry King......I mean really, Larry King?
He's an American icon, how low can FOX go?
newportlights 2 years ago
They know you aren't running for office. But they also know that you spoon - feed the GOP base and an increasing number of elected Republicans their talking points.
Right - wingers can't stand it when they're reminded of their own words. Whether it's the Atlas Shat acolytes, the C Street gang , or the worshipers of the original Republican Middle Class Wrecking Ball, Ronald W. Reagan, they cannot stand it when voters hear their words in context, or become familiar with their real beliefs.
MichaelConrad1D 2 years ago 4
Besides that there are no republicans to attack as they have already sealed their own fate. Very few currently pose any threat to Democrats so the DNC is using money to prevent this crap from going mainstream.
Axekick11 2 years ago
And who do the Dems have? Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Frank? Good luck with that, cause I find it very unlikely they will be there after the 2010 and 2012 elections. Hopefully most politicians from both sides will be voted out and we'll have some no-names with no affilitation with teh lobbyists who actually care about the people!
Nathan666 2 years ago
Obama isn't going anywhere I assure you. Don't listen to your halfwit republican governors, senators and radio talk show hosts for political insight, they will fail you.
Personally I wish Reid would get kicked to the curb. I am not a die hard Democrat, not even a Democrat actually. I know corruption when I see it and have never liked Reid or Pelosi and would not miss either of them.
Yet is is VERY unlikely Pelosi will lose her seat. Reid is possible but odds would be against it also.
Axekick11 2 years ago
Not for thew next 3 yrs he isn't, but I assure you he isn't getting a second term. I am not a dem or a rep. Both are equally worthless. I consider the PERSON, not the party affiliation.
The only show that you might consider "right-wing" I watch is Glenn Beck. I don't even watch the local news, cause it has been found to woefully inadequate. I get my news from several online sources, Yahoo being the primary one. If something catches my attention, I look it up on as many sites as possible.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Well frankly you appear to take my attacks against your comments then attempt to turn them around and use MY arguments against me.
Obama will get a second term, there isn't a republican in this country with nearly enough political clout to beat Obama and the third party candidates are still a good decade from being serious contenders.
In the future when "something catches your attention" you should read it at it's source, rather than several online sources fool.
Axekick11 2 years ago
I can't help it that your arguments are weak and easily used to support my side as much as support yours. And Obama had alot of clout?? No, he was a new face for most of America. He just had the advantage of the dis-approval of Bush, that was reflecting badly on the Rep candidates. Hell, Obama didn't do anything special, they could have gotten a house cat elected with the level people were unhappy with Bush. You'll see how that works next Pres election, cause it will be the same towards Dem
Nathan666 2 years ago
Nothing special? He raised more money during a campaign than any official in the history of the planet.
Had record crowds and his speaking engagements.
This in lieu of the fact when he entered the race less than 10 percent of Americans claimed to have heard of him & of those over fifty percent believed he was a terrorist.
That is something special, as it is completely unprecedented.
Hillary Clinton was all but guaranteed to Democratic nominee, so your argument once again falls flat.
Axekick11 2 years ago
Again, people were willing to throw everything at whoever was the Dem nominee. I can't explain why Hillary didn't get the pick instead of Obama. Maybe it was the allure of the unknown in Obama, or just the fact we already had one Clinton (get) suck(ed) in the office, and were trying to prevent a repeat? But now he is there for all to see, to evaluate without the campaign confusion, and I have yet to find anyone who will vote for him again the next time around.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Not "Again," previously you said "Obama," then added that a "house cat" could have been a republican candidate because Bush was such a nightmare.
I called you on that logic asking how Obama beat Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democratic candidates.
You twisted the argument to claim something that was never said, as usual.
Axekick11 2 years ago
I am supposed to rationalize how the Dems nominated Obama over Clinton? You are just a classic example of how impossible that would be. You don't use logic or common sense, you just go with whatever the DNC tells you (this video and your inability to research beyond it is evidence), and defend it's inaccuracies, half-truths, or mis-direction with all your heart. There's no way to explain that, no way to make it seem logical. It just is what it is.
