Poor Glenny. As delusional as ever.

No wonder he works so hard at offense… His attempt at final defense is ackward at best… GlennBeck.com

And the light fades…

LOL Stewart drives them crazy. Wait a minute, so first it was that Stewart had writers now will the talk of the day be how many he has given the fact that Beck also has writers?

What Stewart does is the easiest type of ” comedy” …mocking and making faces .

Watching Glenn , you learn something , you’re inspired , you’re entertained .

Glenn is likeable . Stewart is thorny and unlikeable .

Greg said:
And the light fades…

cue the right-wing zealots in 5…4…3…2…1…

The Lantern of Truth said:
What Stewart does is the easiest type of ” comedy” …mocking and making faces .

Watching Glenn , you learn something , you’re inspired , you’re entertained .

Glenn is likeable . Stewart is thorny and unlikeable .

how many debates does beck have? Stewart has debated the likes of eric cantor, donald rumsfeld, and barrack obama. beck has had that one guy who thinks the constitution is a christian document, just like beck believes. There is no debate on beck’s show, just his lectures.

I agree with Beck. Except for the small fact Stewart makes sense. Beck doesn’t.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Watching Glenn , you learn something [false] , you’re inspired [to feel resentment], you’re entertained [if you're an idiot].

Actually the zealots will wait till 7 since Beck is feeding his ego via livestream at 6:30

Nationman said:
how many debates does beck have? Stewart has debated the likes of eric cantor, donald rumsfeld, and barrack obama. beck has had that one guy who thinks the constitution is a christian document, just like beck believes. There is no debate on beck’s show, just his lectures.

then you never watched. There were lots and lots of debates. Really good debates, with meat and all.

Thus again you a smearing. Please don’t bother – it doesn’t wash.

seek said:
then you never watched. There were lots and lots of debates. Really good debates, with meat and all.

Thus again you a smearing. Please don’t bother – it doesn’t wash.

who has beck had on that has disagreed with him?

What’s whiter then Jon Stewart’s writing team? It sure isn’t Jon Stewart’s teeth!

seek said:
then you never watched. There were lots and lots of debates. Really good debates, with meat and all.

Thus again you a smearing. Please don’t bother – it doesn’t wash.

Proof please.

It was a good last show; Beck is happy….hehad a good run. he made an impact, a very large impact, and will continue to do so.

OxyCon said:
What’s whiter then Jon Stewart’s writing team? It sure isn’t Jon Stewart’s teeth!

yup that’s why he has black correspondents because the show is so white.

Typical more must mean better mindset.

Anthony Weiner’s little friend will keep make his little meaningless jokes ( written by a battalion of lefties ) , making clown faces and doing his Alan King and Kingfish voices and when it’s over , he’ll be remembered , if at all , as an inferior competitor of Carrot Top and Pauly Shore .

seek said:
then you never watched. There were lots and lots of debates. Really good debates, with meat and all.

Thus again you a smearing. Please don’t bother – it doesn’t wash.

right. i remember the debate he had with eric “the tickler” massa.

and beck lost.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Anthony Weiner’s little friend will keep make his little meaningless jokes ( written by a battalion of lefties ) , making clown faces and doing his Alan King and Kingfish voices and when it’s over , he’ll be remembered , if at all , as an inferior competitor of Carrot Top and Pauly Shore .

glenn beck will go down as the screaming clown with no facts on his side.

Sure, the climactic show had all of the Beckian hallmarks: interminable babbling, transparent bravado, and of course, that ever-present boulder on the shoulder. But the best part, by far, was his flatly idiotic claim that never in history had an entertainer been fired and then allowed to do his last show live. It’s these little morning-zoo tricks that makes you realize what Beck thinks about his audience.

The Dweller Ysul said:
It’s these little morning-zoo tricks that makes you realize what Beck thinks about his audience.

hahaha good reference.

“I’m Better Than Jon Stewart Because I Talk Longer And Have Fewer Writers”
——————————————————————————————————–

To clue you in Frances, he was speaking to the disparity in certitude and commitment between the two hosts.
Steart employs a squadron of writers who attempt humor by re-inforcing patently contrived and dishonest stereotypes.
Beck speaks from a genuine concern of his issues, and, agree with him or not, has always bolstered his positions with demonstrable facts and tapes.

The Democratic Network Media can try to slime him – and other “infidels to the liberal indoctrination” – but I’ve seen him, then I’ve seen what they said about him.

It is THEY who are deliberately misleading and manipulating the public.
It is THEY who show no integrity!

This is so embarrassing.

So he considers Jon Steward a “competitor”? They’re not in the same time slot, and the Daily Show is a comedy show! So is this formal admission that Beck’s show is not to be taken seriously?

Very strange that he compares how long monologues are, what is that supposed to mean? To say that Beck is delusional is a monumental understatement.

The Lantern of Truth said:
What Stewart does is the easiest type of ” comedy” …mocking and making faces .

Watching Glenn , you learn something , you’re inspired , you’re entertained .

Glenn is likeable .

lmao! this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

Hey!

Do you suppose Jon Stewart was bragging about his worth when he was on Wallace’s Fox News Sunday the other day telling him how much harder his job was as a comedian?

I don’t recall a snarky hit piece that came from that!

OxyCon said:
What’s whiter then Jon Stewart’s writing team? It sure isn’t Jon Stewart’s teeth!

rad

….and my show has been cancelled earlier than his.

NORBIT Jr. said:

To clue you in Frances, he was speaking to the disparity in certitude and commitment between the two hosts.
Steart employs a squadron of writers who attempt humor by re-inforcing patently contrived and dishonest stereotypes.
Beck speaks from a genuine concern of his issues, and, agree with him or not, has always bolstered his positions with demonstrable facts and tapes.

The Daily Show is a comedy show first and foremost. It has political commentary embedded in it, like an editorial cartoon, but the goal and success of the show is measured by how it makes its audience laugh at it.

Comparing a comedy show (what’s next, SNL, Cheer re-runs?) to a supposedly serious political commentary show with morning show antics is extremely bizarre.

And I don’t think verbosity and incoherence equate to commitment and quality. I’m actually surprised he has *any* writers in the first place, his type of show doesn’t need them. A comedy show needs lots of writers because it is so varied and has to prepare material and skits for rapid changing events.

Of course all of this information is mentioned on those who don’t like to think much, but what the heck, let’s just go on the record.

The Daily Show is Progressive activism first and foremost.

Stewart has the tiny man complex.

Stewart is an activist first and a comedian second; he uses his comedy writers to skew the policital discourse. Anyone who buys his hiding behind his comedy routine doesn’t really pay attention to him, who he is, and what message he is pushing.

he is a progressive first.

We get it by now Frances…
You hate Jon Stewart.
Roger that.
Copy.
Got it.
Understood.
10-4…
Glenn Beck,Good!…Jon Stewart,Bad!
Sir!…Yes Sir!!!!

Is Glenn better than Stewart? Its hard to compare, but I think yes.

TfT said:
Stewart is an activist first and a comedian second; he uses his comedy writers to skew the policital discourse. Anyone who buys his hiding behind his comedy routine doesn’t really pay attention to him, who he is, and what message he is pushing. he is a progressive first.

Glenn is the rodeo clown who puts his life on the line to protect his comrades. It was a tough job, much tougher than what Stewart does.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

Is that why Beck NEVER EVER EVER agreed to have Stewart come on his show and denied offers to be on the Daily Show?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Beck was TOO CHICKEN to take on Stewart one-on-one. As Stewart’s numerous trips to Fox has proven it’s a BAD IDEA for Fox.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. BYE BYE CHICKEN BECK!!!!

Better than Stewart BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

valkyrie101 said:
Is Glenn better than Stewart? Its hard to compare, but I think yes.

Well, since Jon is a comedian,and a demonic liberal, and Glenn is the Prophet that’s gonna save you from the mobs of marxists/communists/radical islamists that are out to lynch you all and set the country on fire….
I’d say yes,as the Messiah,he’s better than Stewart.

didn’t stewart offer to debate beck and he turned it down? yeah it’s easy to talk a strawman, harder to when it talks back.

NORBIT Jr. said:
“I’m Better Than Jon Stewart Because I Talk Longer And Have Fewer Writers”
——————————————————————————————————–

To clue you in Frances, he was speaking to the disparity in certitude and commitment between the two hosts.
Steart employs a squadron of writers who attempt humor by re-inforcing patently contrived and dishonest stereotypes.
Beck speaks from a genuine concern of his issues, and, agree with him or not, has always bolstered his positions with demonstrable facts and tapes.

The Democratic Network Media can try to slime him – and other “infidels to the liberal indoctrination” – but I’ve seen him, then I’ve seen what they said about him.

It is THEY who are deliberately misleading and manipulating the public.
It is THEY who show no integrity!

stewart offers to debate beck, beck turns it down. How is that manipulative? how is that dishonest or contrived?

Nationman said:
didn’t stewart offer to debate beck and he turned it down? yeah it’s easy to talk a strawman, harder to when it talks back.

If Stewart weren’t simply looking for a “you dick” moment, it might be nice to see the two of them in the same room.

Paleoconservatarian said:
If Stewart weren’t simply looking for a “you dick” moment, it might be nice to see the two of them in the same room.

a you dick moment? he’s had lengthy discussions with republicans in the past. In fact, go back and take a look at his interview with rumsfeld. Rumsfeld actually said he enjoyed the interview.

Paleoconservatarian said:
If Stewart weren’t simply looking for a “you dick” moment, it might be nice to see the two of them in the same room.

I also doubt beck could be in the same room as someone who disagreed with him, how many people have been on his show that have contrary opinions?

Nationman said:
didn’t stewart offer to debate beck and he turned it down? yeah it’s easy to talk a strawman, harder to when it talks back.

Salient point. I guess it’s easy to go after StewBeef since, in reality, he (Beck) will never have a discussion with him face to face unless he’s willing to come on Comedy Central.

Can’t wait to see tonight’s Daily Show! Of all the things for GB to do for his last show, he’s still gonna carry water for FNC’s “War on Stewart”. How (yawn) original.

Stewart has *always* praised his writers (think back to when there was the Writer’s Strike) and doesn’t pretend that it doesn’t take a village (his writing staff) to make his show what it is.

Glenn Beck will never see Peabody award recognition in his lifetime or an Emmy or any other nod since his material lacks substance.

Nationman said:
I also doubt beck could be in the same room as someone who disagreed with him, how many people have been on his show that have contrary opinions?

Spoken by someone who doesn’t watch TDS. Let me help you out: Jim Kramer.

Hat Tip: It’s not Stewart who prevents guests from his show, it is cowards like Beck, Hannity, etc., that won’t come on TDS. BillO, as an exception. Do you think Wallace would reciprocate and come on TDS? ((hearing Tingles’s laughter in the background))

ElCapitanAmerica said:
The Daily Show is a comedy show first and foremost. It has political commentary embedded in it, like an editorial cartoon, but the goal and success of the show is measured by how it makes its audience laugh at it. Comparing a comedy show (what’s next, SNL, Cheer re-runs?) to a supposedly serious political commentary show with morning show antics is extremely bizarre. And I don’t think verbosity and incoherence equate to commitment and quality. I’m actually surprised he has *any* writers in the first place, his type of show doesn’t need them. A comedy show needs lots of writers because it is so varied and has to prepare material and skits for rapid changing events. Of course all of this information is mentioned on those who don’t like to think much, but what the heck, let’s just go on the record.

The show types are ancillary.

He was bemoaning the fact that, like many people here, Stewart’s viewers are limited in their exposure to alternative viewpoints, and are formulating opinions and impressions based on misinformed stereotypes and vilification of anyone opposing the Left.

That clear it up for you?

NORBIT Jr. said:
The show types are ancillary.

He was bemoaning the fact that, like many people here, Stewart’s viewers are limited in their exposure to alternative viewpoints, and are formulating opinions and impressions based on misinformed stereotypes and vilification of anyone opposing the Left.

That clear it up for you?

so i take it beck must have a myriad of opinions shown on his program? Oh wait he doesn’t. stewart has real debates with people he disagrees with, beck doesn’t. I’d say those who watch the daily show are far more exposed to different opinions than those who watch beck’s program.

“And I have bigger, longer, stiffer chalk boards”

Yes, Baboon. You are much better. Don’t forget, God talks to you too.

The Lantern of Truth said:
What Stewart does is the easiest type of ” comedy” …mocking and making faces . Watching Glenn , you learn something , you’re inspired , you’re entertained . Glenn is likeable . Stewart is thorny and unlikeable .

I learn that GB is nuts and a manipulator. “Entertained” should be used in a perverse way in the same way that “Fox & Friends” is perversely a comedy show.

I presume you’ve already booked yours subscription to misinformation.

seek said:
then you never watched. There were lots and lots of debates. Really good debates, with meat and all. Thus again you a smearing. Please don’t bother – it doesn’t wash.

No, there really weren’t. No meat, nothing good. And it’s not a smearing. Just because you are a GB sycophant and adverse to actual facts, or that you prefer to be talked to as though you were a primary school child does not support your “thesis”.

Cite them. The “really good debates with meat”. Seriously.

NORBIT Jr. said:
“I’m Better Than Jon Stewart Because I Talk Longer And Have Fewer Writers”——————————————————————————————————– To clue you in Frances, he was speaking to the disparity in certitude and commitment between the two hosts.Steart employs a squadron of writers who attempt humor by re-inforcing patently contrived and dishonest stereotypes.Beck speaks from a genuine concern of his issues, and, agree with him or not, has always bolstered his positions with demonstrable facts and tapes. The Democratic Network Media can try to slime him – and other “infidels to the liberal indoctrination” – but I’ve seen him, then I’ve seen what they said about him. It is THEY who are deliberately misleading and manipulating the public.It is THEY who show no integrity!

And, NorbitJR, it is you who exemplies the FNC misinformed audience. His “facts” are about as solid as Sarah Palin’s. At least you now get to pay to be misinformed and talked down to.

Nationman said:
yup that’s why he has black correspondents because the show is so white.

A *Senior* black correspondent (Larry Wilmore), no less, plus the funny Wyatt Cenac. Because Stewart represents. His show currently contains females (SamBee, OliviaMunn, Kristin Schall), a Muslim (Aasif Mandvi), foreigners (Jones/Bee), a Briton (John Oliver) and a Latino (Al Madrigal).

And let us not forget such esteemed alums as Colbert, Carrell, Corddry, Mo Rocca as well as Ed Helms.

Glenn Beck has Vicks VapoRub tears and a Chalkboard. Stewart shamed the GOP enough that the First Responder’s Bill was passed.

You’re doing that Tommy Christopher thing again, Frances!

Your Headline is BLANTANTLY FALSE!

Emma said:
As delusional as ever.

Err- FYI: That’s Obama!

ElCapitanAmerica said:
This is so embarrassing.

So he considers Jon Steward a “competitor”? They’re not in the same time slot, and the Daily Show is a comedy show! So is this formal admission that Beck’s show is not to be taken seriously?

Very strange that he compares how long monologues are, what is that supposed to mean? To say that Beck is delusional is a monumental understatement.

Stewart MOCKS Beck, so Beck gave us some inside info! As far as delusional, seee my above reference to Obama!

Nationman said:
stewart offers to debate beck, beck turns it down. How is that manipulative? how is that dishonest or contrived?

Totally irrelevant who’s a better debater. We have ample opportunity to know both of them – their reasoning, intent, policy positions, etc. – every day.

Do you seriously believe there’s no liberal-ideology bias on the Network News shows?
In the selection, tone & “judgement” of the stories they choose to cover – or not!?

BoomShakalaka said:
Well, since Jon is a comedian,and a demonic liberal, and Glenn is the Prophet that’s gonna save you from the mobs of marxists/communists/radical islamists that are out to lynch you all and set the country on fire….I’d say yes,as the Messiah,he’s better than Stewart.

God is not partisan.

…and yes, He occasionally answered a German soldier’s prayer.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Totally irrelevant who’s a better debater. We have ample opportunity to know both of them – their reasoning, intent, policy positions, etc. – every day. Do you seriously believe there’s no liberal-ideology bias on the Network News shows?In the selection, tone & “judgement” of the stories they choose to cover – or not!?

