Inspired_Neurosis Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Alright, I understand that making a diagnosis of a public figure that I have never met is kind of retarded--especially given that I'm not a trained medical professional--but this guy wears his insanity on his sleeve. -Family history of suicide -History of substance abuse -Crying fits -Paranoia -Delusions of grandeur -Prone to completely incoherent ramblings that only make sense to him I actually feel sorry for him. He should be getting help. Fox is exploiting him. He's like Howard Beale without the insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wondernut Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 I totally agree with you! whenever I get to the point where someone makes me that angry or upsets me so much and their behavior is that irratic I am certian there is an MI involved ...and with him you hit the nail on the head I think ..and I thought so too so you validated my opinion and I too feel sorry for him!!!! thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpuppy Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 *backs out of room slowly* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted August 15, 2009 Author Share Posted August 15, 2009 *backs out of room slowly* Noooo! Tell me you're not a Beck fan. And I don't mean the musician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Beck isn't crazy. He's just a tool. I mean, just LOOK at that sweater. *shudder* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScavengerType Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Wow I never looked at it like that before. I just assumed he was an asshole. But that makes perfect sense and now I feel kind of bad for the guy. I still disagree with most of the things he says but that's very interesting. Nice observation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~nestling~ Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Who is he? Never heard of the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha443556 Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Him being crazy always seemed to be a running gag to me. "Me Crazy!? No!", say Mr. Beck. I always imagine him vigorously shaking his head yes at the end of such lines. Wish Fox would exploit my psychotic paranoid schizoid ass for a mountain of cash, I bet I could really piss off the liberal given a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted August 15, 2009 Author Share Posted August 15, 2009 Money has nothing on human dignity, and I do find it objectionable to parade a clearly disturbed man around to spout horribly illogical political views like an assclown. I'm happy that some agree with or are amused by my theory. I was hoping that I wasn't alone in perceiving this. For those unfamiliar with him or who missed his most absurd moments, I'll post some videos later. I'm just typing on the phone right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpuppy Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 I don't know why you guys think he's crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SashaSue Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 IN - I couldn't agree more. He's been seeming increasingly manic to me the last few months. I get why people might feel bad for him, but I cannot imagine that not doctor has ever raised this possibility with him, and he elects not to explore treatment options. I have a hard time working up a lot of compassion for that choice. Alternately, he's all coked up again. That's always a possibility. MP - I like you way too much to do anything remotely resembling talking politics with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted August 16, 2009 Author Share Posted August 16, 2009 I don't know why you guys think he's crazy. Videos, as promised earlier: Instability: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related http://www.youtube.c...h?v=DGeZQrpZbjI (the caller is a moron, but Glenn doesn't handle her well, to say the least...goes off the deep end at 3:16) Incoherence: http://crooksandliar...bizarre-incoher (Watch from about 0:56 to 2:04) I would like to caution that the titles and write-ups accompanying these videos are in no way objective(and I don't endorse mediamatters or crooksandliars), but the videos speak for themselves. And again, incidence of suicide(his mother committed suicide) and substance abuse(he constantly references his former alcoholism) are significantly more common amongst those with mood disorders, which Glenn, in my opinion, totally shows symptoms of. I have a mood disorder, and I am much, much better able to maintain my composure in public than the guy. I terms of paranoia, he's constantly going on about the government, the media, and corporations all being out to get everyone. I can incidentally sympathize with some of Beck's conclusions, but find him to be astoundingly inarticulate and weak in terms of logical reasoning. Sure, I'm a minarchist, but his positions seem to stem from a complete and all-consuming fear of everyone with any kind of authority. He borders on the "there are cameras in my room" kind of distrust against the powers that be. He also gives off a "I'm the man with the answers and desperately have to save everyone else" kind of vibe. And I don't doubt his sincerity for a second, unlike most commentators. MP - I like you way too much to do anything remotely resembling talking politics with you. That's probably a wise move. For the record, I love disagreement and do not inherently equate differences of opinion with any sort of moral or intellectual failing on the other party's part. Philisophical differences are what make people unique and interesting. I think that MP is totally able to handle such chat, although a lot of people may perceive hostility from disagreement in itself. And yeah, Sue, he's totally deteriorated since joining Fox. I suspect that CNN kept a tighter leash on him. On another note, I love Christopher Hitchens, and he's also an alcoholic whose mother committed suicide. What's separating him and Beck is that Hitch is a fucking genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SashaSue Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 I'm ambivalent about Hitchens, but I've never for a moment doubted that he is some kind or other of crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted August 16, 2009 Author Share Posted August 16, 2009 I'm ambivalent about Hitchens, but I've never for a moment doubted that he is some kind or other of crazy. Hitchens has problems...but his writing ability is certainly not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SashaSue Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 I'm ambivalent about Hitchens, but I've never for a moment doubted that he is some kind or other of crazy. Hitchens has problems...but his writing ability is certainly not one of them. Which has no bearing whatsoever on his sanity or lack thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxweed Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 He may not be crazy. He could be just homicidal. Did you see the clip of him fantasizing about putting poison in Nancy Poloise's wine? The staff member on the other side of his desk was wearing a mask of her face. Kinda like a blow up doll you put your ex's face on. I'm sure that this was not the first time he has had these thoughts. The role play is too detailed for that. I couldn't watch the whole thing. It is sick. Sicker than anything I've read about on CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted August 16, 2009 Author Share Posted August 16, 2009 Which has no bearing whatsoever on his sanity or lack thereof. Oh yes, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. He is both a lunatic and one of the greatest men of letters of our time. Also, I should clarify that this thread in general isn't supposed to discredit what Glenn Beck has to say(although...he's often self-discrediting), as that would be an ad hominem and would actually extend to being an attack on my own credibility. It's just an observation about Beck's mannerisms that I found interesting. This isn't really directed at anyone in particular, but I realized that my intent could be misinterpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted August 16, 2009 Author Share Posted August 16, 2009 He may not be crazy. He could be just homicidal. Did you see the clip of him fantasizing about putting poison in Nancy Poloise's wine? The staff member on the other side of his desk was wearing a mask of her face. Kinda like a blow up doll you put your ex's face on. I'm sure that this was not the first time he has had these thoughts. The role play is too detailed for that. I couldn't watch the whole thing. It is sick. Sicker than anything I've read about on CB. He also fantasized about killing Michael Moore on his radio program, and expressed empathy towards a spree killer on his Fox show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpuppy Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 I fantasize about killing Michael Moore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~nestling~ Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Who the heck is he? What does he do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha443556 Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 He's a TV and Radio host. http://www.glennbeck.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~nestling~ Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Ah. Ok. Kind of like Kilroy. I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nalgas Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 It kind of concerns me sometimes that there are so many people out there who don't think Glenn Beck is completely batshit. Even if I agreed with his conclusions, which I usually don't, so much stuff he says is completely nonsensical, and I think IN described it pretty accurately. I get the impression that Hitchens is not nearly as nuts as Beck, at least not outwardly so, but he's easily at least as much of an asshole. When I do agree with him, which is a good deal more often, I still can't stand Hitchens, because he's such a dick about a lot of things, and then people start associating having those opinions with being a raging asshat, which is the same problem with non-insane conservatives/half the people with shows on the Fox News Channel, non-insane people who like animals/PETA, etc. Running around going, "ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY! HATE HATE HATE! FEAR FEAR FEAR!" isn't going to convince very many people of anything unless they already agree with you in the first place, so it ends up not being very productive a lot of the time (unless your goal is not to accomplish anything constructive and just to get a bunch of people all worked up instead). It keeps The Daily Show on the air, though, at least, so thanks for that. Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 It kind of concerns me sometimes that there are so many people out there who don'tthink Glenn Beck is completely batshit. Even if I agreed with hisconclusions, which I usually don't, so much stuff he says is completelynonsensical, and I think IN described it pretty accurately. I get theimpression that Hitchens is not nearly as nuts as Beck, at least notoutwardly so, but he's easily at least as much of an asshole. When Ido agree with him, which is a good deal more often, I still can't standHitchens, because he's such a dick about a lot of things, and thenpeople start associating having those opinions with being a ragingasshat, which is the same problem with non-insane conservatives/halfthe people with shows on the Fox News Channel, non-insane people wholike animals/PETA, etc. In terms of outward insanity, Beck almost certainly suffers from psychosis, and Hitchens almost certainly does not. But Hitch still gives off a vibe of all-consuming depression, irritability, self-destructive behaviour, and a general sense of misanthropy. This is one of the things that I think is awesome about him, as the political debate sphere is so filled with compromising panderers. Hitchens not only doesn't care what other people think; he seems to get off on pissing