A Conspiracy Theory Glenn Beck won't like

reply to post by Skyfloating

I dont watch him much anymore because there is no more uncertainty. Why watch the same train go round and round yet never pull into the station.
You already know the truth and what it will take,yet wait for someone else to take your hand and gently lovingly carry you safely and comfortably to the promised land. As long as you compromise with evil, evil wins, but you know that already, dont you?

I couldnt make it through a single one of his shows (I tried!) because of his tone of urgency and sensationalism. Ive read and heard a lot about what Glenn Beck believes but have never managed to watch him myself. Im sure it gets repetitive after awhile. You can only be one-sided for a certain amount of time before people get bored.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I watched him awhile back, and he so goddamn melodramatic! ( if the GD word is offensive sky, you being a mod, let me know )

He tries to use theatrics in his broadcast, and it gets more comical as the show progresses.....

Beck's purpose, the reason TPTB gave him a show on their most-prestigious propaganda network, is to take whatever truth manages to make its way into the public consciousness, mix it with outright lies and bizarre insinuations, and spew that mixture all over us before we have a chance to really think about the unadulterated truth. By doing this, he makes sure that everyone disbelieves *everything* he says, including whatever he said that happened to be true. Yes, the Middle East is being purposely destabilized, but those behind it are not who he says are behind it. I've caught him many times repeating something said earlier on, let's say, the Alex Jones show, and "cutting" it with enough garbage to make people think it's all garbage. He's a bartender watering down the drinks specifically to make everyone stop going to his bar.

And it's working.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
So do you think Fox news is about to dump Glenn Beck because he is hitting too close to home in exposing the planets power games, or are they ready to fire him because he is just becoming too crazy and antagonistic, or is it ultimately because his ratings are going down?

I think his ratings are going down because he's too crazy & not because he's too antagonistic. If the latter were true then they'd have considered getting rid of B. O' years ago.

Remember when Clinton said that America is loosing the information war? It's partially because of him & his insane ramblings & fewer people are still willing to listen to them. How can THEY expect to brighten up their image with crazy crock like his still on the air?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

I watched him awhile back, and he so goddamn melodramatic! ( if the GD word is offensive sky, you being a mod, let me know )

He tries to use theatrics in his broadcast, and it gets more comical as the show progresses.....

Thats whats been the turn-off in the few times Ive tried to watch the show. It embarrasses the viewer who senses it is not real.

(No the GD word is no Policy-Violation, but thanks for asking)

Mr. Beck is a product.

Marketed, packaged, and produced.

Many people are as baffled at his notional popularity as they are about the popularity of cheap "reality" shows about people who could never survive in modern society.

Many who do agree with his rhetoric, do so having only seen the 'surface' of it; a fact which is media consensus-makers rely on.

I always remember this about talking heads..... despite the volume of their voice, and the length of their monologues, they are NOT experts in ANY subject they present.

And that's the rub.... Used to be that a 'talk show' featured guests who were at least somewhat recognizable in their field. Now they just get the most charismatic person they can find (that the audience can relate to) to spew whatever "content" the producers and writers come up with.

Now, talk-shows featuring "guests" are almost exclusively limited to flippant comedy, satire, or commercialized angst....

Media employees like Beck, Limbaugh, etc. etc. are redefining reality by presenting their employer's information as if it were 'their' ideas and notions.... I suspect they are mostly actors..... and my grandma always told me... never trust a professional thespian to be sincere... they may be... but you'll never know until it's too late.

Would you be willing to take Beck's place for the money they pay him? (Many will honestly say "yes" - after all, it's only "show business.")

reply to post by PinkAndBlack

Remember when Clinton said that America is loosing the information war?

Clinton only said that to divert attention, while he got busy with a fat chick in the oval office~

Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
reply to post by larphillips

 

Pulled commercial support because the wonderfully tolerant liberals have campaigned and threatened to boycott adverizers and silence any contrary opinions, in their mercy.
Such is the grand liberal free speech imperitive, free for them to destroy all opposition.