Do you seriously forget that TDSwJS is on Comedy Central? That it is a political satire show? That it has outlasted any GB incarnation?

Your ability to be off-topic in every thread is impressive. You constantly leave many of us wondering “what the heck does that have to do with this topic?”

And only to a supporter of the inferior debater does it not matter that JS is a better debater. JS gets points for showing up to debates, by the way.

Yes, I seriously and sincerely disagree with liberal bias in the media. I know you equate “facts” with liberal bias. I also know that you can justify an ENTIRE network of ideology (FNC) because MSNBC has liberal hosts. But, it also has a 3hr morning show with Joe Not Liberal. In contrast, how many hours on FNC are devoted to a “liberal” host?

I’m sure Jon is moved that Beck took a few minutes of his last show to compare himself to him,and is very humbled by how much Beck thinks of him and his writers.That Beck took the time to point out that he does it “easily” with less writers because it’s”from the heart” was the kind of class we have become used to by Glenn.At least now Jon knows that he doesn’t do it from the heart of course, because he has more writers and less airing time.And now Jon is a better man because of that knowledge,I’m sure of it.

I mean when the Holy Prophet notices us maggots,we gotta be honored,as we are not worthy of it..I’m sure Jon shed many tears, and thanked God, for he is merciful.

This is all very emotional…..snif……

Thanks for everything Glenn..and we’ll see you soon, when you open the very Gates of Hell, yea?

Ciao.

valkyrie101 said:
God is not partisan.

nah….I’m pretty sure God is a teabagger,It’s in the Bible somewhere…

avoidswork said:
Do you seriously forget that TDSwJS is on Comedy Central? That it is a political satire show? That it has outlasted any GB incarnation? Your ability to be off-topic in every thread is impressive. You constantly leave many of us wondering “what the heck does that have to do with this topic?” And only to a supporter of the inferior debater does it not matter that JS is a better debater. JS gets points for showing up to debates, by the way. Yes, I seriously and sincerely disagree with liberal bias in the media. I know you equate “facts” with liberal bias. I also know that you can justify an ENTIRE network of ideology (FNC) because MSNBC has liberal hosts. But, it also has a 3hr morning show with Joe Not Liberal. In contrast, how many hours on FNC are devoted to a “liberal” host?

Karma – everything’s related.
But I do agree I’m sometimes discursive in my posts.

Maybe Mediaite should have a ckick-thru for thread topic suggestions.

…or better yet, a continuous thread for random posts.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Karma – everything’s related.But I do agree I’m sometimes discursive in my posts. Maybe Mediaite should have a ckick-thru for thread topic suggestions.

Oh, and much of the rst you had to say was ludicrous!

“Inferior debater” – what are you talking about?
Simple, Beck is a serious person who – agree with him or not – lays out a well-reasoned explanation on how and why he comes to these thoughts and opinions.

Stewart conjures the stereotypical images he then plays off of for comedy. Stewart is just part of a larger problem – the rest of the “mainstream media” advances that same perspective, so it becomes a FALSE NARRATIVE!

That’s the problem.
What that has to do about being a good debater, is nothing!

I want to know the understanding, perspecti

avoidswork said:
Do you seriously forget that TDSwJS is on Comedy Central? That it is a political satire show? That it has outlasted any GB incarnation? Your ability to be off-topic in every thread is impressive. You constantly leave many of us wondering “what the heck does that have to do with this topic?” And only to a supporter of the inferior debater does it not matter that JS is a better debater. JS gets points for showing up to debates, by the way. Yes, I seriously and sincerely disagree with liberal bias in the media. I know you equate “facts” with liberal bias. I also know that you can justify an ENTIRE network of ideology (FNC) because MSNBC has liberal hosts. But, it also has a 3hr morning show with Joe Not Liberal. In contrast, how many hours on FNC are devoted to a “liberal” host?

—————————————————————————-
Oh, and much of the rest you had to say was ludicrous!

“Inferior debater” – what are you talking about?
Simple, Beck is a serious person who – agree with him or not – lays out a well-reasoned explanation on how and why he comes to these thoughts and opinions.

Stewart conjures the stereotypical images he then plays off of for comedy. Stewart is just part of a larger problem – the rest of the “mainstream media” advances that same perspective, so it becomes a FALSE NARRATIVE!

That’s the problem.

The only thing that has to do with being a good debater is – NOTHING!

Stewart is a RACIST!

Aren’t all of his writers white, too?

I guess since Glenn’s Ashley Todd moment fell flat, he knows that since it is his last day it is safe to take on Con destroyer Jon Stewart. Although I am sure The Daily Show will be pretty awesome tonight. A coward to the last day. Bye Glenn.

Sanders Garth said:
I guess since Glenn’s Ashley Todd moment fell flat, he knows that since it is his last day it is safe to take on Con destroyer Jon Stewart. Although I am sure The Daily Show will be pretty awesome tonight. A coward to the last day. Bye Glenn.

Last day, Garth! ROFLMBAO!!!

Nationman said:
yup that’s why he has black correspondents because the show is so white.

Jon Stewart is so racist that he doesn’t allow the one token Black guy, that “Nationman” insists works for him, on stage at awards ceremonies.

There…feel better?

Nationman said:
a you dick moment? he’s had lengthy discussions with republicans in the past. In fact, go back and take a look at his interview with rumsfeld. Rumsfeld actually said he enjoyed the interview.

Are you kidding me? It’s patently obvious Stewart wants to do a take down. Stewart has on his show high profile conservative actors to build up his credibility and good will. He’s not going to light into every one of them or he solidifies his reputation as nothing but a partisan attack dog. So he’ll not expend good will lightly, and not on a politician. His hook is that of a ‘neutral’ media critic. He’ll save it for a media personality, a high profile one whose opinions are in opposition to that political philosophy which informs his comedy – and his sense of what is good for the country.

Nationman said:
I also doubt beck could be in the same room as someone who disagreed with him, how many people have been on his show that have contrary opinions?

Beck had on guests in the first year or more of his show on Fox, but when Dems or libs would come on they would increasingly just use the forum to bash it. At the same time, Beck would often complain that politicians (of both parties) would say one thing behind the cameras then watch as their stories would change as soon as they went live – Information for public consumption evidently being different than what they themselves believed or at least told to other influential people. Congressman Eric Massa was probably the last straw in this regard, lying to Beck in order to get a full hour interview and then all together ignoring the allegations for which he brought on.

Some here would and have gone to any lengths to level a character attack at Beck. Coward is probably one of the most perplexing, as Beck went after a series of people and organizations many shy from publicly questioning and he did it one after the other, day after day. He installed a direct line to the White House, even, so that the administration might discredit any of his assertions. Gimmicky, perhaps, but it spoke the the surety of his assertions and openness to serious challenge. He speaks truth, or his version of it, to actual power. Who has brought on willingly the level of opposition and hate that Glenn Beck has?

Beck has highlighted the hateful words of terrorist supporting religious figures with millions of fervent followers and is about to step in a high-profile fashion right into the heart of Middle East politics. And they, here, call him a coward for not granting comic Jon Stewart, who by his own admission ought be granted no credibility, the opportunity to say “you dick!” to his face.

juan said:
Stewart is a RACIST!

Aren’t all of his writers white, too?

HAHAHAHAHA. You don’t know anything about anything. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

KEEP LIVING IN DREAM WORLD

Jon’s Herman Cain “don’t like to read” and his MS “bling bling in their pockets” and “fried chicken and potato salad” bits of race baiting fit right into margaret sanger’s (creator of planned parenthood) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” master plan. Make people think that class race and sex matters then dehumanize those who appose your agenda. Progressive activism at its finest.

OxyCon said:
Jon Stewart is so racist that he doesn’t allow the one token Black guy, that “Nationman” insists works for him, on stage at awards ceremonies.

There…feel better?

Where are Glenn Beck’s black writers, or women for that matter?

HILARIOUS when you Cons act like EXPERTS on J Stew when you don’t watch the show at all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

INFORM YOURSELF: MIGHT HELP YOU

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

juan said:
Stewart is a RACIST! Aren’t all of his writers white, too?

Think its a requirement. A less diverse group of partisan hacks I have never seen.

Sanders Youth said:
Where are Glenn Beck’s black writers, or women for that matter?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

REALLY?

I’ll START with two:
WYATT CYNAC
SAMANTHA BEE

SHALL WE KEEP GOING? BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Worp said:
Jon’s Herman Cain “don’t like to read” and his MS “bling bling in their pockets” and “fried chicken and potato salad” bits of race baiting fit right into margaret sanger’s (creator of planned parenthood) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” master plan. Make people think that class race and sex matters then dehumanize those who appose your agenda. Progressive activism at its finest.

insane…wow.

BTW

Bill Kristol is the guest on tonight’s Daily Show

When was the last time Beck had someone from Mother Jones or The Nation on his show? BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sanders Youth said:
Where are Glenn Beck’s black writers, or women for that matter?

He only has 2 writers fool. He’d have an mixed ethnic sequential hermaphrodite bill schulz as one of them to please you (actually not a bad idea as bill is a hoot) unlike Jon who has a white lynching mob for his crew. Reminds me of the Dixiecrats, Joh’s the fing grand wizard for crying out loud.

Sanders Youth said:
Where are Glenn Beck’s black writers, or women for that matter?

You obviously didn’t watch today’s show, as Glenn walked all around his set and introduced everyone who worked on his show behind the scenes.

So good job making yourself look like someone who talks out of their ass and doesn’t have a clue. But keeping yourself ignorant is probably the best way to make sure your blind hatred for the guy never wanes.

Worp said:
Think its a requirement. A less diverse group of partisan hacks I have never seen.

I don’t think you were going for laughs with your uninformed postings, but you’re getting them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You really should look some shit up before you type

Stewart’s lame “comedy”skits will be long forgotten , actually 2 days after airing , while Glenn Beck will be doing good works and charity for many , many years . Glenn is a fine man who has made this a better world .

BoomShakalaka said:
insane…wow.

I know, right? That Margaret Sanger was a piece of work.

Bill Huggins said:
BTW Bill Kristol is the guest on tonight’s Daily Show When was the last time Beck had someone from Mother Jones or The Nation on his show? BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bill Kristol is a big government Progressive. Its like having McCain or lindsey graham on. Glenn had eric massa and penn jillette but Glenn’s format didn’t feature a nightly guest fool.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Stewart’s lame “comedy”skits will be long forgotten , actually 2 days after airing , while Glenn Beck will be doing good works and charity for many , many years . Glenn is a fine man who has made this a better world .

Glenn inspires people to be better Jon foments hate. No one comes away from Jon’s show and dose something better with their lives. (unless you consider lynching doing something better)

He does a longer monolog because he has less advertisers lol

*Had

Billdo Buggins said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A look deep into the mind of a hard core olbyloon. ;)

BoomShakalaka said:
nah….I’m pretty sure God is a teabagger,It’s in the Bible somewhere…

Nope, He has everyone, for better or for worse, fully under His control. That’s what the song says, anyway. You don’t buy into that? The core gripe of the tea party is intangible, and we can all understand it. All the talk, everything else, is all being manipulated by the corporate crowd, and their special interest groups, and is beside the point any way. Sarah knows the soul of tea party, and that is why she is its true leader.

Worp said:
Glenn inspires people to be better Jon foments hate. No one comes away from Jon’s show and dose something better with their lives. (unless you consider lynching doing something better)

LYNCHING? Really? You’re serious and got two thumbs up?

Wow. When you return to Earth make sure you bring your brain back with you.

OxyCon said:
You obviously didn’t watch today’s show, as Glenn walked all around his set and introduced everyone who worked on his show behind the scenes.

So good job making yourself look like someone who talks out of their ass and doesn’t have a clue. But keeping yourself ignorant is probably the best way to make sure your blind hatred for the guy never wanes.

u mad?

Billdo Buggins said:
LYNCHING? Really? You’re serious and got two thumbs up?

Wow. When you return to Earth make sure you bring your brain back with you.

Actually, he has 4 thimbs up. Read much>

Billdo Buggins said:
LYNCHING? Really? You’re serious and got two thumbs up?

Wow. When you return to Earth make sure you bring your brain back with you.

Actually, he has 4 thumbs up. Read much?

Bill Huggins said:
LYNCHING? Really? You’re serious and got two thumbs up?

Wow. When you return to Earth make sure you bring your brain back with you.

Sometimes I think these are just people being really great trolls, but then they post something where I actually realize that these delusional psychopaths are actually being serious, I just hope they don’t breed and teach their children this stuff. Can you imagine how messed up those kids are going to be as adults?

Billdo Buggins said:
You’re serious and got two thumbs up?

Now 5!

Bill Huggins said:
LYNCHING? Really? You’re serious and got two thumbs up? Wow. When you return to Earth make sure you bring your brain back with you.

Only liberals all allowed to reference slavery terms, in order to smear Republicans!

Sanders TheSockPuppet said:
Sometimes I think these are just people being really great trolls, but then they post something where I actually realize that these delusional psychopaths are actually being serious, I just hope they don’t breed and teach their children this stuff. Can you imagine how messed up those kids are going to be as adults?

Folks, the irony meter has just been completely shattered beyond all recognition…

valkyrie101 said:
Nope, He has everyone, for better or for worse, fully under His control. That’s what the song says, anyway. You don’t buy into that? The core gripe of the tea party is intangible, and we can all understand it. All the talk, everything else, is all being manipulated by the corporate crowd, and their special interest groups, and is beside the point any way. Sarah knows the soul of tea party, and that is why she is its true leader.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Stewart’s lame “comedy”skits will be long forgotten , actually 2 days after airing , while Glenn Beck will be doing good works and charity for many , many years . Glenn is a fine man who has made this a better world .

Paleoconservatarian said:
I know, right? That Margaret Sanger was a piece of work.

Worp said:
Glenn inspires people to be better Jon foments hate. No one comes away from Jon’s show and dose something better with their lives. (unless you consider lynching doing something better)

Get help.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Only liberals all allowed to reference slavery terms, in order to smear Republicans!

You too….help.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Stewart’s lame “comedy”skits will be long forgotten , actually 2 days after airing , while Glenn Beck will be doing good works and charity for many , many years . Glenn is a fine man who has made this a better world .

The most vile attacks against Beck come from Lefties who never watch the show.
They just repeat what the Democratic Media tells them.

BoomShakalaka says:

Why did you have to go and change names to make an idiotic personal attack?

Jaurez said:
BoomShakalaka says:

Why did you have to go and change names to make an idiotic personal attack?

I didn’t change my name and you have a copyright on stupid personal attacks,I know,so have your lawyer call mine and we can make a deal.

Boom.

BoomShakalaka said:
I didn’t change my name and you have a copyright on stupid personal attacks,I know,so have your lawyer call mine and we can make a deal.

You don’t have a lawyer. PD’s don’t count. ;)

Jaurez said:
Boom.

What

Jaurez said:
You don’t have a lawyer. PD’s don’t count. ;)

They don’t?…I’m so screwed.:)

BoomShakalaka said:
Get help.

It would be futile.

Yea…I know…sorry.
Have you booked your trip to Israel already?
Not nervous about that “opening the Very Gates of Hell” little thing?

BoomShakalaka said:
Get help.

We are help.

Worp said:
We are help.

Yes you are.
Me and my Eternal Soul are grateful
Thanks a bunch..

The Lantern of Truth said:
Watching Glenn , you learn something , you’re inspired , you’re entertained .

Not really..
Beck doesn’t open up for opinions and bring in anything new that i can be inspired about.

Its the same stuff everyday…

valkyrie101 said:
Nope, He has everyone, for better or for worse, fully under His control. That’s what the song says, anyway. You don’t buy into that? The core gripe of the tea party is intangible, and we can all understand it. All the talk, everything else, is all being manipulated by the corporate crowd, and their special interest groups, and is beside the point any way. Sarah knows the soul of tea party, and that is why she is its true leader.