as many people off as possible, yet he's able to intellectually shitkick 99.9% percent of people if they challenge him(compared to, say, Ted Rall, who tries to piss people off yet does so with oblivious stupidity). I think that it's unfortunate that people do discredit opinions using supposedly shady people associated with them, but I don't respect the opinions of anyone who extrapolates an incidental agreement with someone else on an issue to a total adherence to the other person's views. So they don't really matter to me. Runningaround going, "ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY! HATE HATE HATE! FEAR FEAR FEAR!"isn't going to convince very many people of anything unless theyalready agree with you in the first place, so it ends up not being veryproductive a lot of the time (unless your goal is not to accomplishanything constructive and just to get a bunch of people all worked upinstead). It keeps The Daily Show on the air, though, at least, sothanks for that. Heh. Glenn Beck is more-or-less a chicken little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nalgas Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Glenn Beck is more-or-less a chicken little. I'm sure there's a "small cock" joke in there somewhere, but that would be childish, and I'm above such things. Eh, who am I kidding? Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SashaSue Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Which has no bearing whatsoever on his sanity or lack thereof. Oh yes, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. He is both a lunatic and one of the greatest men of letters of our time. Also, I should clarify that this thread in general isn't supposed to discredit what Glenn Beck has to say(although...he's often self-discrediting), as that would be an ad hominem and would actually extend to being an attack on my own credibility. It's just an observation about Beck's mannerisms that I found interesting. This isn't really directed at anyone in particular, but I realized that my intent could be misinterpreted. OK, can't really agree with your assessment of Hitchens as a writer. Unless your judgement's based on authorial self-indulgence, in which case he's certainly way up there. No one will be reading Hitchens 50 years from now. Actually, I think it's pretty fair to question someone's credibility when he or she seems to be in the midst of a manic episode. That's not really a state in which people arrive at well considered opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SashaSue Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 It kind of concerns me sometimes that there are so many people out there who don't think Glenn Beck is completely batshit. Even if I agreed with his conclusions, which I usually don't, so much stuff he says is completely nonsensical, and I think IN described it pretty accurately. I get the impression that Hitchens is not nearly as nuts as Beck, at least not outwardly so, but he's easily at least as much of an asshole. When I do agree with him, which is a good deal more often, I still can't stand Hitchens, because he's such a dick about a lot of things, and then people start associating having those opinions with being a raging asshat, which is the same problem with non-insane conservatives/half the people with shows on the Fox News Channel, non-insane people who like animals/PETA, etc. Running around going, "ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY! HATE HATE HATE! FEAR FEAR FEAR!" isn't going to convince very many people of anything unless they already agree with you in the first place, so it ends up not being very productive a lot of the time (unless your goal is not to accomplish anything constructive and just to get a bunch of people all worked up instead). It keeps The Daily Show on the air, though, at least, so thanks for that. Heh. Well, you'll also appeal to those who are already full of anger, hate, and fear, and are just looking for somewhere to direct it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SashaSue Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I fantasize about killing Michael Moore. Yes, but we already know you're crazy . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 OK, can't really agree with your assessment of Hitchens as a writer. Unless your judgement's based on authorial self-indulgence, in which case he's certainly way up there. No one will be reading Hitchens 50 years from now. Self-indulgence is a very legitimate point of criticism with respect to Christopher Hitchens. He is very prone to tangents in which he boasts about the esteemed company that he keeps. Completely fair point on your part, and I agree. But although those moments are kind of a stain on his writings, they have little to do with his grasp of the English language when he wants to craft an evocative and brilliantly-worded paragraph of non-fiction. He is a commentator on contemporary issues so, by the nature of his work, he probably won't be as relevant in the future as someone whose focus is more timeless and universal. But he's currently one of the most controversial, prolific, and highly syndicated writers in the English-speaking world. You really can't be so flippant about his influence in light of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SashaSue Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 OK, can't really agree with your assessment of Hitchens as a writer. Unless your judgement's based on authorial self-indulgence, in which case he's certainly way up there. No one will be reading Hitchens 50 years from now. Self-indulgence is a very legitimate point of criticism with respect to Christopher Hitchens. He is very prone to tangents in which he boasts about the esteemed company that he keeps. Completely fair point on your part, and I agree. But although those moments are kind of a stain on his writings, they have little to do with his grasp of the English language when he wants to craft an evocative and brilliantly-worded paragraph of non-fiction. He is a commentator on contemporary issues so, by the nature of his work, he probably