RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DomKen -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 11:18:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie

I am not seeing anything outrageous about saying it is not the time to be saying that Al Queda fighters are braver than US Pilots.

It was who said it, what his job was and where he said it from that made it outrageous but you already knew that. And since it was a misquote of Maher in the first place it was even more disgusting.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 11:48:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
~ Fast Reply ~
..... and a talking head is concerning?

Yes because it is a distraction and not really that important.
Surprised to see you admitting to this rule.

This coming from the source of posting this thread. I'd say it exposes the 'controversy' perfectly for what it is. As 'rule' stipulated to, a "distraction and not really that important" attempting to move focus away from the Administration's "accomplishments".

quote:

Because I am tired of seeing the same comments recycled on twenty different threads about health-care, the deficit, and Obama, and the stimulus.
Just like you did in your post above.  I've seen you post the same on I don't know how many different threads.
It's gotten to the point around here where we are discussing the same issues under different guises and saying the exact same things.

I'd agree that the Administration is tried of hearing them too. Probably why they permitted this to hit the headlines. I'd say it was a catalyst for the timing of the CIA investigation.

But hey - I'm one of those truly amazed at how, in such a short time, the Administration has polarized the nation. More amazing is how many in the media are being "blamed" for all the Administration's ills. They got him there in the first place. It appears, as these things usually go, once you have the responsibility, the campaign rhetoric rings hollow. More so, unfortunately for the President in his situation where any charge of "blame the Republicans!" doesn't stand up to the pragmatic numbers in Congress.

But hey - for something so meaningless to vast majority of the country who, like me, doesn't watch Beck or know who he is, it managed to waste a few minutes of focus and, so far, generated 4 pages of posts. The Administration's self proclaimed "achievements" only generated two - very telling.

Achievement 2 - Rhetoric 4


Sound familiar? Personally, I'm reminded of the campaign.



rulemylife -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 12:02:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


And why the hell do we have Czars in this nation?


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


And????????????




Didn't seem to bother you when Bush appointed them.

Yet one more instance of you doing the Chicken Little routine about Obama when Bush did the same.


Think Progress » Former Bush 'domestic policy czar' Karl Rove now ...

It is surprising that Rove finds the appointment of czars to be “a giant expansion of presidential power” because he actually served as the “domestic policy czar” in the Bush White House.

In fact, President Bush himself appointed numerous czars in order to deal with various public crises and controversies, including a “cybersecurity czar,” “regulatory czar,” “AIDS czar,” “bird-flu czar” and “Katrina czar.”

Moreover, Rove’s criticism of Obama is ironic, given his role in an administration that was marked by the expansion of executive power.


Bush administration names manufacturing Czar and Council


3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar' - washingtonpost.com
Unlike O'Sullivan, the new czar would report directly to Bush and to ...


Bush Trade Czar Courts Bipartisanship; Schwab Agenda Includes ...


Bush Signs Law Creating Copyright Czar


Czars in America!

Bush II continued with a Drug Czar and then added a Cybersecurity Czar in 2001, a Regulatory Czar in 2003 along with another AIDS Czar. Bush also added a Faith-based Czar.

In 2004, Bush appointed a Manufacturing Czar. Then in 2005, Bush added a Katrina Czar, a Bird Flu Czar, an Intelligence Czar, a Copyright Czar and finally a War Czar in 2007.

Also, with the disbursement of the TARP funds, Bush appointed a TARP Czar.
Twelve Czars without a word or a flap. Amazing how that was overlooked.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 12:18:45 PM)

quote:

Didn't seem to bother you when Bush appointed them.

Yet one more instance of you doing the Chicken Little routine about Obama when Bush did the same.

You do well to point this out. In case anyone forgets, it reminds us all of the similarities of these Administrations, political parties, and politicians in general.

"Czars", "Stimulus", "Bush III"

"CHANGE!"?[sm=dunno.gif]

Hope the lesson is sinking in and is remembered the next time you and anyone else has a chance to affect real change - voting out the incumbents.



rulemylife -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 12:28:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Surprised to see you admitting to this rule.