The core motive of the Tea Party is return limited government based on original intent. You may not get it but many do. SP isn’t the leader of the TP, there is no leader of the TP and that is their power. If an elected official won’t support work to limit government then they get the boot.

BoomShakalaka said:
Yes you are.Me and my Eternal Soul are gratefulThanks a bunch..

Glad to. Got time to stop over and wash your car later.

Worp said:
The core motive of the Tea Party is return limited government based on original intent. You may not get it but many do. SP isn’t the leader of the TP, there is no leader of the TP and that is their power. If an elected official won’t support work to limit government then they get the boot.

Yes, it has no leader, that’s true, and its problem, but if it ever does, it is Sarah.

Worp said:
Glad to. Got time to stop over and wash your car later.

:)

valkyrie101 said:
Yes, it has no leader, that’s true, and its problem, but if it ever does, it is Sarah.

Hon,I think Sarah is busy these days…you know,making millions and such?
Maybe Michelle can do it for ya?
She’s definitely TP material,that’s for damn sure.

valkyrie101 said:
Yes, it has no leader, that’s true, and its problem, but if it ever does, it is Sarah.

But as you state and we all know it doesn’t so how could she be. If SP stopped supporting original intent then the TP would support a different person.

The TP doesn’t make gods of men/women they hold them to a human standard, when a leader fails they are dismissed without the need to destroy them and replaced by someone who claims they will reduce gov, this makes them different in kind from the mob. Its much like the American revolution vs. the French revolution.

Worp said:
But as you state and we all know it doesn’t so how could she be. If SP stopped supporting original intent then the TP would support a different person.

The TP doesn’t make gods of men/women they hold them to a human standard, when a leader fails they are dismissed without the need to destroy them and replaced by someone who claims they will reduce gov, this makes them different in kind from the mob. Its much like the American revolution vs. the French revolution.

Buddy,you’re killing my buzz here…
Back to lunatic “Savior” stuff please,it’s funnier for me…..
Or else I might start thinking you’re a tea-partier and not a crazy tea-bagger
That would be nice,but a little boring..
I might have to start respecting your intelligence,your soul and stuff……..sigh…..

Frances, after that lie filled crap you dumped on the world you call a story where you left out key tweets from danglingbaby & Marissa Barker where Barker asked danglinbaby to “kick him (Beck) in the mouth”, who can ever belive a Damn thing you write?
This recent dung heap just show us more that you hate Glenn Beck with all your “soul”.
Beck will always be more loved relevant & successful than you will ever be Frannie.
Deal with it, liar.

TheRealRoyalQueen said:
Frances, after that lie filled crap you dumped on the world you call a story where you left out key tweets from danglingbaby & Marissa Barker where Barker asked danglinbaby to “kick him (Beck) in the mouth”, who can ever belive a Damn thing you write?
This recent dung heap just show us more that you hate Glenn Beck with all your “soul”.
Beck will always be more loved relevant & successful than you will ever be Frannie.
Deal with it, liar.

Hey crazy person….
We get it.
There was a wine spill and some words and you want that godless communist killed…
We get it,you’re a crazy vindictive b***
Now scram.

BoomShakalaka said:
Buddy,you’re killing my buzz here…Back to lunatic “Savior” stuff please,it’s funnier for me…..Or else I might start thinking you’re a tea-partier and not a crazy tea-baggerThat would be nice,but a little boring..I might have to start respecting your intelligence,your soul and stuff……..sigh…..

I’ve only got 1 day on this rental soap box, trying to get my money’s worth

BoomShakalaka said:
Hey crazy person….We get it.There was a wine spill and some words and you want that godless communist killed…We get it,you’re a crazy vindictive b***Now scram.

Bah TRRQ has got it right and your and the mob are the only ones calling for someone to be killed, lighten up its just a chat.

BoomShakalaka said:
Hon,I think Sarah is busy these days…you know,making millions and such?Maybe Michelle can do it for ya?She’s definitely TP material,that’s for damn sure.

No, she is not even close to being Sarah.

Paleoconservatarian said:
Are you kidding me? It’s patently obvious Stewart wants to do a take down. Stewart has on his show high profile conservative actors to build up his credibility and good will. He’s not going to light into every one of them or he solidifies his reputation as nothing but a partisan attack dog. So he’ll not expend good will lightly, and not on a politician. His hook is that of a ‘neutral’ media critic. He’ll save it for a media personality, a high profile one whose opinions are in opposition to that political philosophy which informs his comedy – and his sense of what is good for the country.

Beck had on guests in the first year or more of his show on Fox, but when Dems or libs would come on they would increasingly just use the forum to bash it. At the same time, Beck would often complain that politicians (of both parties) would say one thing behind the cameras then watch as their stories would change as soon as they went live – Information for public consumption evidently being different than what they themselves believed or at least told to other influential people. Congressman Eric Massa was probably the last straw in this regard, lying to Beck in order to get a full hour interview and then all together ignoring the allegations for which he brought on.

Some here would and have gone to any lengths to level a character attack at Beck. Coward is probably one of the most perplexing, as Beck went after a series of people and organizations many shy from publicly questioning and he did it one after the other, day after day. He installed a direct line to the White House, even, so that the administration might discredit any of his assertions. Gimmicky, perhaps, but it spoke the the surety of his assertions and openness to serious challenge. He speaks truth, or his version of it, to actual power. Who has brought on willingly the level of opposition and hate that Glenn Beck has?

Beck has highlighted the hateful words of terrorist supporting religious figures with millions of fervent followers and is about to step in a high-profile fashion right into the heart of Middle East politics. And they, here, call him a coward for not granting comic Jon Stewart, who by his own admission ought be granted no credibility, the opportunity to say “you dick!” to his face.

bullshit stewart has a myriad of conservative guests on his show, does full debates with them. Beck has an interview with one person he agrees with and it’s all part of his lecture. Massa is pretty much the only opposing person i can think of who’s been on his show and it shows that you didn’t name any others. Stewart had on bill oreilly who has been a frequent guest on his show and has actually invited stewart on his show so the media personality argument doesn’t really hold any water. how many times has beck attacked stewart without actually debating him? I mean really, jon’s the one waiting for the “you dick” moment? beck’s been repeatedly attacking him and avoiding any sort of discussion with opposing parties because he thinks they’re all evil puppets controlled by george soros. you can try and spin this again but honestly who else has he had on that’s disagreed with him?

NORBIT Jr. said:
Totally irrelevant who’s a better debater.

we’ve certainly seen stewart debate and it usually ends up being an interesting and informative discussion, take his debate with eric cantor, they each laid out their points without jumping into calling each other an evil satanist. That’s civilized debate not the garbage that beck spews.

Sanders Youth said:
u mad?

he’s sooooooooooo mad.

NORBIT Jr. said:
—————————————————————————-
Oh, and much of the rest you had to say was ludicrous!

“Inferior debater” – what are you talking about?
Simple, Beck is a serious person who – agree with him or not – lays out a well-reasoned explanation on how and why he comes to these thoughts and opinions.

Stewart conjures the stereotypical images he then plays off of for comedy. Stewart is just part of a larger problem – the rest of the “mainstream media” advances that same perspective, so it becomes a FALSE NARRATIVE!

That’s the problem.

The only thing that has to do with being a good debater is – NOTHING!

you’ve obviously never watched a stewart interview in your life otherwise you wouldn’t be speaking like a misinformed moron.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Stewart’s lame “comedy”skits will be long forgotten , actually 2 days after airing , while Glenn Beck will be doing good works and charity for many , many years . Glenn is a fine man who has made this a better world .

i think what’s telling is beck charges money for his show, stewart has no admission cost for his. It’s the comedian jon stewart vs. the money grubbing telavengalist glenn beck.

Nationman said:
you’ve obviously never watched a stewart interview in your life otherwise you wouldn’t be speaking like a misinformed moron.

see people take stewart seriously, lol, a comic

OxyCon said:
Jon Stewart is so racist that he doesn’t allow the one token Black guy, that “Nationman” insists works for him, on stage at awards ceremonies.

There…feel better?

so where’s the part about him not letting him get up on stage or are you making up bullshit again?

Nationman said:
i think what’s telling is beck charges money for his show, stewart has no admission cost for his. It’s the comedian jon stewart vs. the money grubbing telavengalist glenn beck.

yeah cable is free

cjd ohio 1 said:
see people take stewart seriously, lol, a comic

apparently beck thinks he’s his competition, just using his logic.

cjd ohio 1 said:
yeah cable is free

correction, his live audience is free. beck charges money for his audience. thanks for your impeccably precise nitpicking.

Nationman said:
correction, his live audience is free. beck charges money for his audience. thanks for your impeccably precise nitpicking.

lol really at his tv show he had

Nationman said:
glenn beck will go down as the screaming clown with no facts on his side.

well that would be a stretch on your part wouldn’t it now. Since some of the things that Beck talked about would prove to be true already.

The guy had nothing but “facts” on his side. I think that’s the part the scared you all the most. He didn’t make things up – he proved everything he talked about.

He educated himself and us – and entertained at the same time. Quite a gift really.

But Stewart’s intentionally funny.

Worp says:

The Daily Show is Progressive activism first and foremost.

Because Fox told you so , so it’s gotta be true. At least you’re not just regurgitating talking points.

Tedderman said:
But Stewart’s intentionally funny.

Yes but Beck is funnier.

NORBIT Jr. says:
It is THEY who are deliberately misleading and manipulating the public.
It is THEY who show no integrity!

Because real life IS just like the old westerns with good guys in white hats, and bad guys in black ones.

valkyrie101 said:
No, she is not even close to being Sarah.

Actually Sarah Palin makes Michelle Bachmann look like Margaret Thatcher, who didn’t want to meet her either. Ouch.

Nationman said:
Stewart has debated the likes of eric cantor, donald rumsfeld, and barrack obama.

Is Stewart a comedian who has conservative politicians on to do comedy with, or is he a political activist who has conservative guests to “debate” with? Didn’t we have this discussion last week? It seems that you agree that Stuart was lying.

Worp said:
But as you state and we all know it doesn’t so how could she be. If SP stopped supporting original intent then the TP would support a different person.

The TP doesn’t make gods of men/women they hold them to a human standard, when a leader fails they are dismissed without the need to destroy them and replaced by someone who claims they will reduce gov, this makes them different in kind from the mob. Its much like the American revolution vs. the French revolution.

Maybe I am new to all this internet lingo LULZ, but your post is nonsense, “But as you state and we all know it doesn’t so how could she be. If Smashing Pumpkins stopped supporting original intent then the Toilet Paper would support a different person.

The Toilet Paper doesn’t make gods of men/women they hold them to a human standard, when a leader fails they are dismissed without the need to destroy them and replaced by someone who claims they will reduce gov, this makes them different in kind from the mob. Its much like the American revolution vs. the French revolution.”

?

Nationman said:
bullshit stewart has a myriad of conservative guests on his show, does full debates with them. Beck has an interview with one person he agrees with and it’s all part of his lecture. Massa is pretty much the only opposing person i can think of who’s been on his show and it shows that you didn’t name any others. Stewart had on bill oreilly who has been a frequent guest on his show and has actually invited stewart on his show so the media personality argument doesn’t really hold any water. how many times has beck attacked stewart without actually debating him? I mean really, jon’s the one waiting for the “you dick” moment? beck’s been repeatedly attacking him and avoiding any sort of discussion with opposing parties because he thinks they’re all evil puppets controlled by george soros. you can try and spin this again but honestly who else has he had on that’s disagreed with him?

Glenn Beck doesn’t mention Jon Stewart on his show nearly enough that he can be considered to have “attacked” him. Whatever constitutes “attack” to you people? I mean, your side throws out the most vicious slander at Beck and repeat lie after disproved lie to feed your narrative but if Beck makes the slightest mention of Stewart you perceive it as an attack. Mostly, Beck has kind, or at least neutral, words to say of Stewart, understanding where he comes from and what interests he serves, if he responds at all to the latter’s trolling. He’s after larger fish than Jon Stewart.

Satisfy everyone’s curiosity. Quantify these attacks from Beck at Stewart, if you will. Then compare them to those leveled back at Beck with your analysis of whether they compare favorably.

CosmosDan said:
Because real life IS just like the old westerns with good guys in white hats, and bad guys in black ones.

I’m a bad guy but I’m wearing a white hat.

Facebook User says:

Stewart is an activist first and a comedian second; he uses his comedy writers to skew the policital discourse. Anyone who buys his hiding behind his comedy routine doesn’t really pay attention to him, who he is, and what message he is pushing.

Those who pay attention and have a clue what political satire is know you are dead wrong. If Stewart is a progressive first then he spends way to much time bashing Democrats and our current president.

Evolving Obama says:
I’m a bad guy but I’m wearing a white hat.

Well stop it!! You’re just confusing the posters who don’t do nuance or shades of gray.

Frances, what’s that you wrote the other day about Stewart being rather obsessed with Fox? Care to revisit that thought?

Oy.

Evolving Obama says:

Is Stewart a comedian who has conservative politicians on to do comedy with, or is he a political activist who has conservative guests to “debate” with? Didn’t we have this discussion last week? It seems that you agree that Stuart was lying.

For anyone that actually watched the entire discussion between Wallace and Stewart. Being a comedian first, having the jokes, and laughs, in your comedy show be the top priority, doesn’t mean you are JUST a comedian. It doesn’t mean you don’t have informed opinions , it doesn’t mean you can’t do serious interviews and discussions with serious guests. Jon demonstrates it over and over. The fact that he is so capable of doing both wins the respect of his fans who see he is deeper and more thoughtful, than cheap laughs.

CosmosDan said:
For anyone that actually watched the entire discussion between Wallace and Stewart. Being a comedian first, having the jokes, and laughs, in your comedy show be the top priority, doesn’t mean you are JUST a comedian. It doesn’t mean you don’t have informed opinions , it doesn’t mean you can’t do serious interviews and discussions with serious guests. Jon demonstrates it over and over. The fact that he is so capable of doing both wins the respect of his fans who see he is deeper and more thoughtful, than cheap laughs.

He takes easy cheep shots at media types, usually out of context ones at that. It’s not brain surgery.

So Beck says JS is a competitor. Like the guy with an apple stand is a competitor to the guy with the orange stand? I wonder which one of Beck’s writer’s first wrote. {try to cry at this point in your talk}

A major difference IMO,

Anybody who Jon bashed and mocked who then had the desire and the nerve to go on his show and speak their piece, was welcome. Jon bashes Fox but has Fox guests on and goes on Fox. Jon bashes MSNBC and has MSNBC guests on and goes on MSNBC. etc.

Beck bashes people, who ask to come on his show and defend themselves and they are not allowed on. Van Jones, Bill Wallis. Judge for yourself , but bashing someone on the air and then being unwilling to face them and discuss and defend your position is a pretty weasel thing to do IMO.

Nationman said:
bullshit stewart has a myriad of conservative guests on his show, does full debates with them. Beck has an interview with one person he agrees with and it’s all part of his lecture. Massa is pretty much the only opposing person i can think of who’s been on his show and it shows that you didn’t name any others. Stewart had on bill oreilly who has been a frequent guest on his show and has actually invited stewart on his show so the media personality argument doesn’t really hold any water. how many times has beck attacked stewart without actually debating him? I mean really, jon’s the one waiting for the “you dick” moment? beck’s been repeatedly attacking him and avoiding any sort of discussion with opposing parties because he thinks they’re all evil puppets controlled by george soros. you can try and spin this again but honestly who else has he had on that’s disagreed with him?

Quote from TDS senior producer “we never book conservative pundits”
Sorry but you believe in a fallacy

Paleoconservatarian said:
Glenn Beck doesn’t mention Jon Stewart on his show nearly enough that he can be considered to have “attacked” him. Whatever constitutes “attack” to you people? I mean, your side throws out the most vicious slander at Beck and repeat lie after disproved lie to feed your narrative but if Beck makes the slightest mention of Stewart you perceive it as an attack. Mostly, Beck has kind, or at least neutral, words to say of Stewart, understanding where he comes from and what interests he serves, if he responds at all to the latter’s trolling. He’s after larger fish than Jon Stewart.