won't be as relevant in the future as someone whose focus is more timeless and universal. But he's currently one of the most controversial, prolific, and highly syndicated writers in the English-speaking world. You really can't be so flippant about his influence in light of this. None of the things you list, his being controversial, prolific, highly syndicated, or even influential, has a thing to do with the quality of either the writing or the ideas they're used to express. Although, to really be influential, I tend to think a person needs to be working with more original thought than Hitchens tends to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 None of the things you list, his being controversial, prolific, highly syndicated, or even influential, has a thing to do with the quality of either the writing or the ideas they're used to express. Although, to really be influential, I tend to think a person needs to be working with more original thought than Hitchens tends to be. Well...I was rebutting your implication that he had no influence or importance. I didn't need to defend his writing because you didn't attack it...would you like me to elaborate? We never agree on anything, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickler Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Back to the original debate: I'd actually have to get a full representative sample of Beck's spectrum of broadcasted behavior. That would entail watching his show and/or listening to him. I would probably find this unpleasant, to the point of needing an antacid. I know Limbaugh can do that for me in five minutes flat. Therefore I will neither confirm or deny IN's assertions that Glenn Beck is a prospective Crazyboard member. I will however say I'd rather simply watch good news with as little "spin" as possible. I have a mind and will make it up, thank you. I understand that it is far better for the profit margins of the networks to offer us right-wing or left-wing "talking heads" than it is to go out and do investigative reporting that might, you know, actually tell us informative things we need to know to be effective citizens instead of taking some seriously overworked news clips and spouting off about them. I also think it would seriously improve the political environment if all these opinion-spouters of the right and the left packed up their carpetbags and skedaddled. As much as I like to occasionally salivate at Rachel Maddow (ooh, butch!) she's not improving things. Because, ultimately, we people of varying political persuasions have to live with each other, and we ought to try to do that with civility and an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nalgas Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I will however say I'd rather simply watch good news with as little "spin" as possible. I have a mind and will make it up, thank you. I understand that it is far better for the profit margins of the networks to offer us right-wing or left-wing "talking heads" than it is to go out and do investigative reporting that might, you know, actually tell us informative things we need to know to be effective citizens instead of taking some seriously overworked news clips and spouting off about them. I was talking to my dad about that the other day, and the two of us basically ended up concluding the same thing as that and the rest of your post, along with the usual, "Hey, remember back in the early 90s when they actually had news on CNN instead of a bunch of raving loons? That was nice, wasn't it?" Glenn Beck also came up in the same conversation, incidentally. We decided that if he's not a complete nutjob, he at least plays one on TV. Back when Colbert got his show, he was a parody of TV news pundits, and he intentionally acted crazier than the real ones did. Now, the real non-comedian people on the news channels are more ridiculous than he's ever been. I guess reality is more unmedicated than fiction, or at least does a great job of acting like it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazynotstupid Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Well, see, Beck was right the other night--when he had the psychiatrist on (a regular guest btw)--people are going to marginalize and attack him. You call him crazy, psychotic, mood disordered, cuz you don't like what he says or how. So he has a family history, is an alcoholic, and hey--ADHD! He does research and he has facts. Oh course if you have the power of belief nothing gets through that armor, just go try talking to any religious zealot or creationist. And you floks seem to have the Belief and strong. I'm not gonna try to convince you. But I lost my belief many years ago when I saw the fucking pansy-assed liberals sell their principles out for pure partisanship. I opened my eyes and never looked back. Call me a nutcase listening to a nutcase but a man who can present a compelling case with compelling facts, that you can't refute, and does it with a great sense of humor, quite frankly--wins. BTW, none of you ever said, I think, that anything he states is factually false. And none of you mentioned the fact that Fox is the #1 rated cable news network, trouncing all the other networks... Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMarshall Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Nestling, Glen Beck is a radio and TV show host. He is very conservative, loud, bombastic, self assured, and prone to seeing conspiracies behind every tree. I used to watch some of his show with some regularity. Last year he was predicting the end of the world from an incident that would happen last summer. He wouldn't say what it was going to be. It never happened. He hasn't been held to account. heh. Anyway, I agree that he seems to have gone off the rails over the last few months. I can't understand his conspiracy jibberish any more. I'd vote for the "back on coke" theory. a.m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SashaSue Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Well, see, Beck was right the other night--when he had the psychiatrist on (a regular guest btw)--people are going to marginalize and attack him. You call him crazy, psychotic, mood disordered, cuz you don't like what he says or how. So he has a family history, is an alcoholic, and hey--ADHD! He does research and he has facts. Oh course if you have the power of belief nothing gets through that armor, just go try talking to any religious zealot or creationist. And you floks seem to have the Belief and strong. I'm not gonna try to convince you. But I lost my belief many years ago when I saw the fucking pansy-assed liberals sell their principles out for pure partisanship. I opened my eyes and never looked back. Call me a nutcase listening to a nutcase but a man who can present a compelling case with compelling facts, that you can't refute, and does it with a great sense of humor, quite frankly--wins. BTW, none of you ever said, I think, that anything he states is factually false. And none of you mentioned the fact that Fox is the #1 rated cable news network, trouncing all the other networks... Heh. The things he says no longer make enough sense for any parsing of truth to be possible. When it was, plenty of what he stated was false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SashaSue Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 None of the things you list, his being controversial, prolific, highly syndicated, or even influential, has a thing to do with the quality of either the writing or the ideas they're used to express. Although, to really be influential, I tend to think a person needs to be working with more original thought than Hitchens tends to be. Well...I was rebutting your implication that he had no influence or importance. I didn't need to defend his writing because you didn't attack it...would you like me to elaborate? We never agree on anything, do we? I did, though! In disagreeing with your assessment of him as one of the greatest men of letters of our time. To me, that means you think the writing's good. And we do agree that Glenn Beck's bipolar. There's always that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recoverymouse Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 oh, I don't see how anybody can tolerate listening to either hitchens or beck. hitchens is not just an alcoholic, he's a raging drunk. i get flashbacks of my narcissist alcoholic father watching him talk. beck is a performer. who knows what he really believes. he's like a bad preacher who eventually gets caught with a prostitute-- did he really believe all that crap about hell and damnation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazynotstupid Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The things he says no longer make enough sense for any parsing of truth to be possible. When it was, plenty of what he stated was false. You still haven't stated ONE damn falsehood...throwing names and accusations at one's enemies is always the last bastion of the weak and defeated. It's all I've seen on this thread. Hell, once upon a time it was called McCarthyism. Brand opne's enemy and watch everyone go after. But of course I'm the minority. And the minority is always wrong. I'll just shuffle off from the lunch counter now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.mcmurphy Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 bill maher as antidote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpuppy Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 *shrug* I still like Beck. And I'm glad he gave a fuck when Marcus Luttrell's dog was slaughtered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickler Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Threadjack( sorry) I hadn't heard about Marcus Luttrell or his dog, even though that happened here in Houston, but I have heard anecdotally about a tendency for burglars in this town to poison/kill the dogs a few days before they burglarize the house that had the dog. That may be what those bastards intended. (tjack close) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpuppy Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Nor had I, until Beck elevated it to a national level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
residentneighbor Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I think listening to these folks is OK, I just get worried when people start quoting the likes of Beck or Rush (or any pundit) like scripture. I used to work with a guy that would sit in his truck at work during lunch and blast Rush and then come in saying how the Muslims must be nuked and the liberals cast into the fire to purge Washington. I know, extreme example, but people talking like that makes me a little nervous. What ever happened to having some dialogue to reach an understanding? Personally I don't trust any of these pundits, and I certainly don't think the Republicans are better than the Democrats - they're all still politicians who need special interest money to get elected and all that money comes from the same places every election. I blame them more for polarizing the bases into believing to be a Republican you must be neo-Conservative, or that if you are a Democrat you must support progressives and if you don't then you're not one of us. Politics seem too black-and-white nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdbee Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 ugh. my ultra liberal mind is about to jump into a vat of klonopin. he's nuts. bleh. it's funny though...re: the original post. i have a habit of diagnosing people, too. it's like a trivia game i play by myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mika Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 *backs out of room slowly* Noooo! Tell me you're not a Beck fan. And I don't mean the musician. I LOVE GLENN BECK and proud to admit it. What he says doesn't only make sense to him but me and many others. That is why he is on TIME magazine...because his show has incredibly high ratings. And he isn't fake like everybody else. Nothing is sugarcoated from his mouth. yes. I thought he was bipolar straight away. But that just makes him even more special! Love him. I