Nathan666 2 years ago
No, you said the only reason Obama won was because Bush was so bad and I merely pointed the flaw in your argument being he also beat several prominent democrats in order to run.
Glenn Beck speaking in his own words doesn't require additional research or evidence. It is impossible to refute.
Axekick11 2 years ago
I can't explain why Obama beat Clinton. Maybe he had a better advertising campaign? Maybe people didn't want another Clinton in after the first one's fuck ups. Maybe it was when Hillary cried on national TV?
Exactly what the DNC expected. Just listen to one ad, and take it for the whole truth. They missed the other parts where he mentioned some of their radical beliefs being the problem, not the number of them.
Nathan666 2 years ago
OK, next time I'll jump a plane and get a first-hand account. There won't be a need to have a nominee with enough political clout, just like Obama didn't. It just takes an outrage among the population, much in the same way Obama got elected.
Nathan666 2 years ago
It requires intelligence, passion and a plan. Three things the republicans are lacking en masse.
The republican party is nearly completely occupied by political hacks, lobbyists tools, war profiteers... no real politicians interested in bettering the country or serving the people.
Unless someone arises from the dust between now and 2012 the republicans do not have a chance at winning back the presidency.
Axekick11 2 years ago
I can say the same about the Dems. They are both on equal footing, they both suck. The Reps could run Howard the Duck and Mickey Mouse in 2012 and they would win. Just as the Dems could have done in 2008. The outrage is just starting, it's only been <1 yr under Obama and we have yet to see the change he is gonna go for the next 3, but based on his results so far, I don't see that making anyone happier.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Obama during his first 6 months in office;
Reversed Stem cell order-SCHIP passed and signed into law-Ledbetter bill passed and signed into law-Major Green energy initiatives started-EPA rules revised to address Climate Change-Executive order signed to protect large areas from drilling-Car emission standards revised-National Science Foundation funding boosted-Stimuls bill passed-Finacial system reform plan implemented-Gitmo closing ordered-
Torture banned-Iraq withdraw ordered...
Axekick11 2 years ago
"Howard the Duck and Mickey Mouse" are better options than Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin. As I have said before I am not aware of a single strong republican candidate. Republicans wont take back the White House in 2012. The Democrats have a half dozen strong candidates other than Obama, Republicans not a single one.
Axekick11 2 years ago
And better than Obama/Biden. Like I said, it was pretty well determined that whoever won the Democratic nomination was gonna be the Pres. That was the sentiment in this country at that time. Well, it's looking to be a complete opposite in 2012, if things continue this way under Obama. Whoever gets the Rep Nomination will be assured the win. It could be Palin, it could be Peter Pan, wouldn't matter. The media edge is already in the Rep side. It was with the Dem in 08.
Nathan666 2 years ago
As a political operative and propagandist, Beck is a silly amateur. His advertisers continue to leave. His few remaining viewers must be douchebags.
voyeurdug 2 years ago 3
So is the DnC just attacking the messanger, instead of the message? Odd strategy, espescialy if you have nothing to worry about......
yeah
WhiskeyBlade 2 years ago
A lot of people listen to Glenn Beck, a LOT of people. Glenn Beck is trying to claim that because there are Czars in the Obama administration that Obama is a socialist. This ad was to calm Republicans down and show them "Hey. You guys had Czars too, shut the fuck up hypocrites.".
BlackKingX 2 years ago 3
Obviously you aren't one of those watchers, or you would know that it's their AFFILIATION, not QUANTITY, that is the issue. The fact that some of them are:
Communists
Radicals
Extremeists
That is THE ISSUE.
Nathan666 2 years ago
No, they were actually attacking the message.
(Which is why they posted pictures, names and titles of each Czar under the Bush administration.)
Axekick11 2 years ago 2
..and completely missed THE MESSAGE.
Nathan666 2 years ago
I think it is you who completely missed the message based on your comments. While they show Glenn Beck complaining about the number of Czar's that Obama has they are actually showing the Czar's for each position, as they are named, from the Bush administration.
Try and keep up, you will learn.