Satisfy everyone’s curiosity. Quantify these attacks from Beck at Stewart, if you will. Then compare them to those leveled back at Beck with your analysis of whether they compare favorably.

again, you’re statement was that he was waiting to make “you’re a dick” comment. Beck has made plenty of cheap shots at stewart, including here. if he actually believes that what stewart is doing is wrong, which he has said that stewart’s audience getting their info from his wrong, then confront him about it. bigger fish to fry? he just said stewart was his competitor. Which fish is he frying exactly? I also find it interesting that you couldn’t find a single example outside of massa to prove the point about beck having liberals on his show.

Paleoconservatarian says:
He takes easy cheep shots at media types, usually out of context ones at that. It’s not brain surgery.

Spoken like someone who has no concept of what a show like that entails , or what makes good satire much different than just jokes.

Worp said:
Quote from TDS senior producer “we never book conservative pundits”
Sorry but you believe in a fallacy

link please. Especially since jstew invited him the show.

Paleoconservatarian said:
He takes easy cheep shots at media types, usually out of context ones at that. It’s not brain surgery.

beck gives long babbling incoherent lectures about nothing. It’s not brain surgery.

Paleoconservatarian said:
. Mostly, Beck has kind, or at least neutral, words to say of Stewart, understanding where he comes from and what interests he serves,

yeah that’s probably the most condescending bs i’ve ever read. what interests he serves? which interests are those? The ones that make fun of the president repeatedly?

Worp says:
Quote from TDS senior producer “we never book conservative pundits”
Sorry but you believe in a fallacy

Sre you regurgitating talking points again? For shame.

You folks keep bringing up a few words in a letter a DS producer sent some agent as if it’s a real find and you’ve proved something. You haven’t. Jon does indeed have conservative guests on, and gives them a chance to speak, he has conservative authors on and let’s them pedal their books. Checking the DS site out of 46 political guests 19 were Dems or liberal, 17 were conservative , GOP. with others being independents or foreign dignitaries. Hardly a huge liberal slant is it?

CosmosDan said:
Sre you regurgitating talking points again? For shame.

You folks keep bringing up a few words in a letter a DS producer sent some agent as if it’s a real find and you’ve proved something. You haven’t. Jon does indeed have conservative guests on, and gives them a chance to speak, he has conservative authors on and let’s them pedal their books. Checking the DS site out of 46 political guests 19 were Dems or liberal, 17 were conservative , GOP. with others being independents or foreign dignitaries. Hardly a huge liberal slant is it?

I wonder if we looked at the glenn beck numbers what we would get….? probably 80% conservative, 19% incoherent borderline biggoted garbage and 1% semi liberal, but no one too smart because then beck couldn’t properly draw his narrative.

Paleoconservatarian says:

If Stewart weren’t simply looking for a “you dick” moment, it might be nice to see the two of them in the same room.

You are fooling yourself. Jon has respectful discussions with conservatives all the time. Beck wouldn’t have the nads to have a real discussion with someone who was very intelligent and well informed because they would expose him for the fraud he is. Jon has already exposed him numerous times through satire, but I’m sure he’d love to have a face to face.

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/jon-stewart-explains-glenn-beck-s-departure-with-a-classic-parody-video

Jon Stewart explains Beck’s departure. Another classic. He has so many.

CosmosDan said:
You are fooling yourself. Jon has respectful discussions with conservatives all the time. Beck wouldn’t have the nads to have a real discussion with someone who was very intelligent and well informed because they would expose him for the fraud he is. Jon has already exposed him numerous times through satire, but I’m sure he’d love to have a face to face.

Jon and “respectful” in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

You are attempting to equate a comedy show targeted towards youth to an interesting program that talked about the challenges of America today and the whys and wherefores with a broad appeal. He entertained while illuminating what was happening, why, how, by whom and encouraging others to learn, grow and seek the truth for yourself.

You sort of let Jon tell you what to think and he places the em phas is on the wrong syll able most of the time, but it keeps you happy and chuckling so that’s a good thing.

seek said:
Jon and “respectful” in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

You are attempting to equate a comedy show targeted towards youth to an interesting program that talked about the challenges of America today and the whys and wherefores with a broad appeal. He entertained while illuminating what was happening, why, how, by whom and encouraging others to learn, grow and seek the truth for yourself.

You sort of let Jon tell you what to think and he places the em phas is on the wrong syll able most of the time, but it keeps you happy and chuckling so that’s a good thing.

All of glenn’s guests seem to nod in agreement with everything he says, that must be him showing off his superior debating skills.

seek said:

You are attempting to equate a comedy show targeted towards youth to an interesting program that talked about the challenges of America today and the whys and wherefores with a broad appeal.

ahem, glenn equated his show to jon’s. His words not ours.

NORBIT Jr. says:
He was bemoaning the fact that, like many people here, Stewart’s viewers are limited in their exposure to alternative viewpoints, and are formulating opinions and impressions based on misinformed stereotypes and vilification of anyone opposing the Left.

Well yeah, because if you watch the DS, you can’t possibly watch anything else or consider alternate viewpoints. My conservative friends who watch it say that all the time.

Nationman said:
ahem, glenn equated his show to jon’s. His words not ours.

He didn’t equate his show to Jon’s
You missed the point.

seek said:
He didn’t equate his show to Jon’s
You missed the point.

he just called him his competitor…hard to miss the point.

Worp said:
Quote from TDS senior producer “we never book conservative pundits”
Sorry but you believe in a fallacy

Dude….facts don’t lie,look it up.

Jon Stewart could carry Beck’s little brain in his back pocket.

CosmosDan said:
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/jon-stewart-explains-glenn-beck-s-departure-with-a-classic-parody-video

Jon Stewart explains Beck’s departure. Another classic. He has so many.

Yea….great segment…you’re right,Classic really.

Paleoconservatarian says:
Are you kidding me? It’s patently obvious Stewart wants to do a take down. Stewart has on his show high profile conservative actors to build up his credibility and good will. He’s not going to light into every one of them or he solidifies his reputation as nothing but a partisan attack dog. So he’ll not expend good will lightly, and not on a politician. His hook is that of a ‘neutral’ media critic. He’ll save it for a media personality, a high profile one whose opinions are in opposition to that political philosophy which informs his comedy – and his sense of what is good for the country.

You just make this stuff up as you go and then pretend it’s good sound deductive reasoning. For one thing, You’re completely wrong, his hook is not as a neutral media critic. Can you find one example of him claiming that. You just don’t get it, so you create the scenario that suits your own bias opinion.
Why would a smart knowledgeable guy like Beck, who has command of the facts{as some claim}be worried about Jon, How could Jon possibly take him down?
The problem for Beck is that Jon is far more capable of a fact based reasoned discussion than Beck will ever be.

He installed a direct line to the White House, even, so that the administration might discredit any of his assertions. Gimmicky, perhaps, but it spoke the the surety of his assertions and openness to serious challenge

You have got to be joking. Gimmicky perhaps? It was a total sham. If he was so open to a serious challenge then why not let opposing voices on? It makes no sense for you to justify his lack of guests, and then claim a red phone indicated openness. IMO, he was a weasel for directly attacking people like Jim Wallis and Van Jones, and then not letting them on his show to discuss his accusations and so called facts.
That’s some nice doublespeak, non logic you got going.

seek says:

He didn’t equate his show to Jon’s
You missed the point.

Calling Jon a competitor and then trying to imply what exactly with comparisons of time on air and writing staff.

Please explain what you think the point was.

All you upstanding lefties proved what hypocrites you really are. Piled on Beck for making up the wine spilling etc. until it was proven that the young lady was not telling the truth.

I noticed that none of you paused for thought and apologized – you just left en mass because if you can’t be beating on someone you’re on to the next story – next victim.

Not one of you has the cajones to disagree. We Republicans all think for ourselves. We might not agree, and we can state so without being obscene or foul and still respect the person we disagree with. You guys – cover up bad behaviour – go along with the mob and haven’t had an original thought since you were toilet trained.

seek says:
You are attempting to equate a comedy show targeted towards youth to an interesting program that talked about the challenges of America today and the whys and wherefores with a broad appeal. He entertained while illuminating what was happening, why, how, by whom and encouraging others to learn, grow and seek the truth for yourself.

And how much research did you actually do after Beck advised you to look it up for yourself. Did you look for opposing views , and a complete set of facts?

Cosmo – Van Jones took down Van Jones. His own words – his own videos. Nobody else did Van Jones in. There were no phoney facts. Nothing false – all out there and readily available on the internet.

Somehow you think Beck “owed” him. why? Beck didn’t make Van Jones say the vile stupid things he said. You expected Beck to be “even handed” and yet you surely don’t demand that of anyone on the left.

So in essence you expect Beck to have higher standards (which he definitely has) than anyone on any other channel. Why?

Are you having trouble with your hypocrisy?

seek says:
Piled on Beck for making up the wine spilling etc. until it was proven that the young lady was not telling the truth.

I for one never accused him of not telling the truth. Out of curiosity, how exactly was it proved the young lady was not telling the truth. I must have missed it.

Not one of you has the cajones to disagree. We Republicans all think for ourselves. We might not agree, and we can state so without being obscene or foul and still respect the person we disagree with.

We don’t have the cajones to disagree? I thought we did that all the time. So, have you read the posts by conservatives here and still not seen anything obscene, or disrespectful? I’m a little worried.

There are plenty of shallow insulting jerks posting for either side as well as some reasonable posters.

seek said:
Cosmo – Van Jones took down Van Jones. His own words – his own videos. Nobody else did Van Jones in. There were no phoney facts. Nothing false – all out there and readily available on the internet.

Somehow you think Beck “owed” him. why? Beck didn’t make Van Jones say the vile stupid things he said. You expected Beck to be “even handed” and yet you surely don’t demand that of anyone on the left.

So in essence you expect Beck to have higher standards (which he definitely has) than anyone on any other channel. Why?

Are you having trouble with your hypocrisy?

Actually the Van Jones smears have been debunked for a long time…
Hence the letter to Fox,and why Beck wouldn’t do it.
Cause he got no arguments to defend.
Pretty easy to google,and understand.

seek says:

Cosmo – Van Jones took down Van Jones. His own words – his own videos. Nobody else did Van Jones in. There were no phoney facts. Nothing false – all out there and readily available on the internet.

I’ve done exactly what Beck suggests and looked up his discussion topics. He carefully selects quotes and facts that advance his narrative while leaving out other very relevant details that any fair minded Christian ought to include. I find him to be intentionally dishonest for profit and consistently unfair to the people he attacks, all the while getting weepy and talking about God and what really matters. He’s like a phony televangelist who includes a lot of politics and conspiracy’s in his sermons.

Somehow you think Beck “owed” him. why?

It’s pretty basic. If you’re going to attack someone and accuse them of things, then by any standard of fairness, you ought to give them a chance to respond. If they ask for that opportunity and you turn them down, I think that’s a cowardly act.

You expected Beck to be “even handed” and yet you surely don’t demand that of anyone on the left.

I don’t. How do you know that. And when did I say I expected him to be even handed? People can express whatever opinion they care to and be passionate about it, but at some point they should be prepared to defend it, with facts and some decent reasoning. If they attack someone , then give them a fair chance to respond.
You’ll notice Jon Stewart went on MSNBC and Fox after mocking them, and has guests on all the time who have the opportunity to challenge his knowledge and his personal views. Not so much for Beck huh?
I respect people’s right to have their own opinion, but I think the job of political pundit or commentator comes with an ethical obligation to check your facts and to make some attempt to be intellectually honest. I don’t have much use for people of any ideology who peddle BS for money. The public doesn’t need more of that.

BoomShakalaka said:
Actually the Van Jones smears have been debunked for a long time…
Hence the letter to Fox,and why Beck wouldn’t do it.
Cause he got no arguments to defend.
Pretty easy to google,and understand.

well then try it – Everything that Beck ever said about Van Jones was public knowledge. He didn’t have any inside information.
Pretty easy to google and understand.

Beck didn’t lie – Jones just didn’t like the truth coming out. Tought titty said the kitty when the milkman died!

CosmosDan said:
I’ve done exactly what Beck suggests and looked up his discussion topics. He carefully selects quotes and facts that advance his narrative while leaving out other very relevant details that any fair minded Christian ought to include. I find him to be intentionally dishonest for profit and consistently unfair to the people he attacks, all the while getting weepy and talking about God and what really matters. He’s like a phony televangelist who includes a lot of politics and conspiracy’s in his sermons.

It’s pretty basic. If you’re going to attack someone and accuse them of things, then by any standard of fairness, you ought to give them a chance to respond. If they ask for that opportunity and you turn them down, I think that’s a cowardly act.

I don’t. How do you know that. And when did I say I expected him to be even handed? People can express whatever opinion they care to and be passionate about it, but at some point they should be prepared to defend it, with facts and some decent reasoning. If they attack someone , then give them a fair chance to respond.
You’ll notice Jon Stewart went on MSNBC and Fox after mocking them, and has guests on all the time who have the opportunity to challenge his knowledge and his personal views. Not so much for Beck huh?
I respect people’s right to have their own opinion, but I think the job of political pundit or commentator comes with an ethical obligation to check your facts and to make some attempt to be intellectually honest. I don’t have much use for people of any ideology who peddle BS for money. The public doesn’t need more of that.

You pile of b.s. has worn thin. Don’t care about your jaundiced view of events. It’s fiction and for some reason you feel that your “fiction” is worthy of being mistaken for facts.

It’s b.s. plain and simple – you didn’t like the man and that should be the end of story, but you’re trying to justify your hate. You can’t – cause your “facts” aren’t facts at all – they are just biased b.s.

Good night

seek says:

Jon and “respectful” in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

You really ought to make some attempt to know what you’re talking about before you throw this stuff out there.
At one point all I knew about Beck was from clips on the web and maybe the DS. A friend of mine reminded me that it wasn’t really fair to cast judgement on him from that, so I watched his show for two weeks, and I did what Beck asked. I looked things up and did my homework on his discussions topics. I did more than just look for verification of what he said. I looked for alternative points of view, and when he attacked someone I read articles that defended them as well. My impression of him didn’t improve,

On the DS web site you can watch his interviews with prominent figures, many of them conservative. Of course his comedy is often not respectful because satire is about mocking, but he allows others to express their views.

He doesn’t need a lot of writer because he copies other programs items.

You pile of b.s. has worn thin. Don’t care about your jaundiced view of events. It’s fiction and for some reason you feel that your “fiction” is worthy of being mistaken for facts.

It’s b.s. plain and simple – you didn’t like the man and that should be the end of story, but you’re trying to justify your hate. You can’t – cause your “facts” aren’t facts at all – they are just biased b.s.

Good night

What facts are you talking about. What facts have you presented? It’s a fact that I watched his show and looked things up just as he asks his viewers to. You never explained how much research you did on his topics or what kind of research you did.
Other than that I expressed an opinion based on my personal research and I’m capable of backing up my opinions with that research. That still doesn’t make my opinion a fact , but rather an informed opinion. There’s a difference in opinion and fact a lot of posters in here need to review the difference.

Why should my not liking him be the end of the story? I don’t like him because I believe , based on research that he suggested, that he’s dishonest for profit , and that he attacks people without allowing them a fair chance to respond. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Maybe you can explain to me why it is that this nice fair Christian man who speaks of love and patriotism shouldn’t be expected to allow those he attacks to defend themselves. Tell me how that can be seen as honorable.

Bill Huggins said:
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

Is that why Beck NEVER EVER EVER agreed to have Stewart come on his show and denied offers to be on the Daily Show?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Beck was TOO CHICKEN to take on Stewart one-on-one. As Stewart’s numerous trips to Fox has proven it’s a BAD IDEA for Fox.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. BYE BYE CHICKEN BECK!!!!

Better than Stewart BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why should Beck debate a clown? One cannot have a serious debate with Stewart without Stewart trying to crack a lame joke. That why Stewart always resorts to pulling the comedienne card when he cannot make a valid argument.