Wait a second, I thought that this was the free market that people like you love and promote.....i have the ability to purchase or not purchase what i want, in fact in capitalism, that is my only vote.....and if I dont want to buy a product because of who they support with advertising, that is my right as an American consumer.

Are you telling me I dont have the right to boycott items, or taht boycotting is some sort of leftist agenda? Maybe you just hate freedom.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
reply to post by larphillips

 

Pulled commercial support because the wonderfully tolerant liberals have campaigned and threatened to boycott adverizers and silence any contrary opinions, in their mercy.
Such is the grand liberal free speech imperitive, free for them to destroy all opposition.

Wait a second, I thought that this was the free market that people like you love and promote.....i have the ability to purchase or not purchase what i want, in fact in capitalism, that is my only vote.....and if I dont want to buy a product because of who they support with advertising, that is my right as an American consumer.

Are you telling me I dont have the right to boycott items, or taht boycotting is some sort of leftist agenda? Maybe you just hate freedom.

Im not sure, but I think you took that out of context. I think the poster was suggesting that since the ties between commodities ( coco cola, butter, what ever ), are also tied to liberal organizations, and because those liberal organizations threatened to drop these sources, they would prefer to severe ties with Beck instead. Especially if becks show is losing ratings, meaning less audience to view coca cola commercials and so on? Does that make sense?

reply to post by aching_knuckles


No, liberals are liars and decievers and it has nothing to do with the free market. Liberals need to redefine reality and demonize all opposition. Liberals need and demand public subsidies and monopolies for their selfserving outlets. There is no free market, not for a century or more. One gets a license and public funds from the gubmint by supporting its singular goals of power or gets shouted down, It has always been this way. nature is conservative and teaches conservative principles. Liberalism has to lie about its' virtues as the alternative to reality.
That is all

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Im not sure, but I think you took that out of context. I think the poster was suggesting that since the ties between commodities ( coco cola, butter, what ever ), are also tied to liberal organizations, and because those liberal organizations threatened to drop these sources, they would prefer to severe ties with Beck instead. Especially if becks show is losing ratings, meaning less audience to view coca cola commercials and so on? Does that make sense?

No, that doesnt make sense. That is the definition, and the point, of a boycott. It is not "sliencing freedom of speech".

Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Liberals need to redefine reality and demonize all opposition.

So, what exactly do your call your posts pertaining to "liberalism"? You dont think you are demonizing just a little bit? Or is it OK when you do it?

People that lack critical thinking skills such as yourself scare the crap out of me. Sure, lets get a free market like 100 years ago, you know, with kids dying in factories because no child labor laws, and forced to work 15 hours a day with no overtime...the good ole days!

You might have missed it, but even Rand Paul on The Daily Show the other day said that government regulation was needed (just not as much).

reply to post by aching_knuckles


I enjoy mature discussion and should one present itself on this topic, I'll be happy to join in, but any discussion starts with each side finding common ground and real life and at this point I can find none. Straw men and shifting definitions I leave to those that are best at it. This infantilism and nihlism can only be settled in blood, mine or theirs, I dont really care.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Fellow conservatives are also disowning him. As William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a regular Fox News commentator, writes, “When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.

edit on 9-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

I want to emphasize this quote in particular, he is apparently marganilizing himself like Robert Welch and the John Birch Society did in the 1960s. But lest we forget that Robert Welch predicted with dead-on accuracy the future of America and what would happen here, he was critical and openly opposed to the internationalism and growth of the federal government, the JBS called out the Rockefellers other elitists who were destroying our country.



It appears to me that the same group welcomed into the GOP during the 1970s after their split with the Socialist Party of America over the Viet Nam War, who overrun and chased out the traditional Republicans, who turned the party into internationalist, interventionist, big government, and Christian Right horrors we see today are once again lashing out at someone who does not walk their same ideological line.