watch his show almost every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mika Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 He may not be crazy. He could be just homicidal. Did you see the clip of him fantasizing about putting poison in Nancy Poloise's wine? The staff member on the other side of his desk was wearing a mask of her face. Kinda like a blow up doll you put your ex's face on. I'm sure that this was not the first time he has had these thoughts. The role play is too detailed for that. I couldn't watch the whole thing. It is sick. Sicker than anything I've read about on CB. He also fantasized about killing Michael Moore on his radio program, and expressed empathy towards a spree killer on his Fox show. Oh and Michael Moore is a fat pig who complains and complains but never gets off his fat ass to give ideas on how to fix the problems he claims about America. Maybe he needs to move to the North Pole. He won't have anything to bitch about there. At least Beck contributes proactive ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpuppy Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 It does make me sniffle a little when I know how Glenn Beck would respond to a major movement to change the Don't Ask/Don't Tell and anti-Trans policies in the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 He may not be crazy. He could be just homicidal. Did you see the clip of him fantasizing about putting poison in Nancy Poloise's wine? The staff member on the other side of his desk was wearing a mask of her face. Kinda like a blow up doll you put your ex's face on. I'm sure that this was not the first time he has had these thoughts. The role play is too detailed for that. I couldn't watch the whole thing. It is sick. Sicker than anything I've read about on CB. He also fantasized about killing Michael Moore on his radio program, and expressed empathy towards a spree killer on his Fox show. Oh and Michael Moore is a fat pig who complains and complains but never gets off his fat ass to give ideas on how to fix the problems he claims about America. Maybe he needs to move to the North Pole. He won't have anything to bitch about there. At least Beck contributes proactive ideas. Michael Moore is a narcissistic, hypocritical demagogue who is as ugly on the outside as he is on the inside. No argument there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonium Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Pundit Glenn Beck: Argh! I consider myself a progressive/moderate--read into that whatever you will--who thinks that cable and the internet has succeeded in totally polarizing society. There used to be a lot of people who would call themselves moderates or middle-of-the-road, now everyone seems to be either a flaming liberal or a screeching rightist. I can't take any of the pundits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Beck is a Bafoon who will say anything for ratings and doesn't care that his words might lead some far right crazies into killing people. He's a sociopath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SashaSue Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Beck contributes "proactive ideas"? Seriously? We're counting suggestions to kill assorted people as proactive ideas now? Killing frogs on air? That's completely fucking insane. Michael Moore is a filmmaker, not a politician. It's not really his job to proclaim solutions, just to document the problems. Though I think he's said he supports single payer, as far as health care goes. True, he's not a great beauty, but the relevance of that to his work or words escapes me. I can't really think of anything on which I disagree with Michael Moore, other than his having been a Nader supporter, once upon a time, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 Wow, this thread is evidence that I'm quite the little shit-disturber. I feel like a just shook up a bird cage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 Oh, and I'd like to throw out a few more points: -Beck didn't actually boil a frog. The fact that he pretended to is fucking weird in itself, though. I'm not a member of the guy's fan club, but lets be fair. -Moore's physical appearance doesn't have any bearing on whatever arguments he makes. But I just find it amusing how much his looks reflect his character. It's shockingly appropriate. The man embodies ignorance, stupidity, greed, and hypocrisy. Nice baseball cap, asshole--I guess that makes you a regular, blue-collar millionaire. -Christopher Hitchens rules! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpuppy Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I like chipotle flavored things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 *Sigh* I've been trying to be less disputatious lately. It has been mostly successful, eliciting some confused comments from friends when I've conceded points and reached compromises. But Michael Moore's new movie has been a setback for me...that Hutt brings out the worst in me. SashaSue, although we've disagreed on some points, I do recognize that you're an intelligent person, and your admiration of Moore surprises me somewhat. He's difficult for a thinking person to agree with because his points are so obfuscated. He refuses to refine his positions to the point of comprehensibility, because taking hard stances would be bad for his populistic business. I've seen him clumsily dodge point-blank questions about whether he is a "pacifist" or a "socialist," and his movies are loosely-connected anecdotes that at best don't cohere and at worst contradict each other. Kind of like you astutely pointed out that Beck is hard to counter because he makes so little sense. The only difference is that Moore is intentionally imprecise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspired_Neurosis Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 Sorry for spamming the thread, but I'd like to quickly and shamelessly plug Hitchens to my good friend mudpuppy. Forget Beck--Hitch is the man to follow. He's not only provided the most articulate and sound case for the intervention in Iraq