Nationman says:

link please. Especially since jstew invited him the show.

Invited who, the comic who put the letter on youtube, or his agent? Who?

skyfet says:

He doesn’t need a lot of writer because he copies other programs items.

There is that isn’t there. I forgot about that guy who claims Beck just rehashes his material and research a week or so after he has covered it. You’re right, don’t need many writers to just rewrite someone else’s work.

CosmosDan said:
There is that isn’t there. I forgot about that guy who claims Beck just rehashes his material and research a week or so after he has covered it. You’re right, don’t need many writers to just rewrite someone else’s work.

I always assumed there was very little script at all–just bullets points: “Rant about Cass Susstein”; “Rant about Van Jones”; “Bark like a dog”; “Pretend to cry,” etc.

So, no need for a lot of writers when it’s mostly adlibbed. Not that there’s not some talent involved in being able to adlib so effectively, but then again I’ve met drunks before who could talk and talk and talk, babbling foolishness.

seek said:
You pile of b.s. has worn thin. Don’t care about your jaundiced view of events. It’s fiction and for some reason you feel that your “fiction” is worthy of being mistaken for facts.

It’s b.s. plain and simple – you didn’t like the man and that should be the end of story, but you’re trying to justify your hate. You can’t – cause your “facts” aren’t facts at all – they are just biased b.s.

Good night

O.k., I don’t want you to think I’m being mean & nasty, because I’m honestly just trying to be helpful. If the repartee on here upsets you so, and you’re unable to bring anything of substance to the table (which I’m sure only increases your frustration), maybe you should take a break. Because seriously: you’re embarrassing yourself.

AmericaSucks says:
So, no need for a lot of writers when it’s mostly adlibbed. Not that there’s not some talent involved in being able to adlib so effectively, but then again I’ve met drunks before who could talk and talk and talk, babbling foolishness.

Well Beck is a recovering alcoholic so maybe there’s a connection. Then there’s the guy who says Beck is just rehashing his material and using his research. Hey, he does his routine well, no denying it. I do suspect there’s a reason other than “losing my soul” for his Fox departure.

AmericaSucks said:
O.k., I don’t want you to think I’m being mean & nasty, because I’m honestly just trying to be helpful. If the repartee on here upsets you so, and you’re unable to bring anything of substance to the table (which I’m sure only increases your frustration), maybe you should take a break. Because seriously: you’re embarrassing yourself.

Fact: The weiner spanker speaks as if they contribute to this sites substance. Jokes on you bam bam.

CosmosDan said:
Well Beck is a recovering alcoholic so maybe there’s a connection. Then there’s the guy who says Beck is just rehashing his material and using his research. Hey, he does his routine well, no denying it. I do suspect there’s a reason other than “losing my soul” for his Fox departure.

Fact: Even a drunk makes more sense than you. Hahahahahahaha………..

CosmosDan said:
There is that isn’t there. I forgot about that guy who claims Beck just rehashes his material and research a week or so after he has covered it. You’re right, don’t need many writers to just rewrite someone else’s work.

funny – they called him everything under the sun but forgot plagiarist! Who knew – that you knew all along.
What a doofus….

As far as the John Stewart comparison goes, he comes pretty close to that on his radio show. The TV production was just an Apocalyptic televangelist routine. His paranoid political messiah, Klingon Skousen, has allowed him to steal a dying John Birch population into his fold. But the connection between his Mormonism, the Birchers, and the Christian Nation movement is a bit like a self-hating Jew collaborating with the NAZIS to bolster his self-esteem. Ultimately, though he warns daily of disparate Leftists and radical Islam conspiring together for the common overthrow of Israel and America, or that Lenin used the intellectuals, students and revolutionaries to gain control of Russia, only to purge them after the battle was won and install himself and the party in a dictatorship, he doesn’t seem to understand that heis not a Christian, they will never accept him as one, and the fundamental nature of all Christian Nations is to install a totalitarian theocracy and purge or repress guys like Glenn Beck.

More:

http://lrwhitney.wordpress.com/

Th

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Even a drunk makes more sense than you. Hahahahahahaha………..

The left at their best- being characters assassins. Dry drunk, recovering alcoholic, etc. Then they wonder why nobody takes them seriously. We have cosmos pontificating on how he “checked the facts” and the guy didn’t give alternate views. Well, he’s too dumb to realize that Beck started from the alternate view and “proved” why he didn’t agree with it, what was wrong with it, why, how and backed up every one of his views with impeccable research.
When you hold the alternate view as gospel, of course you’re not going to agree with him. Does not take a rocket scientist to figure our that one.

I think the part that scared them most about Beck is that he reasoned out why the alternate mind set was wrong and that truly frightened them that someone saw through the b.s.

It was a good run – Beck has the ability to connect with people and he learned along with us in a fun way. An extremely “dangerous” person in the left’s eyes and boy they threw everything at him to try and stop the flow of information. That’s when you knew he’d hit a nerve. They are too dumb to realize that he proved that indeed they are attempting to change the landscape of America by stifling what he was saying. They still don’t get it and take pride in attempting to revoke free speech. Very bright bunch – not. Hate has no limits with them.

Leroy Whitney said:
As far as the John Stewart comparison goes, he comes pretty close to that on his radio show. The TV production was just an Apocalyptic televangelist routine. His paranoid political messiah, Klingon Skousen, has allowed him to steal a dying John Birch population into his fold. But the connection between his Mormonism, the Birchers, and the Christian Nation movement is a bit like a self-hating Jew collaborating with the NAZIS to bolster his self-esteem. Ultimately, though he warns daily of disparate Leftists and radical Islam conspiring together for the common overthrow of Israel and America, or that Lenin used the intellectuals, students and revolutionaries to gain control of Russia, only to purge them after the battle was won and install himself and the party in a dictatorship, he doesn’t seem to understand that heis not a Christian, they will never accept him as one, and the fundamental nature of all Christian Nations is to install a totalitarian theocracy and purge or repress guys like Glenn Beck. More: http://lrwhitney.wordpress.com/

Fact: Nice.
Natural law as the legitimate basis of government (he defines natural law here as divine law derived from God)
A virtuous and moral people
Virtuous and moral leaders
Without religion a government of free people cannot be maintained
All things were created by God
All men are created equal
Equal rights, not equal things
Unalienable rights
To protect man’s rights, God has revealed divine law
Sovereignty of the people
The majority of the people may alter or abolish a tyrannical government
Republican form of government (“a republic, not a democracy”)
Protection of the people against the human frailty of their rulers
Property rights
Free-market economics
Separation of powers
Checks and balances
Importance of a written Constitution
Limited powers of government
Majority rule, minority rights
Strong local self-government
Government by law, not by men
An educated electorate
Peace through strength
Avoid entangling alliances
Protecting the role of the family
Avoiding the burden of debt
The United States has a “manifest destiny” to be a blessing to the entire human race

Just4thefax said:
The United States has a “manifest destiny” to be a blessing to the entire human race

That is what it is right now.

skyfet said:
He doesn’t need a lot of writer because he copies other programs items.

skyfet . If you’re still having that shoe problem , here’s a solution :

Put a mark on the inside of each shoe . Match up the marks before you put them on and you’ll always get them on the correct foot . As far as tying the shoelaces , get help from the people in the hut next door , or just practice !

Worp said:
But as you state and we all know it doesn’t so how could she be. If SP stopped supporting original intent then the TP would support a different person. The TP doesn’t make gods of men/women they hold them to a human standard, when a leader fails they are dismissed without the need to destroy them and replaced by someone who claims they will reduce gov, this makes them different in kind from the mob. Its much like the American revolution vs. the French revolution.

Until the tea party has true leadership, and its own party, it will have no real power.

valkyrie101 said:
That is what it is right now.

Fact: Well not when it’s being ran into the ground by progressives wanting it to be like Greece!

seek said:
All you upstanding lefties proved what hypocrites you really are. Piled on Beck for making up the wine spilling etc. until it was proven that the young lady was not telling the truth.

I noticed that none of you paused for thought and apologized – you just left en mass because if you can’t be beating on someone you’re on to the next story – next victim.

Not one of you has the cajones to disagree. We Republicans all think for ourselves. We might not agree, and we can state so without being obscene or foul and still respect the person we disagree with. You guys – cover up bad behaviour – go along with the mob and haven’t had an original thought since you were toilet trained.

who said anything about the wine spilling being fake? i certainly didn’t, what I did say was that this kind of stuff happens to loads of celebrity types and that it wasn’t something unexpected. I also mentioned the fact that he hadn’t had an incident of this type before so to generalize it and say it was a good way to judge liberals is flat out wrong. The gop thinks for itself? bullshit, that’s why you guys invented the term rino to distance any moderate voices from your party, that’s why you’re asking for purity tests, that’s why you classify anyone who disagrees with you as evil progressives. You hate dissent and you use demonizing terms to disrupt it.

seek said:
funny – they called him everything under the sun but forgot plagiarist! Who knew – that you knew all along.
What a doofus….

yes because being persecuted automatically makes him right. Conservative persecution complex at it’s finest.

valkyrie101 said:
That is what it is right now.

Fact: Lets bum some rides in Space now that the phony and Chief has killed manned space flight here in America! Manafest destiny and a blessing?

BoomShakalaka said:
Hey crazy person….
We get it.
There was a wine spill and some words and you want that godless communist killed…
We get it,you’re a crazy vindictive b***
Now scram.

You idiot. Like the fool Frances Martel, you must be schooled with facts.
1. The whine wasn’t “spilled” it was purposely kicked on Beck’s wife & daughter as per Marissa Barker’s instructions to danglingbaby via Twitter. Danglingbaby performed her mission to the letter.
2. Marissa Barker also instructed banglingbaby to “kick him (Beck) in the mouth”. Explains danglingbaby & friends sudden need to perform “acrobatics” in a park where people are sitting so close to each other that you can barely walk between the parties watching the movie.
You would know these facts if “journalist” Frances Martel actually did her job instead of dropping huge steaming piles of bovine scar and calling it reporting. But a long as she has her herd on mangey small brained

valkyrie101 said:
Until the tea party has true leadership, and its own party, it will have no real power.

Fact: Wrong. Has many members and has lots of cash and it’s own PAC! Power in numbers!

Yesterday was one of the best days America has seen in several years. This idiot BECK is off of broadcast television.

There has never been a figure with more hubris and arrogance in cable news than Glenn Beck. He’s getting ready to restore courage to Israel. Last summer, he restored honor in America. Only he was able to magically decode the Arab spring which he turned out to be entirely wrong about by the way(there was no union between Islamist, Communists, and the Bush family). Now, he is more qualified than the highest rated political comedian, Jon Stewart, in news. The guy is truly a psychological wreck!! He desperately needs to find religion or to do something to allow some modesty and greater appreciation for the knowledge of other people in his life.

seek says:
funny – they called him everything under the sun but forgot plagiarist! Who knew – that you knew all along.
What a doofus…

I said there’s a guy who claims Beck steals his material. That is an absolute fact. His name is Alex Jones. This has come up before and I checked it out. Maybe that’s something you should do before you begin your name calling. {Hey I thought only liberals did that?}
http://www.streetwisepundit.com/glenn-becks-theft-of-intellectual-property-content-without-credit.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyHwXa6aQIs&feature=related

I suggest you follow Glenn’s advice and check it out for yourself. You never said, how much research you’ve done on Glenn’s stories.
and , here’s an update, Jones is not the only person Beck is accused of plagiarizing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/18/968140/-Glenn-Beck,-plagiarist

BTW; Beck is a recovering alcoholic. That is a fact and not an insult. He’s talked about it many times.

Beck started from the alternate view and “proved” why he didn’t agree with it, what was wrong with it, why, how and backed up every one of his views with impeccable research.

Like a lot of posters you seem to not understand what really constitutes proof. You just making assertions without really backing anything up doesn’t mean much.
I did the research, did you? What I found was that Beck’s pattern was to select facts A,B,C and then present a conclusion based on some questionable reasoning. When I looked up the subject, I discovered he had left out other relevant facts D,E,F, that pointed to another conclusion. He did it enough so that it could only reasonably be intentional deception. Dishonesty for profit.

They still don’t get it and take pride in attempting to revoke free speech.

I’m all about free speech. I have faith that it’s the minority that swallows Beck’s stories. If I can figure it out with a little research than anyone can. Step 1, value the truth more than you value being a fan or a true believer.

Beck to Stewart is like MLB to t-ball. “EVEN IF” you disagree with what Beck is saying, it is time to act your age and realize what the two bring to the table. Realize what their intentions are, what inspired them to do what they do, why they do it.

Beck is worried for his country, the changes and dangers that he see’s. He does immense research and investigation to inform people of what is wrong with the world and how they can possibly make a difference. And all for the good of our country! Remember, you can disagree all you want. Thats what he’s attempting and thats why he does it. He loves his country and puts himself at great ridicule, even danger, to express what he feels is right.

Stewart tells jokes.

I know, amazing the two can be mentioned in the same light. Right?

Steve_27 says:
Beck is worried for his country, the changes and dangers that he see’s. He does immense research and investigation to inform people of what is wrong with the world and how they can possibly make a difference. And all for the good of our country! Remember, you can disagree all you want. Thats what he’s attempting and thats why he does it. He loves his country and puts himself at great ridicule, even danger, to express what he feels is right.

How do you KNOW he does immense research? Because he says so? How do you know how much he loves this country? Because he get’s teary eyed? Is it possible a multi million dollar paycheck is a little motivation?

Let’s at least acknowledge that we’re not mind readers and can’t really know people’s motives. You choose to believe. Based on my research, I can’t.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Lets bum some rides in Space now that the phony and Chief has killed manned space flight here in America! Manafest destiny and a blessing?

So your view of manifest destiny for America not only includes the world, but America throughout the galaxy. LOL.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Wrong. Has many members and has lots of cash and it’s own PAC! Power in numbers!

It has no leadership, or plan, just raw power. When it gets its own party, instead of trying to share the republican party with that party’s entrenched status quo, it will thrive.

Republicans Are Liars said:
Yesterday was one of the best days America has seen in several years. This idiot BECK is off of broadcast television.

I dont know what to make of you people that think Beck is an insane lying always wrong idiot, but feel the need to celebrate his departure. Very very puzzling. Have you been in anguish all this time because you feel the 5 pm slot on Fox would have been better if say, Hannity was on at that time also? Nah, that cant be it. Yes, very very puzzling.

CosmosDan said:
How do you KNOW he does immense research? Because he says so? How do you know how much he loves this country? Because he get’s teary eyed? Is it possible a multi million dollar paycheck is a little motivation? Let’s at least acknowledge that we’re not mind readers and can’t really know people’s motives. You choose to believe. Based on my research, I can’t.

I’m glad we agree.

Steve_27 said:
I dont know what to make of you people that think Beck is an insane lying always wrong idiot, but feel the need to celebrate his departure. Very very puzzling. Have you been in anguish all this time because you feel the 5 pm slot on Fox would have been better if say, Hannity was on at that time also? Nah, that cant be it. Yes, very very puzzling.

Why? Glenn is an entertainment star par excellence. I’m a Cub fan, but Albert Pujols is awesome.

Steve_27 says:
I’m glad we agree.

Ahhh, a lack of reading comprehension. That explains a lot.

CosmosDan said:
I said there’s a guy who claims Beck steals his material. That is an absolute fact. His name is Alex Jones.

He’s absolutely right. Beck has been riding this clip like it’s his very own pony. Guilty as charged.

“I’ve seen your hernia!”

CosmosDan said:
I suggest you follow Glenn’s advice and check it out for yourself. You never said, how much research you’ve done on Glenn’s stories.
and , here’s an update, Jones is not the only person Beck is accused of plagiarizing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/18/968140/-Glenn-Beck,-plagiarist

Man, that Daily Kos has some serious research going on!

On February 28, Beck a speech by Van Jones at Dupont Circle during a Moveon.org rally. But it turns out that video actually came from the Media Research Center.

Beck a speech! You mean played a speech! Plagiarist!!!!