The ones who need to be chased out of town, out of our televisions, our newspapers, our media, our politics, and our government are these criminals called ‘Neoconservatives’ which are actually intellectual descendants of American Marxists and Trotskyites. As Patrick Buchanan put it:

“We do not consider 'Big Government conservatism' a philosophy, we consider it a heresy.”
“The Republican Party in Washington D.C. today are the sort of people we went into politics to run out of town.”
“Buchanan vocally opposes those neoconservatives whom he calls "undocumented aliens from the Left, carrying with them the viruses of statism and globalism". He describes their first generation as people who began as "Trotskyist, socialists or Social Democrat", then became "JFK-LBJ Democrats", but broke with the Left during the Vietnam War and "came into their own" during Reagan's administration. He said he welcomed neoconservatives during the early 1970s, but that it has become an inquisition, "hurling anathemas at any who decline to embrace their revised dogmas." Buchanan compares "Neocons" to squatters who take over a once-beloved home (the Republican Party) and convert it into a crack house.”

Glenn Beck, like him or hate him, is definitely not in-line with the party establishment, he is more on the side of the new faction of the GOP. He is with the Libertarian conservatives of the Tea Party and the likes of Jim DeMint, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul. FOX News and Rupert Murdoch in particular are Neoconservatives, the disgusting cockroaches which in the words of Pat Buchanan “converted the GOP into a crack house”.

en.wikipedia.org...

I explained in detail how Neocons are Marxist-Trotskyites in my thread Here.

Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

I enjoy mature discussion and should one present itself on this topic, I'll be happy to join in, but any discussion starts with each side finding common ground and real life and at this point I can find none. Straw men and shifting definitions I leave to those that are best at it. This infantilism and nihlism can only be settled in blood, mine or theirs, I dont really care.

So wait, you start out saying that you enjoy mature discussion, then you end by saying that it can only be settled in blood. So, you mean "mature discussion" that agrees with what you say, and violence to those that dont.....you were saying something about free speech?

Yes, hypocrites like you scare me.

Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

I enjoy mature discussion and should one present itself on this topic, I'll be happy to join in, but any discussion starts with each side finding common ground and real life and at this point I can find none. Straw men and shifting definitions I leave to those that are best at it. This infantilism and nihlism can only be settled in blood, mine or theirs, I dont really care.

By the way, I wanted to say, Im sure youll do well on the battlefield if you are as cowardly as you are on this...you got confronted and your reply was "Well Im taking my ball and going home...this will be settled in blood!"

hahaha

reply to post by aching_knuckles


War has settled far more conflicts than concessions and compromise, which themselves simply lead to war but create more chaos the longer it takes.
I beleive in settling things one way or anothe, your'e willing to get someone else to do it for you by unilateral decree, to you that makes me a hypocrite? At least I'm willing to git on with it, you want to find someone to do it for you while you hide with binky and then cheat them outta their due with shifting definitions.
I know more about you than you about me fer sure

Originally posted by FriedrichNeecher
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

War has settled far more conflicts than concessions and compromise, which themselves simply lead to war but create more chaos the longer it takes.
I beleive in settling things one way or anothe, your'e willing to get someone else to do it for you by unilateral decree, to you that makes me a hypocrite? At least I'm willing to git on with it, you want to find someone to do it for you while you hide with binky and then cheat them outta their due with shifting definitions.
I know more about you than you about me fer sure

So whats stopping you? Grab your rifle and start the revolution, if you are so right, everyone will join you. Go ahead, become Loughner part 2. Until then, you arent doing crap except acting tough on the internet, another armchair commando.

People like you are why more and more people are joining with sane people like me.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Im not sure, but I think you took that out of context. I think the poster was suggesting that since the ties between commodities ( coco cola, butter, what ever ), are also tied to liberal organizations, and because those liberal organizations threatened to drop these sources, they would prefer to severe ties with Beck instead. Especially if becks show is losing ratings, meaning less audience to view coca cola commercials and so on? Does that make sense?

No, that doesnt make sense. That is the definition, and the point, of a boycott. It is not "sliencing freedom of speech".

I see, sorry my misunderstanding.