This coming from the source of posting this thread. I'd say it exposes the 'controversy' perfectly for what it is. As 'rule' stipulated to, a "distraction and not really that important" attempting to move focus away from the Administration's "accomplishments".


I wish I could say I was surprised to find you misinterpreting what I said.

No, Glenn Beck is not that important in the scheme of things, but I thought the topic was interesting and a way not to have the 2,343 discussion about "rewarding failure".

quote:


But hey - I'm one of those truly amazed at how, in such a short time, the Administration has polarized the nation.


Give me a break!

Like you or anyone of the other constant critics of this administration weren't beating the same drum long before he was elected.

Now you want to say he caused the polarization?

quote:


More amazing is how many in the media are being "blamed" for all the Administration's ills. They got him there in the first place.


Funny, I don't remember Glenn Beck wearing a "hope and change" t-shirt ever on his program.

quote:


It appears, as these things usually go, once you have the responsibility, the campaign rhetoric rings hollow. More so, unfortunately for the President in his situation where any charge of "blame the Republicans!" doesn't stand up to the pragmatic numbers in Congress.


The so-called pragmatic numbers don't stand up because by some stroke of magic the Republicans never, or at least rarely, vote outside party lines, while Democrats have to contend with a more diverse, fractious party.

I mean seriously, can you give me the liberal Republican equivalent to the conservative blue dog Democrats?

Because Republicans vote their party, not their conscience.

quote:



But hey - for something so meaningless to vast majority of the country who, like me, doesn't watch Beck or know who he is, it managed to waste a few minutes of focus and, so far, generated 4 pages of posts. The Administration's self proclaimed "achievements" only generated two - very telling.

Achievement 2 - Rhetoric 4


Sound familiar? Personally, I'm reminded of the campaign.


Yeah, it is telling.

It's telling me a lot of other people want to discuss some new topics instead of the same things that get rehashed on thread after thread, even if they don't meet your "level of importance" scale.





rulemylife -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 12:31:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Hope the lesson is sinking in and is remembered the next time you and anyone else has a chance to affect real change - voting out the incumbents.


And who are we going to vote in that will be any different?

Seems more a matter of the system than the individual politician, though when there is change we have people fighting it tooth and nail.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 1:03:38 PM)

quote:

And who are we going to vote in that will be any different?

You asked the question, so I hope you don't consider it a high-jack to answer it.

RML,
This is how I see it, granted, I don't know if it will actually work, but its the only method, short of a total revolution, for common citizens to take back the country.

If you vote against any incumbent regardless of party and keep doing it unless/until the focus of the elected officials isn't special interests and PACS maybe real change will occur.

Of course the fault of the idea is that some 'special interests' are yours, and my, "good" special interests. We've all been conned by our respective and selective brainwashing. Yet, as you point out, there is really no difference in the result. The reason is, politicians play to our weakness while running for office, and act on behalf of the PAC paymasters once they are in office. That won't change until we vote for 'NO', constantly and continually. The only way to vote 'no' is to vote against, as a block, those who; paid out the stimulus rewarding failures, funded million dollar executive bonus payouts, spend Billions buying goods from military suppliers which have to be used,

I honestly couldn't tell you if I voted for more Democrat or Republican candidates since 2004. I do know I haven't voted for one incumbent and don't plan on doing so for the foreseeable future.

It's a weak attempt I know, but as I see it, until I retire and give up to live somewhere else, its my way of making a statement.



subrob1967 -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 1:09:23 PM)

Backlash Against Boycott of Glenn Beck

quote:

The anti-Beck activists claim that more than 20 advertisers have dropped the Beck program. Hill and others on the pro-Beck side dispute say Color of Change has greatly exaggerated the effect of its boycott.

Many of the companies the organization lists now deny they have anything to do with the boycott. Newsmax contacted Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, SC Johnson, and Radio Shack, all of which said they have not directed Fox News to pull their ads from the Glenn Beck Program, as Color of Change has stated.

In fact, these companies’ representatives tell Newsmax that, as a matter of corporate policy, they never did advertise on the Glenn Beck Program and ask how they could boycott a program they never placed an ad on in the first place.

Another company, State Farm, tells Newsmax that its ad was never supposed to air on the Glenn Beck Program. State Farm has a longstanding company policy against advertising on any "political or opinion programming," its spokesman says.