A day later, Beck aired video from protests at the Wisconsin state capitol. But it was actually shot by a freelancer from Wisconsin.

He aired video? That bastard! Plagiarist!!!

Staggering. Simply staggering. If any of us had engaged in this when we were in college, we’d have all long since been expelled.

And now we’d be the Vice President.

This just in….
http://bestplaces.nydailynews.com/voyeur/glenn-beck-move-texas-rents-20000-month-house

valkyrie101 said:
So your view of manifest destiny for America not only includes the world, but America throughout the galaxy. LOL.

Fact: You are a moron in every aspect. Space is the best and last hope to stay ahead in technology above our enemies and you are just a little kiddy that relies on mama’s tit!

valkyrie101 said:
It has no leadership, or plan, just raw power. When it gets its own party, instead of trying to share the republican party with that party’s entrenched status quo, it will thrive.

Fact: Go to a members meeting some time twerp and learn!

Fact: This is to RRK. Glenn Beck will soon live near you in Westlake Texas!

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Go to a members meeting some time twerp and learn!

Member’s meeting? The point is they have no national organization. That is what Sarah can bring.

Fact: Look get a job grow up some then join in the fun with the rest of us working to eat.

Pablo says:
Beck a speech! You mean played a speech! Plagiarist!!!!

Since I know you like accurate language, let me point out that my claim was that Beck has been accused of plagiarism, which is a fact is it not. By Alex Jones?

I make no judgement about it, because it doesn’t matter to me. I did my research and found him to be dishonest before I heard about any of that. Whether he lifts material from others, whether he gives them proper credit, just doesn’t matter when IMO, he has no real credibility.

CosmosDan said:
Ahhh, a lack of reading comprehension. That explains a lot.

LOL, omg that was exactly my sarcastic point!

Not once but twice, I stressed how you can agree or disagree with what he say’s. However, the whole point of the post, and where your massive lack of “reading comprehension” is glaring like the sun with no ozone, was what and why they do what they do and how that makes them uncomparable.

Let the backtracking or disappearing begin.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: You are a moron in every aspect. Space is the best and last hope to stay ahead in technology above our enemies and you are just a little kiddy that relies on mama’s tit!

You obviously do not watch Star trek

Steve_27 said:
I dont know what to make of you people that think Beck is an insane lying always wrong idiot, but feel the need to celebrate his departure. Very very puzzling. Have you been in anguish all this time because you feel the 5 pm slot on Fox would have been better if say, Hannity was on at that time also? Nah, that cant be it. Yes, very very puzzling.

Steve, If you drank the Beck Kool-aid I am sorry for you. 90% of the things that came out of Beck’s mouth was to create fear and gain a great audience from the fearful. His audience and you are the people who think there are big nasty giant conspiracies at work. He played on these fears like a master violinist. Compound this with the fact that he is an ex alcoholic which shows that he always wants more than what he can handle, that he believes he is getting a planet at the end of his life which is delusional, what more do you need to see that you have been listening to a crack pot of the first order.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Look get a job grow up some then join in the fun with the rest of us working to eat.

So as average wages fall, and nearly 14 million people remain unemployed, America’s economic recovery has almost entirely benefited corporations. This development adds another chapter to the decline of the middle class, whose incomes are shrinking and wages are stagnating. Last year, top executives’ salaries increased 27 percent, while workers’ salaries increased only 2 percent. At the moment, income inequality in America is the worst it’s been since the 1920s, as the richest 1 percent make nearly 25 percent of the country’s income.

valkyrie, that sounds awful. Who is in charge?

Perdido said:
valkyrie, that sounds awful. Who is in charge?

Apparently the Koch brothers and/or Sun Myung Moon.

Even under Obama? Seems like he’d do something about it.

Perdido said:
Even under Obama? Seems like he’d do something about it.

Does not have a cooperative Congress. (Remember 60 votes?).

Wasn’t Congress controlled by Dems the first couple of years? But that’s okay. If you want to believe big corporations only rake in the money when a Republican is president, and under Dem presidents it all suddenly changes, it does make a nice story.

valkyrie101 said:
So as average wages fall, and nearly 14 million people remain unemployed, America’s economic recovery has almost entirely benefited corporations. This development adds another chapter to the decline of the middle class, whose incomes are shrinking and wages are stagnating. Last year, top executives’ salaries increased 27 percent, while workers’ salaries increased only 2 percent. At the moment, income inequality in America is the worst it’s been since the 1920s, as the richest 1 percent make nearly 25 percent of the country’s income.

Fact: So what who cares. Get a job and get money for yourself since the others money is theirs and not yours. They earned it now it’s your turn. Moron.

Perdido said:
Wasn’t Congress controlled by Dems the first couple of years? But that’s okay. If you want to believe big corporations only rake in the money when a Republican is president, and under Dem presidents it all suddenly changes, it does make a nice story.

60 votes, new republican rules.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: So what who cares

Yes, I know.

Yes. Under Dem presidents, big corporations just disappear. Then under Republicans, they pop up again.

Republicans Are Liars said:
90% of the things that came out of Beck’s mouth was to create fear and gain a great audience from the fearful.

Do you even read this drivel before you post it? This is a profoundly stupid assertion, and it sounds like the worst plan ever.

Pablo said:
Do you even read this drivel before you post it? This is a profoundly stupid assertion, and it sounds like the worst plan ever.

so far it’s worked.

Perdido said:
Yes. Under Dem presidents, big corporations just disappear. Then under Republicans, they pop up again.

Factually, I do not think you are correct. But the notion that republicans favor big corporations, with all kinds of special advantages, including ridiculously low taxes, credits of all kinds, favorable rule making, and whatever else they want, and all just for the price of large campaign contributions.

…(oops), is true.

And all of those things you mentioned come to a dead stop every time we have a Dem president. Like I say, it does make a good story.

Perdido said:
And all of those things you mentioned come to a dead stop every time we have a Dem president. Like I say, it does make a good story.

Well of course not. Our system, which allows the same people making the laws to receive money directly from corporations that are being directly regulated by those laws, is way screwed up, and that is a problem that involves all the politicians, except a handful on either side.

Pablo said:
Do you even read this drivel before you post it? This is a profoundly stupid assertion, and it sounds like the worst plan ever.

The Morons here just cut and paste. Morons. Penny a post.

Having two writers versus 25 writers means nothing? Um, okay. I think it’s pretty impressive actually. John Stewart is such an egotist who thinks he’s the greatest political comedian in the world. John – you’re not sweetie. Just because you’ve been on Oprah doesn’t mean the entire world loves you. Sounds like you’re having a difficult time of it, creativity wise, I mean.

Paul G said:
The Morons here just cut and paste. Morons. Penny a post.

yup, that’s why you kept repeating that line about gloryholes. cut and paste.

What a dolt.

Give me a break….Beck is funny? He’s a competitor to Jon Stewart?

I’d really like to know if his audience ever laughed much at Beck’s so-called “comedy?” I have seen some of Beck’s programs, and I never heard anyone laugh.

And to say that he is better than Jon Stewart because he speaks longer and has fewer writers is ridiculous. In one sense, Beck ought to be applauding Jon Stewart because he is employing more people than Beck does (if this is true).

And, to say he “speaks from the heart” and therefore it is somehow better is also absurd. Every time I have seen Jon Stewart on O’Reilly’s show or some other program like with Chris Wallace a couple of weeks ago, he held his own…….he had no prepared script. He spoke from the heart. He very strongly believes in what he talks about every night on his program.

Beck is a propagandist extraordinaire. He is a conspiracy theorist. He is a liar, a name-caller, and a charlatan. He has caused so much division in this country…..I am glad he is gone from FNC, but I know he’ll continue with his nonsense on his radio program and his new venture on the internet.

Oh, and I also want to point out the fact that Beck even mentioned Jon Stewart is something I find bizarre. It seems like many people on Fox have tried to bash Jon Stewart this past week, from O’Reilly to those morning show clowns to Beck. They have questioned whether or not he is a racist because of his black face voice impression of Hermann Cain. Yet Stewart eviscerated Fox News earlier this week by playing clips wherein he impersonated almost every stereotypical voice you can think of, from Jews (he is a Jew himself), to old stuffy white men, to Italians, to the Chinese and many others, including liberals and Democrats.

Townhall.com, for which Bill O’Reilly is a contributor, earlier this year put out their list of the top 50 most dangerous liberals in the country. I’ve been wondering why a comedian, Jon Stewart is on that list. Now I know why. He tells the truth about Fox News and other conservatives, and they can’t handle the truth.

Nationman said:
again, you’re statement was that he was waiting to make “you’re a dick” comment. Beck has made plenty of cheap shots at stewart, including here.

Beck is doing several things in this clip. Mainly, he’s acknowledging his writing staff. In showing the level of effort put in as compared to the time allotted, he’s showing that the product was consistent, valuable and well-constructed opinion. It’s was a hugely successful product. He’s also demonstrating, in contrast, the clear partisan culture inherent in the entertainment industry by pointing out what level of work and success receives “official” recognition by liberals who’ve appointed themselves the position of cultural arbiters. He’s criticizing the entire industry of television production by detailing what barriers there are to intelligent content and how in most circumstances such a conversation is often deemed unacceptable for consumption by a wide audience. You want to know why the national debate and politics are so unreasonable? It’s not for the fact that there is political polarization – there always has been. it’s that those polarized views haven’t been allowed to interact by the traditional venues we have in an open and honest manner. In a sense, he’s bragging on his show and his network for allowing it to evolve in the manner it did.

Where Stewart factors in all this is as a frame of reference.

But pointedly, the main reason why Beck brings in Stewart is give lie to his ridiculous statement that what he does is more difficult than what Chris Wallace does. It’s a defense of the Fox News Channel (what fired host does that, again?) against STEWARTs narrative and his attacks.

You keep saying what Beck did here was to take a cheep shot. Just as earlier you said it was an attack. But is Beck actually saying something specifically negative about Stewart? However so?

if he actually believes that what stewart is doing is wrong, which he has said that stewart’s audience getting their info from his wrong, then confront him about it. bigger fish to fry? he just said stewart was his competitor.

He also said, and this is important, “If you want to call him that” and “I guess.” The people who put them in the realm of ‘competitors,’ in the sense that they value the information and analysis they receive from a comedian who says of himself he ought to be given no credibility, are people like you. It’s structural to the culture, not something that’s a specific allegation against one person. Stewart facilitates this comparison, of course, by his leveled criticisms and mockery of analysis and the direct mirroring of Beck’s quasi-political rally. Stewart seeks to put himself on that level, not Beck, and his fans buy into it.

Which fish is he frying exactly?

With this statement, it’s become clear you don’t watch Beck’s show. You watch snippets of Beck’s show designed to elicit criticism from political opponents.

I also find it interesting that you couldn’t find a single example outside of massa to prove the point about beck having liberals on his show.

Massa was brought up because he stood out as being one of the last guys interviewed. Increasingly, Beck’s format became less focused on daily events, topical political issues which require interviews, and more towards larger concepts of political philosophy and cultural commentary. The format of his show wasn’t to provide balance between a liberal’s view of these things as opposed to his own – it was to promote his own. It was a fact-based commentary show, of Beck’s own opinion. People never seemed to have understood this.

Edit function anyone?

Nationman said:
again, you’re statement was that he was waiting to make “you’re a dick” comment. Beck has made plenty of cheap shots at stewart, including here.

Beck is doing several things in this clip. Mainly, he’s acknowledging his writing staff. In showing the level of effort put in as compared to the time allotted, he’s showing that the product was consistent, valuable and well-constructed opinion. It’s was a hugely successful product. He’s also demonstrating, in contrast, the clear partisan culture inherent in the entertainment industry by pointing out what level of work and success receives “official” recognition by liberals who’ve appointed themselves the position of cultural arbiters. He’s criticizing the entire industry of television production by detailing what barriers there are to intelligent content and how in most circumstances such a conversation is often deemed unacceptable for consumption by a wide audience. You want to know why the national debate and politics are so unreasonable? It’s not for the fact that there is political polarization – there always has been. it’s that those polarized views haven’t been allowed to interact by the traditional venues we have in an open and honest manner. In a sense, he’s bragging on his show and his network for allowing it to evolve in the manner it did.

Where Stewart factors in all this is as a frame of reference.

But pointedly, the main reason why Beck brings in Stewart is give lie to his ridiculous statement that what he does is more difficult than what Chris Wallace does. It’s a defense of the Fox News Channel (what fired host does that, again?) against STEWARTs narrative and his attacks.

You keep saying what Beck did here was to take a cheep shot. Just as earlier you said it was an attack. But is Beck actually saying something specifically negative about Stewart? However so?

if he actually believes that what stewart is doing is wrong, which he has said that stewart’s audience getting their info from his wrong, then confront him about it. bigger fish to fry? he just said stewart was his competitor.

He also said, and this is important, “If you want to call him that” and “I guess.” The people who put them in the realm of ‘competitors,’ in the sense that they value the information and analysis they receive from a comedian who says of himself he ought to be given no credibility, are people like you. It’s structural to the culture, not something that’s a specific allegation against one person. Stewart facilitates this comparison, of course, by his leveled criticisms and mockery of analysis and the direct mirroring of Beck’s quasi-political rally. Stewart seeks to put himself on that level, not Beck, and his fans buy into it.

Which fish is he frying exactly?

With this statement, it’s become clear you don’t watch Beck’s show. You watch snippets of Beck’s show designed to elicit criticism from political opponents.

I also find it interesting that you couldn’t find a single example outside of massa to prove the point about beck having liberals on his show.

Massa was brought up because he stood out as being one of the last guys interviewed. Increasingly, Beck’s format became less focused on daily events, topical political issues which require interviews, and more towards larger concepts of political philosophy and cultural commentary. The format of his show wasn’t to provide balance between a liberal’s view of these things as opposed to his own – it was to promote his own. It was a fact-based commentary show, of Beck’s own opinion. People never seemed to have understood this.

Paleoconservatarian said:
Beck is doing several things in this clip. Mainly, he’s acknowledging his writing staff. In showing the level of effort put in as compared to the time allotted, he’s showing that the product was consistent, valuable and well-constructed opinion. It’s was a hugely successful product. He’s also demonstrating, in contrast, the clear partisan culture inherent in the entertainment industry by pointing out what level of work and success receives “official” recognition by liberals who’ve appointed themselves the position of cultural arbiters. He’s criticizing the entire industry of television production by detailing what barriers there are to intelligent content and how in most circumstances such a conversation is often deemed unacceptable for consumption by a wide audience. You want to know why the national debate and politics are so unreasonable? It’s not for the fact that there is political polarization – there always has been. it’s that those polarized views haven’t been allowed to interact by the traditional venues we have in an open and honest manner. In a sense, he’s bragging on his show and his network for allowing it to evolve in the manner it did.

Where Stewart factors in all this is as a frame of reference.

But pointedly, the main reason why Beck brings in Stewart is give lie to his ridiculous statement that what he does is more difficult than what Chris Wallace does. It’s a defense of the Fox News Channel (what fired host does that, again?) against STEWARTs narrative and his attacks.
You keep saying what Beck did here was to take a cheep shot. Just as earlier you said it was an attack. But is Beck actually saying something specifically negative about Stewart? However so?

the reason for polarization is that media is becoming more entertainment, personality based. It becomes jon stewart vs. Glenn beck, or bill oreilly vs. whomever. The popularity of stewarts show is proof of this, in other words the media is moving towards him not the other way around. It’s pretty clear that he is saying something negative about stewart in a roundabout way and the fact is he fails to even start a discussion with him. You say the reason for polarization is because of a lack of interaction between radically different ideologies, why not have that interaction? The writer thing is also mitigated by the fact that stewart does no script debates all the time with people he disagrees with. And the reason he does it is because he’s an entertainer.

Paleoconservatarian said:

He also said, and this is important, “If you want to call him that” and “I guess.” The people who put them in the realm of ‘competitors,’ in the sense that they value the information and analysis they receive from a comedian who says of himself he ought to be given no credibility, are people like you. It’s structural to the culture, not something that’s a specific allegation against one person. Stewart facilitates this comparison, of course, by his leveled criticisms and mockery of analysis and the direct mirroring of Beck’s quasi-political rally. Stewart seeks to put himself on that level, not Beck, and his fans buy into it.