Axekick11 2 years ago
No kidding, really? If you watch Glenn Beck you would realize the only issue he has with them is their radical/extreme/communist backgrounds some have. He admits Bush had czars, but none that were COMMUNISTS. You are trying to base an opinion just on this video, I'm basing it on watching the show. Again, just like a dem/liberal to never research anything and just take it as fact cause it's from their propaganda media source.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Correct, I am basing my comments on the video. Hence, beneath the video you click "comments"
to share your thoughts of the video. I am well researched politically and if you care to partake in a live chat guarantee I know far more about politics, politicians and our political structure than you. I also know the definition of communist, socialist, liberal, conservative, democratic, republican, etc.. and you do not.
Axekick11 2 years ago
So you are basing an opinion on just one video, and then making a very wide generalization with only those facts. Just WOW.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Listen you fucking moron you are the imbecile who implied nobody reads newspapers. You are the self-admitted fan of the other idiot in question, Glenn Beck.
I told you long ago that I will prove to you in a live chat you know nothing about politics, politicians or the political structure of this country. You conveniently failed to respond.
My opinions on THIS video are based solely on this video but all other opinions are based on a broader media spectrum that you will likely encounter in life
Axekick11 2 years ago
Already at the point of calling names? It's ok, I can understand how you are running short on ways to support your opinion. I have no interest in doing a live chat with you, sorry, but I get enough left-wing idiocy on youtube to want to dive into a discussion with you on how you see things from your warped point of view. I could watch 45 seconds of a movie and write a review, but then I would look like an idiot cause I didn't bother seeing the whole thing to base my opinion on, much like you.
Nathan666 2 years ago
I have no desire to chat with you either, only to PROVE you're ignorance.
I understand your inability to defend your positions and constant need to run to right wing blogs for ammunition you use to further dig yourself in.
Plain and simple you are a pussy. A faceless, nameless, apparent satanic worshiping ignorant ass whose sole purpose here is to aggravate others.
Axekick11 2 years ago
Yeah, prove my ignorance. I have been proving your ignorance right here in these comments. I don't need to go to a private chat to do it. I have defended my postion, and you haven't. You missed that? Go and re-read some. And it's easy to aggravate someone when they have no truth to their stand. You are obviously one of those, cause it appears that you are getting aggravated.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Okay I will. Define for me the difference between conservatism and liberalism, then the difference between being a conservative and being a republican.
(you wont respond with an answer because you don't know, so you will instead spew some self delusional rhetoric about having already done so.)
Axekick11 2 years ago
Where does it say any opinion was based on one video?
Axekick11 2 years ago
they are attacking both watch it again
TenRoc382k9 2 years ago
No, they're attacking the hypocrisy.
boratbear 2 years ago 2
If there's nothing to worry about...then why the fuck is Glenm Beckkk talking about it...oh that's right, because he gets PAID to make an ASS out himself and misguide the ignorant.
classc63 2 years ago
And it's a good thing (in more ways than one) because then you could be called HYPOCRITE on the House floor as you soon eliquently pointed out the other day, YOU HACK!!!!!!!! You just got OWNED!!!!!!!!
classc63 2 years ago 5
You obviously don't watch Glenn Beck, or you would know that the only reason he cares how many czars Obama has is because of how many of them have Communist or radical backgrounds. It's not THE NUMBER, but their BACKGROUNDS. That is why he didn't respond to the "rebuttal" in the commerical, cause he never said he gave a rat's ass about how many, just their politics.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Than where was ALL this concern over Bush's CZARS??? Some of them had "questional" social skills??? If memory serves me right, one of them got off on anally raping his wife while she was sleeping...and he was an OB. Besides his aim, I'd say he was a little "off"...where's the outrage now??? Yeah...I didn't think so.
classc63 2 years ago
I agree that that is pretty poor conduct. That was a sexually deviant act, which is just wrong on lots of levels. I'm right with you on him. But if you can consider sexual conduct an issue, than surely you can consider politically ideology and affiliations an issue, as well as a conflict of interest being in the position of advising the leader of a democratic nation.
Nathan666 2 years ago
Haha, that's hilarious.
cryxibus 2 years ago 3