that I have encountered, but he also supports your right to be a soldier. "Isn't it time to revive the demand that homosexuals be allowed to wear the uniform of the U.S. military? This was once the united cry not just of all gay organizations but of a wide liberal consensus that helped elect Bill Clinton. How can such a thing have been so vital and yet been so hastily dropped? Surely the slogan should be "Now More Than Ever"? Our enemies are torturing and butchering gays whenever and wherever they find them (as are some of the militias who claim to be our "friends"), and meanwhile the American establishment is not just denying gays the right to join but actually firing those who have joined. (I am thinking in particular of the Arabic and Persian translators, fired by a CIA that can barely read English, let alone any Middle Eastern language.) Which Republican will dare resist?" - Christopher Hitchens, Four projects for righteous anti-war types, Slate, June 26th, 2006. Okay, this passage is limited to homosexuals and I haven't heard him comment on transmen, but I'm sure from what I've read that he's on the right side. [Also--and I say this knowing that it's pedantic and most people won't care--he hardly ever abuses rhetoricals this clumsily.] Anyways...I'll shut up now. [Damn--I'd been doing so well being less argumentative.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SashaSue Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 *Sigh* I've been trying to be less disputatious lately. It has been mostly successful, eliciting some confused comments from friends when I've conceded points and reached compromises. But Michael Moore's new movie has been a setback for me...that Hutt brings out the worst in me. SashaSue, although we've disagreed on some points, I do recognize that you're an intelligent person, and your admiration of Moore surprises me somewhat. He's difficult for a thinking person to agree with because his points are so obfuscated. He refuses to refine his positions to the point of comprehensibility, because taking hard stances would be bad for his populistic business. I've seen him clumsily dodge point-blank questions about whether he is a "pacifist" or a "socialist," and his movies are loosely-connected anecdotes that at best don't cohere and at worst contradict each other. Kind of like you astutely pointed out that Beck is hard to counter because he makes so little sense. The only difference is that Moore is intentionally imprecise. I think Moore serves a purpose, a fairly simple one. Apparently you're expecting him to do or be something he just doesn't, and isn't. I don't really see how his points are obfuscated. Rather, he tends to hit you over the head with them. But he isn't trying to offer solutions to problems, just to dramatize and publicize them, which he does quite well. His points tend to be pretty broad, gun control is good, Bush is bad, our health care system sucks, and now untrammeled capitalism is evil. I haven't seen the newest yet, so I have no idea how much detail he goes into about the kind of regulation needed, but I'm guessing not all that much, which is fine with me, because that's not really his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The things he says no longer make enough sense for any parsing of truth to be possible. When it was, plenty of what he stated was false. You still haven't stated ONE damn falsehood...throwing names and accusations at one's enemies is always the last bastion of the weak and defeated. He said "In God We Trust" has been taken off of money but it's still there. I could prove it but that would involve linking to Charles Johnson and I know you don''t want to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recoverymouse Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 And none of you mentioned the fact that Fox is the #1 rated cable news network, trouncing all the other networks... Heh. Referring to Fox as a "news network" is like calling a public restroom a "Health Care Facility." Granted, Fox likes to pretend they do news instead of opinion... which makes them very, very popular in addition to being disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpuppy Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Okay IN, you've sold me on Hitchens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nalgas Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 And none of you mentioned the fact that Fox is the #1 rated cable news network, trouncing all the other networks... Heh. Referring to Fox as a "news network" is like calling a public restroom a "Health Care Facility." Granted, Fox likes to pretend they do news instead of opinion... which makes them very, very popular in addition to being disingenuous. Yeah, "news"... Between Fox News suing to defend its right to lie (and winning!) and CNN using Twitter as a primary source without even fact-checking it, cable "news" is a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recoverymouse Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Oh and Michael Moore is a fat pig who complains and complains but never gets off his fat ass to give ideas on how to fix the problems he claims about America. Fat pig? You gotta problem with fat people, Mika? Moore's movie Sicko was chock full of ideas about how to fix the broken health care system. Even though he is fat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zomby Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 glenn beck's logic and rhetoric are infantile. he sells outrage to impressionable stooges. his arguments consist mainly of feelings, slogans, and wacky opinions. his skits are silly and make little sense. its no wonder hes so popular. never underestimate the stupidity of the public at large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickler Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 I do wish conservatives would stop scaring my wife... She keeps making proclamations like " These people are DANGEROUS! " And buying ammo... We're poor, and ammo is not on my short shopping list... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.