I value the information and anaylsis I receive from him over beck because I do exactly as beck says and research the topics that he mentions. I find just about everytime that he’s wrong about a subject or that he hasn’t given the full story. The fact is it’s a bigger joke that stewart is able to have this analysis with the inherent laziness of media people who attack him for it. I mean honestly someone has existed in his position for a long time in world and american history. You need only look at the pointed criticisms and comedy of mark twain to find that out.

Paleoconservatarian said:

Massa was brought up because he stood out as being one of the last guys interviewed..

again, you’re not bringing anybody else up. massa seems to be the only one.

Paleoconservatarian said:

MThe format of his show wasn’t to provide balance between a liberal’s view of these things as opposed to his own – it was to promote his own. It was a fact-based commentary show, of Beck’s own opinion. People never seemed to have understood this.

good heavens no, he couldn’t take any criticism leveled at him. I would just say if he actually let himself be interviewed on a show, say on the daily show, I’d have a different opinion, he could’ve easily gone on the show without disrupting the natural flow of his program. In fact, he could advertise for it as many conservatives have for their books and programs.

Nationman said:

Mostly, Beck has kind, or at least neutral, words to say of Stewart, understanding where he comes from and what interests he serves,

yeah that’s probably the most condescending bs i’ve ever read. what interests he serves? which interests are those? The ones that make fun of the president repeatedly?

Stewart’s interests is that of a progressive comedian who wants to put forth his political views and make money doing so. You think it’s condescending to point that out? Reasoning is a dying art form, it seems. That Stewart “makes fun” of the president substantively proves or disproves nothing. Obama is a politician limited to a 4-8 year (4) term. Stewart’s career predated his and will last longer than that.

CosmosDan said:
You just make this stuff up as you go and then pretend it’s good sound deductive reasoning. For one thing, You’re completely wrong, his hook is not as a neutral media critic. Can you find one example of him claiming that. You just don’t get it, so you create the scenario that suits your own bias opinion.

The reason I linked these responses together should be obvious. Those who claim his ‘neutrality’ are his fans, every time they bemoan in ‘defense’ of him that he ‘criticizes’ his own side as proof of his neutrality. He isn’t neutral, of course, but you can’t get that across to some people. Or rather, like some hypocritical shell game, they prefer to think pointing towards an empty cup serves as proof and actually believes nobody see’s them pocketing the pea.

Why would a smart knowledgeable guy like Beck, who has command of the facts{as some claim}be worried about Jon, How could Jon possibly take him down?
The problem for Beck is that Jon is far more capable of a fact based reasoned discussion than Beck will ever be.

Stewart, on his show, has the benifit of his format and a team of writers to assist him, with script in hand – to know when to insert the joke – and a list of questions with which he’s prepared and a general sense of where the conversation will go. Not to say he’s not intelligent, but when outside this format, Stewart stalls and regurgitates platitudes and assertions that aren’t necessarily factual.

You have got to be joking. Gimmicky perhaps? It was a total sham. If he was so open to a serious challenge then why not let opposing voices on? It makes no sense for you to justify his lack of guests, and then claim a red phone indicated openness. IMO, he was a weasel for directly attacking people like Jim Wallis and Van Jones, and then not letting them on his show to discuss his accusations and so called facts.
That’s some nice doublespeak, non logic you got going.

Well, there is the point that Beck invited those people on when they were relevant to the news cycle, but, year, sure, whatever. You have your talking point.

Paleoconservatarian said:

Stewart, on his show, has the benifit of his format and a team of writers to assist him, with script in hand – to know when to insert the joke – and a list of questions with which he’s prepared and a general sense of where the conversation will go. Not to say he’s not intelligent, but when outside this format, Stewart stalls and regurgitates platitudes and assertions that aren’t necessarily factual.

How many interviews with stewart have you seen exactly? it seems you’re basing all of this off his chris wallace interview which many conservatives seem to see as him losing the debate. I would look at his interview with people like david barton, eric cantor, and ron paul if you want to see him at his finest without resorting to anger or hateful remarks.

Paleoconservatarian said:

Well, there is the point that Beck invited those people on when they were relevant to the news cycle, but, year, sure, whatever. You have your talking point.

didn’t van jones invite him to a debate? and then he turned that down as well? not exactly the greatest record he has on this particular point.

Paleoconservatarian said:
yeah that’s probably the most condescending bs i’ve ever read. what interests he serves? which interests are those? The ones that make fun of the president repeatedly?

Stewart’s interests is that of a progressive comedian who wants to put forth his political views and make money doing so. You think it’s condescending to point that out? Reasoning is a dying art form, it seems. That Stewart “makes fun” of the president substantively proves or disproves nothing. Obama is a politician limited to a 4-8 year (4) term. Stewart’s career predated his and will last longer than that.

the interesting part about this is the part about making money. You do know that to attend a live showing of the daily show is free right? in fact anyone with internet can watch the daily show for free. Compare that to beck’s style of charging his audience money and his creation of the subscription based gbtv. How much money is he making exactly? he operates like a telavangelist who says nice words but then expects you to empty your bank account for him and his “cause”.

Nationman said:
Stewart’s interests is that of a progressive comedian who wants to put forth his political views and make money doing so. You think it’s condescending to point that out? Reasoning is a dying art form, it seems. That Stewart “makes fun” of the president substantively proves or disproves nothing. Obama is a politician limited to a 4-8 year (4) term. Stewart’s career predated his and will last longer than that.

the interesting part about this is the part about making money. You do know that to attend a live showing of the daily show is free right? in fact anyone with internet can watch the daily show for free. Compare that to beck’s style of charging his audience money and his creation of the subscription based gbtv. How much money is he making exactly? he operates like a telavangelist who says nice words but then expects you to empty your bank account for him and his “cause”.

yeah this site really does need an edit function lol.

Paleoconservatarian says:
Those who claim his ‘neutrality’ are his fans, every time they bemoan in ‘defense’ of him that he ‘criticizes’ his own side as proof of his neutrality

Then find examples of his fans claiming he is neutral. You’re making claims out of nothing as far as I can tell. I’ve never heard any fan claim Jon was neutral. I’m a big fan and I wouldn’t call him that. When Jon says his comedy is informed by his ideology he means his personal beliefs about what is right or wrong, fair or unfair, honest or dishonest, influences his comedy. He’s also said more than once that real people , himself included, don’t usually follow ideological paths along party lines. Opinions vary by issue more than by party.

Not to say he’s not intelligent, but when outside this format, Stewart stalls and regurgitates platitudes and assertions that aren’t necessarily factual.

I’m sure Jon prepares for guests like a professional ought to. Still, in interviews he is polite and offers people he doesn’t agree with a chance to make their case. At least he guests on, and has brought people on that he has bashed, has gone on Fox afte3r bashing them repeatedly. I’ve never seen Jon regurgitate platitudes. {Beck OTOH, doesn’t seem to mind} I’ve seen Jon be consistent in his attitudes and personal beliefs and in his reasoning, interview after interview.

Well, there is the point that Beck invited those people on when they were relevant to the news cycle, but, year, sure, whatever. You have your talking point.

You can spin it and try to justify it but I’m betting that underneath it all the simple point is plain to see. It is patently unfair and somewhat cowardly to bash individuals and make accusations about them on a public forum and then when they ask to come on and discuss your accusations you refuse. Jim Wallis asked while Beck was still bashing him but Beck never let him on. If he’s so sure of his facts and has done the research why refuse.
Jon S has a comedy show but at least allows guests on to express opposing views, bring whatever facts they can, and defend themselves. Beck, open to serious challenge? You need a far better example than a red phone.

Nationman says:
didn’t van jones invite him to a debate? and then he turned that down as well? not exactly the greatest record he has on this particular point.

Jim Wallis, a fellow Christian, offered to go on Beck’s show and even home turf advantage wasn’t enough. When he began bashing James Cone and Black Liberation theology someone offered to come debate him on that because they didn’t appreciate how he was distorting the facts. Couldn’t seem to muster the courage for that either. But hey, the truth is important.

People keep wasting my time with this Anthony trial crap.

Nationman said:
good heavens no, he couldn’t take any criticism leveled at him. I would just say if he actually let himself be interviewed on a show, say on the daily show, I’d have a different opinion, he could’ve easily gone on the show without disrupting the natural flow of his program. In fact, he could advertise for it as many conservatives have for their books and programs.

He did do interviews in the initial days, but started avoiding them when it became clear there was no interest in fair play. Case in point was The View appearance, in which for seven minutes Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters, instead of speaking of anything of substance, ambushed him with false accusations regarding an issue of no import in order to attack his credibility on a personal level. Similar with various newspaper interviews from the era. You CAN look these up to see they exist.

As to the point of whether a Stewart interview might have helped his book sales, it can be pointed out that he needed no such help. Beck’s books own the NYT bestseller list regardless. The better point would be whether the national debate would be advance in their pairing. Would that it would be fair, maybe. But I don’t hold that illusion.

Nationman said:
How many interviews with stewart have you seen exactly? it seems you’re basing all of this off his chris wallace interview which many conservatives seem to see as him losing the debate. I would look at his interview with people like david barton, eric cantor, and ron paul if you want to see him at his finest without resorting to anger or hateful remarks.

I’ve watched Stewart for years, more so in years past that of late, but in any case enough so to determine the gist of his show. I reference the Wallace interview because it was relevant to my point (and Beck’s). I didn’t resort to anger or hateful remarks in my comments. If you perceive I did, that’s your problem (and well explains group think characterizations of people like Beck).

Nationman said:
didn’t van jones invite him to a debate? and then he turned that down as well? not exactly the greatest record he has on this particular point.

Two years after the true charges for which he lost his job and in the last days of Beck’s program, even as Jones’ had yet to enter a serious venue in which he would be exposed to hard questioning. It was a facetious request.

Nationman said:
the interesting part about this is the part about making money. You do know that to attend a live showing of the daily show is free right? in fact anyone with internet can watch the daily show for free. Compare that to beck’s style of charging his audience money and his creation of the subscription based gbtv. How much money is he making exactly? he operates like a telavangelist who says nice words but then expects you to empty your bank account for him and his “cause”.

That makes one of us for I don’t find it particularly interesting at all, yet it seems a constant point to some folk in how it’s alleged a figure “makes money.” I’d say it was a truism, and why I didn’t get that you saw a potential insult when I said Stewart has his interests. Stewart is hardly a monk who’s poor because he is a river to his people. He’s well paid by his network, as is Beck. Being a believer in the capitalistic system, I see nothing nothing inherently wrong with this. Nor do I believe either person’s opinion has been corrupted by the money they make.

Missed these. Won’t. Shut. Up. About. Anthony. Trial.

Nationman said:
the reason for polarization is that media is becoming more entertainment, personality based. It becomes jon stewart vs. Glenn beck, or bill oreilly vs. whomever. The popularity of stewarts show is proof of this, in other words the media is moving towards him not the other way around. It’s pretty clear that he is saying something negative about stewart in a roundabout way and the fact is he fails to even start a discussion with him. You say the reason for polarization is because of a lack of interaction between radically different ideologies, why not have that interaction? The writer thing is also mitigated by the fact that stewart does no script debates all the time with people he disagrees with. And the reason he does it is because he’s an entertainer.

Once again, in the above clip Stewart serves mainly as a sort of rhetorical device through which Beck speaks to other things. I don’t see that you’ve made the case where Stewart was attacked or where Beck took a cheep shot at him.

We’ll disagree as to why politics suck, evidently. By open and honest interactions, I don’t mean to say there need be one liberal pundit and one conservative pundit on a panel to scream at each other. Nor do I think interviews under false pretenses or hostile environments would do any good. What there needs to be is an assumption of good faith and an understanding of common reference points. Such can be served by giving testimony of one particular side, provided another does the same. In times past newspapers were openly one sided yet our national debate was far more weighty. Some time after that, there used to be televised issue and policy discussions resolved, or at least put to the public, in formal debate formats. You just don’t see that anymore. But that reasonableness can hardly exist in an era in which one side embraces fully the politics of personal destruction.

Nationman said:
I value the information and anaylsis I receive from him over beck because I do exactly as beck says and research the topics that he mentions. I find just about everytime that he’s wrong about a subject or that he hasn’t given the full story. The fact is it’s a bigger joke that stewart is able to have this analysis with the inherent laziness of media people who attack him for it. I mean honestly someone has existed in his position for a long time in world and american history. You need only look at the pointed criticisms and comedy of mark twain to find that out.

It wasn’t the point of how you value Stewart’s information, but from where came the comparisons of the two people as ‘competitors.’ But just because Stewart doesn’t profess to be credible as an accurate source of information, that’s not to say his point of view doesn’t hold weight. It does for some, but Stewart’s isn’t true analysis. It’s rehash of others’, done in comedic style. Similarly his information. He doesn’t develop his own, he takes it from those sources both he and his audience trust. Sharing an ideology, he dabbles in confirmation of beliefs in catering to a progressive audience. That aspect of his show which is general media critique is more even, but rather shallow. It’s easy (not harder) to beat up on an industry which has a traditionally huge negative perception. Knowing all this, I can still watch his show and find (when he’s fair) the humor – and appreciate him more for that aspect, I believe, than do people who actually trust him.

Nationman said:
again, you’re not bringing anybody else up. massa seems to be the only one.

He’s not.

But that’s not the point. You’re trying to make direct comparisons between Stewart’s format and Beck’s in order to find favor. They were never designed to be the same.

Too much Casey Anthony for you, CosmoDan

CosmosDan said:
. . ..

I don’t have the patience to go more over this subject. Quick points.

I didn’t claim Stewart holds him out as being ‘neutral’ or fair Just look at any Stewart thread, though, where some fans see his jokes on liberals as evidence of his being just that.

Generally, as to the issue of openness to debate and such, I again point that it wasn’t in the format of the show – or in any case didn’t become that – nor was it needed, necessarily. Jones, for example, could’ve ‘defended’ himself on another venue – a serious one where there was the journalistic integrity to ask the relevant questions – and accomplish the same result 2 years before his challenge to Beck. Beck had held debates with partisans early on but that went by the wayside. As it became evident where he stood politically and that he wouldn’t pull punches they avoided his show or began to use opportunities not to debate but to attack the venue.

I’m corrected on the point of Wallis, thought his boycott may have had something to do with Beck’s decision. I do recall Beck offering Soros an hour if ever he wanted the forum.

“Glenn Beck: I’m Better Than Jon Stewart Because I Talk Longer And Have Fewer Writers”

Frances, you are a LYING HACK. Mr. Beck did NOT say that. Why do you lie so much? YOU are what’s wrong with journalism.

Bill Huggins said:
HAHAHAHAHA. You don’t know anything about anything. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

KEEP LIVING IN DREAM WORLD

With your propensity for maniacal laughter, I would wager it is you who lives in a dream world. Has the fact that Glenn Beck been a stellar success in everything he’s undertaken and that you have been a dismal failure have anything to do with your condition?

Paleoconservatarian says:

Too much Casey Anthony for you, CosmoDan

Cosmos, with 2 s. Never watched it.

I didn’t claim Stewart holds him out as being ‘neutral’ or fair Just look at any Stewart thread, though, where some fans see his jokes on liberals as evidence of his being just that.

I don’t believe his fans are doing that, which is why I asked for examples. It’s a matter of degrees, but I think detail is important. It’s a double standard that Wallace mentioned , Stewart pointed out, and Fox fans to eagerly embrace. Wallace suggested Stewart bashes liberals only to maintain credibility so that he create an illusion of sincerity. Stewart pointed it out on his show. When Fox allows a liberal voice, it’s proof they really are fair and balanced. When Stewart bashes them as he bashes republicans , it’s only a sham to maintain credibility. See the double standard.
What Jon says and is IMO evidenced in his show is that his personal ideology, his personal belief system is evident in his show. That’s not a political agenda, or a political ideology, it’s a personal one. He obviously believes SSM is a civil rights issue, but that’s personal. He clearly believes, that it’s okay for the wealthy to pay higher taxes to help the less fortunate, but also believes in fiscal responsibility. IMO that’s how real people work. Jude the issue on the merits of the facts relating to that issue rather than from a political perspective.

Jon has said more than once that the error of modern media is that they promote partisan divide for ratings and sensationalism when their focus should not be on red vs blue , but rather honesty vs lying, and corruption vs non corruption.
I haven’t been following Van Jones deal with Fox so I can’t comment on it. I looked into at the time and IMO it was one more example of Beck being unfair and sensationalizing a couple of rather casual comments to work on his conspiracy theory. Personally I think it was a mistake for the WH to react to GB and the conservative blogosphere that way.
The whole thing with Wallace started when Beck told people to leave their church if they were using the term “social justice” because it’s code. That’s just ridiculous IMO. Wallas disagreed and asked to come on the show and discuss it. Wrote an article I believe. At which point Beck went after Wallis, rather than actually have him on to discuss it.

It’s possible to tweak the guidelines for debate and guests rather than abandon it all together. It’s Beck’s show and it’s his call, but personally I think it’s evidence that he just wasn’t willing to defend the premises he threw out there in a one on one. Personally I find that a little to weasel for someone who makes their fortune accusing and attacking others. That goes for any pundit.
I realize he did invite Soros on. That one example doesn’t constitute an openness to debate.

Paleoconservatarian says:
But just because Stewart doesn’t profess to be credible as an accurate source of information, that’s not to say his point of view doesn’t hold weight. It does for some, but Stewart’s isn’t true analysis. It’s rehash of others’, done in comedic style. Similarly his information. He doesn’t develop his own, he takes it from those sources both he and his audience trust. Sharing an ideology, he dabbles in confirmation of beliefs in catering to a progressive audience. That aspect of his show which is general media critique is more even, but rather shallow. It’s easy (not harder) to beat up on an industry which has a traditionally huge negative perception. Knowing all this, I can still watch his show and find (when he’s fair) the humor – and appreciate him more for that aspect, I believe, than do people who actually trust him.

I agree that Jon’s opinion holds weight with some. For many others it’s just a laugh. or maybe cathartic as Jon uses comedy to express what others don’t talk about.
I submit this clip as a demonstration of Stewart’s ability to analyze and as a demonstration of the point of satire. Commentary through satire. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-uses-chris-wallaces-own-words-to-call-fox-news-crybabies/
He’s done this kind of thing over and over and IMO that’s why Fox might want to discredit him, or at least give their viewers talking points so they don’t have to pay attention.
He doesn’t just bash them. He demonstrates through clips and commentary the game they play.
Here’s a classic,
http://www.aoltv.com/2009/10/30/jon-stewart-explains-fox-news/
Even though it’s comedy, it is still analytical by any reasonable definition, and intelligent analysis. Note that he also calls MSNBC bias, and the WH rep, stupid.

He doesn’t develop his own, he takes it from those sources both he and his audience trust.

Where do you imagine Beck was getting his material? If you heard it there first, that doesn’t mean he did the research and “discovered” it.

. Sharing an ideology, he dabbles in confirmation of beliefs in catering to a progressive audience. That aspect of his show which is general media critique is more even, but rather shallow

You have your opinion and that’s fine. I think it reflects a lot of bias and a lack of understanding about what satire is. You’re drawing a lot of conclusions for someone who doesn’t watch the show. IMO, Jon’s personal views come through his comedy and that’s why some people will like him while others don’t think he’s funny. Admittedly, I’m a fan and have my own bias, but over the span of time I’ve been watching I’ve heard commentary that I haven’t heard anywhere else, and thoughtful analysis that other commentators only aspire to. The point to me is the meme that he is a racist or a liberal ideologue promoting a partisan agenda are simply not supported by the evidence. Fox is welcome to show more objective evidence to demonstrate that Stewart is wrong about them but they chose another route. Create a negative meme , and keep pushing it, without really looking to closely at objective facts.

Wonderful.

Share a website with you ,

(======= http://tinyurl.com/6bl2yvk =======)

Believe you will love it.

CosmosDan said:
Cosmos, with 2 s. Never watched it.

Neither have I. Thus the anoyance.

BTW, I’m getting away from the Stewart / Beck thing for I think it’s played out. We’ve each made our points.

Jon has said more than once that the error of modern media is that they promote partisan divide for ratings and sensationalism when their focus should not be on red vs blue , but rather honesty vs lying, and corruption vs non corruption.

Those make for pretty words – but I don’t think they ring true. There’s always been the partisan divide – it’s inherent to the system and the people that system serves. For the better part of history, there’s always been media playing to one side or the other. That’s why the same markets traditionally had multiple papers – each spoke to a segment of the market from a different editorial perspective. And sure, it would be nice if our elected leaders aspired to truthfulness and incorruptibility, and our journalists served as gatekeepers in that regard, but that’s not the natural state of man and one person’s corruption is another’s supporter. Better, possibly, that reasonable people of both sides understands when each faction speaks truth to power, in their own way, and recognizes and corrects it within their own ranks rather than allow a designated elite to do the vetting for them.

Really, Stewart seems more like he’s lamenting an era when news people dispassionately pretended not to have opinions. That’s never was the case.

If you really want to end corruption, the obvious solution is something with which Stewart would probably vehemently disagree – to take away the incentive to corrupt. Interested parties seek to control outcomes for their own benifit. Where power exists to control, a market grows for special interests to influence that power. The more government there is, the more invasive and powerful it becomes, the more it impact the daily lives of ever more people, the larger is the incentive to lobby and the more corruption will necessarily follow in it’s wake. It follows, then, that a government which governs only according to that which constitutional powers allow, one limited by negative liberties, would be the type least susceptible to corruption.

I haven’t been following Van Jones deal with Fox so I can’t comment on it. I looked into at the time and IMO it was one more example of Beck being unfair and sensationalizing a couple of rather casual comments to work on his conspiracy theory. Personally I think it was a mistake for the WH to react to GB and the conservative blogosphere that way.

To speak to my above point, re vetting and Van Jones, I’m not surprised it didn’t occur to you to find anything wrong with his appointment. It wasn’t a problem for your side’s intellectuals, for to admit there were legitimate questions would’ve become embarrassment to the president. Your side’s leadership has for far too long been in bed with the wrong sorts of people and can’t recognize them for what the are. Van Jones comes from an ideology that wants to totally uproot the American system – ‘Injustice’ and all – that ‘all’ being not just a casualty of a hard socialists’ class war but indeed the main target. That’s simply unacceptable. One doesn’t allow into government one who is philosophically opposed to it unless the goal is to destroy from within. Would you think it acceptable to give a pass for just a small number of National Socialist to be in government if their purpose was only to help keep the trains running on time? Probably not. His defenders say he’s no longer in that same place, though it can’t be shown in any of his writings where he rejects his earlier beliefs, but on the face of it, on the topic of judgement, how much more wrong headed can a person be to have fallen in with communism in the early ’90′s?

You say it was wrong of the WH to react to the conservative blogosphere, but that’s not even what happened. Jones came under fire from the right almost immediately after his appointment. But for months, the WH was fine with the exposure of his revolutionary background; because Obama to a large degree swam in the same waters and because it was largely ignored by press people who falsely saw his radicalism as being not too much different from their own and benign. It was the 9/11 truth stuff that came out which did Jones in – he was thrown under the bus a few days later before the administration could be associated with that movement.

Note that there’s no great gap between Jones’ flirting with truthers and the criticism which was leveled against him by the right. It was in perfectly in keeping with an anti-American philosophy he claims to have rejected when he started ‘moderating’ long before. Really, it was a momentary lapse in his effrot to drop the radical ‘pose’ for the radical ‘ends.’

CosmosDan said:
You have your opinion and that’s fine. I think it reflects a lot of bias and a lack of understanding about what satire is. You’re drawing a lot of conclusions for someone who doesn’t watch the show

BTW, another reason I’m dropping the Stewart / Beck thing is to get away from exchanges like this. I’ll assume the conversation got to be too cumbersome to follow.

Paleoconservatarian said:
I’ve watched Stewart for years, more so in years past that of late, but in any case enough so to determine the gist of his show

Paleoconservatarian said:
Knowing all this, I can still watch his show and find (when he’s fair) the humor – and appreciate him more for that aspect, I believe, than do people who actually trust him.

Paleoconservatarian says:
BTW, I’m getting away from the Stewart / Beck thing for I think it’s played out. We’ve each made our points.
BTW, another reason I’m dropping the Stewart / Beck thing is to get away from exchanges like this. I’ll assume the conversation got to be too cumbersome to follow.

Moving on, but to clarify. I assumed from those two comments that you rarely watched rather than never watched and my comment was hyperbole rather than literal. I should have clarified, or asked for specifics rather than assume.

I watch online often but not every show or all of the show. I’m a fan, and tend to agree with his views so I guess that’s my bias. I’ve also watched his interviews and read several,articles where he describes the process and his views , {without the jokes} He has been consistent in presenting his views.
I detest the recent meme being promoted and repeated that Jon represents himself as fair or neutral. He hasn’t and doesn’t. His views are obviously expressed through his comedy. For Fox, who chose their own slogan, to now go after him with that kind of dishonesty is even more despicable. He does ppolitical satire and fair and balanced, or neutral doesn’t enter into it. It should for them.
He supports SSM and thinks it’s a civil rights issue. If ypou don’t then you probably won’t be amused by him mocking people who oppose it {including Obama} He thinks there’s nothing wrong with asking those who have lots more to contribute more, taxes wise, so conservatives probably won’t appreciate his jokes when he mocks a republican for ranting about the deficit while fighting against tax increases for the wealthy. But, IMO, that’s just a citizen expressing a personal view through his show, not pursuing a political ideology. I think the evidence is exactly how he treats the Dems and those times he’s defended conservatives when he thought it was the right thing to do.

Paleoconservatarian says:
Those make for pretty words – but I don’t think they ring true. There’s always been the partisan divide – it’s inherent to the system and the people that system serves. For the better part of history, there’s always been media playing to one side or the other.

I don’t think it’s been as obvious or as severe as it is now. There is a code of ethics that journalists are supposed to adhere to. It might be interesting to go back and review old broadcasts

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

While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of — truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability — as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public

Going back to the days of Huntley, Brinkley, Kronkite, I believe there was a real effort to adhere to these principles. Nobody is claiming they were perfect. There’s also a difference between an anchor, who’s job it is to inform of the facts , and someone who editorializes and does take a stand.
Investigative reporting is what is supposed to bring us stories like Watergate, The Pentagon Papers, expose the brutality of the civil rights struggle to a national audience , etc. That’s the role of a free press in a democracy.
Now it seems much more about money and sensationalism. With all the military action going on TV News would rather cover Anthony Weiner, than keep the public informed about what’s going on with our troops.

And sure, it would be nice if our elected leaders aspired to truthfulness and incorruptibility, and our journalists served as gatekeepers in that regard, but that’s not the natural state of man and one person’s corruption is another’s supporter.

What? Surely we don’t accept corruption and dishonesty as just the way it is. Our history is full of struggling with issues justice and equality. No realistic person expects it to disappear with the next election cycle, but it’s something we need to continue to work on.

IMO, what we need to try and get to is honest fact based discussion about the issues we face. There’s nothing inherently wrong with conservative or liberal. I think average American’s both conservative and liberal want to see America thrive, and want to be decent to each other, even if we disagree on the specifics. Our elected officials and the press ought to be helping us find honest answers. not shirking their responsibilities as they pursue money.

Really, Stewart seems more like he’s lamenting an era when news people dispassionately pretended not to have opinions. That’s never was the case.

And it’s not something he ever said. He would like them to move back toward the concept of journalistic ethics,rather than further away and to present more relevant , detailed, honest information to the American public. Rather than move toward being more and more like the national Enquirer.

If you really want to end corruption, the obvious solution is something with which Stewart would probably vehemently disagree – to take away the incentive to corrupt. Interested parties seek to control outcomes for their own benifit. Where power exists to control, a market grows for special interests to influence that power. The more government there is, the more invasive and powerful it becomes, the more it impact the daily lives of ever more people, the larger is the incentive to lobby and the more corruption will necessarily follow in it’s wake

Take away the incentive to corrupt? You’re going to do away with power and money? Good luck.
I think you make a valid point but it’s one concept and that should compete with others, based on facts.
Corruption will exist as long as mankind does , and it requires continued effort and vigilance. Less government is appropriate in some a cases but corruption exists outside of the government too and will continue to. IMO, it’s an issue of balance. There is no one set of rules that will always work. Life and society changes and we need to examine and evaluate and make changes, when necessary.

Paleoconservatarian says:
To speak to my above point, re vetting and Van Jones, I’m not surprised it didn’t occur to you to find anything wrong with his appointment.

To be honest , I didn’t dig to deep into the details. I examined it when Beck kept bringing it up I did some reading and it seemed to me that Beck had repeated his familiar pattern. Pick a couple of phrases from someone’s past and hammer them relentlessly to create the meme you want. I’m not alarmed by labels of radical and communist, because I know how easily labels are abused. I read several articles both pro and con and it seemed to me that Jones had realized that at some point he could better pursue justice, and a better future for society by being involved in the system instead of just making noise against it. It’s fine if you disagree with his ideas , but to casually throw around radical and communist , rather than let those ideas compete openly is dishonest IMO.

Your side’s leadership has for far too long been in bed with the wrong sorts of people and can’t recognize them for what the are.

And IMO you are buying the lie and ignoring the real problem.
IMO, It’s money and power and both parties are guilty. Why isn’t there outrage from both conservatives and liberals for the Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to donate unlimited funds to influence elections? I don’t buy the meme that the GOP is just a tool for big business, but it’s foolish to ignore the reality of the influence special interests have , and how mega corporations have a major influence on policy.

His defenders say he’s no longer in that same place, though it can’t be shown in any of his writings where he rejects his earlier beliefs,

It seemed pretty clear to me from other things he said that he understood that capitalism did a lot more to improve people’s lives than rhetoric. I heard a lot of talk about the fact that there’s no record of him uttering the specific words, ” I renounce Communism” all the while everything else he said that pointed to exactly that was gladly ignored.

on the topic of judgement, how much more wrong headed can a person be to have fallen in with communism in the early ’90’s?

I think there are lots of ways to be far more wrongheaded and I don’t see communist or socialist as alternatives for boogyman.
Do you have any details on the extent of his involvement and what he actually did and why he said he did it?
Just for laughs , here’s another POV.
http://gawker.com/5352832/who-is-van-jones

You say it was wrong of the WH to react to the conservative blogosphere, but that’s not even what happened. Jones came under fire from the right almost immediately after his appointment.

From the right? From anybody credible? I think a false meme was created and the WH it was expedient to make it go away rather than address that nasty aspect of politics directly. I think the press secratary and PR arm of the WH should stop being reactionary and grow a set. The Shirley Sherrod story is a great example.

But for months, the WH was fine with the exposure of his revolutionary background; because Obama to a large degree swam in the same waters and because it was largely ignored by press people who falsely saw his radicalism as being not too much different from their own and benign. It was the 9/11 truth stuff that came out which did Jones in – he was thrown under the bus a few days later before the administration could be associated with that movement.

Note that there’s no great gap between Jones’ flirting with truthers and the criticism which was leveled against him by the right. It was in perfectly in keeping with an anti-American philosophy he claims to have rejected when he started ‘moderating’ long before. Really, it was a momentary lapse in his effrot to drop the radical ‘pose’ for the radical ‘ends.’

I notice a pattern in your posts. You seem to often attribute thoughts and motives to others that you can’t possibly know. Here it is again. I figured out some time ago that we can’t really know people’s motives and that it’s an error in judgement to think we can, as well as pretty unfair to the people we’re judging.

He thinks he’s better then Jon Stewart because his Amp. goes up to 11.  Glen Beck  F***#** idiot and CEO of GBTV  where stupid pay to watch stupid T.V.