Wow, the Color of Change spokesman is a fucking liar...Who would have thunk it?



DomKen -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 2:18:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Backlash Against Boycott of Glenn Beck

quote:

The anti-Beck activists claim that more than 20 advertisers have dropped the Beck program. Hill and others on the pro-Beck side dispute say Color of Change has greatly exaggerated the effect of its boycott.

Many of the companies the organization lists now deny they have anything to do with the boycott. Newsmax contacted Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, SC Johnson, and Radio Shack, all of which said they have not directed Fox News to pull their ads from the Glenn Beck Program, as Color of Change has stated.

In fact, these companies’ representatives tell Newsmax that, as a matter of corporate policy, they never did advertise on the Glenn Beck Program and ask how they could boycott a program they never placed an ad on in the first place.

Another company, State Farm, tells Newsmax that its ad was never supposed to air on the Glenn Beck Program. State Farm has a longstanding company policy against advertising on any "political or opinion programming," its spokesman says.


Wow, the Color of Change spokesman is a fucking liar...Who would have thunk it?

Who is the "fucking liar?"

From the very next paragraph in the very same story you linked to:
quote:

Having discovered the error, State Farm says, it will not be advertising on any cable talk show. And it is careful to emphasize it is not singling out Beck in this regard.

State Farm did advertise on Beck, as did P&G, Progressive, SC Johnson and Radio Shack. The companies may very well have had policy forbidding specifically buying time on such shows but their ads were airing during the show. Whether it is a case of the company lying about their policies or their ad agencies lying about what ad time they bought or the cable networks and cable distributors lying about when and on what channels they would show certain ads is a matter to be settled by those parties.



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 2:22:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Wow, the Color of Change spokesman is a fucking liar...Who would have thunk it?


Wow..you cite as a reliable news source an ultra right wing website that makes foxnews.com look like the socialist party daily by comparison. Who would have thunk it?



Sanity -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 2:53:49 PM)


These radicals are driving advertisers away from all opinion-oriented shows, which will hurt lefty talkers far more than those on the right because it's the lefty talkers whose shows are struggling. Beck is super popular, he'll always be alright. It's the Obermans and the Mathews and the Maddows whose shows have low ratings and therefore few advertisers, and they can't afford to lose what little advertising revenue they pull in.


quote:


While it's unclear what effect, if any, this will ultimately have on Fox and Beck, it is already making advertisers skittish about hawking their wares within the most opinionated cable TV shows.

The Clorox Co., a former Beck advertiser, now says that "we do not want to be associated with inflammatory speech used by either liberal or conservative talk show hosts." The maker of bleach and household cleaners said in a statement that it has decided not to advertise on political talk shows.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ii3vyOzlOv18doAhN9yKtjbjsDewD9A9A2600

It's funny in that way, but when you think it through, since they're trying to put a chill on free speech, really it isn't funny at all.



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 4:17:30 PM)

quote:

It's funny in that way, but when you think it through, since they're trying to put a chill on free speech, really it isn't funny at all.
ORIGINAL: Sanity




Sanity,

You should know better than that. There is no obligation for any company to pay for another's free speech. I would be very surprised if the Government DID try to pass a law stating that any commercial money had to go to support any sort of speech, you would be screaming about the takeover of the airwaves.

This is free speech at it's finest. Beck made a comment. Citizens responded to his comment and wrote to companies voicing their displeasure. The government stayed the hell out of it. That's free speech at it's best.



thornhappy -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 4:24:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


And why the hell do we have Czars in this nation?


Remember William Bennett?



rulemylife -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 4:52:17 PM)


Except you're basing this on the assumption that those who will replace the incumbents will somehow avoid being sucked into the same corruption.








Sanity -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 5:00:28 PM)


So, anything Bush did it's recomended Obama does times ten. [8D]

Joking aside, how many Czars does Obama have now?



Mercnbeth -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 5:22:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Except you're basing this on the assumption that those who will replace the incumbents will somehow avoid being sucked into the same corruption.


Not assuming that at all. In fact qualified that as not being the case by stating unless/until the public interest, and not special interest, is being served I'm continuing my financial and vote support of anyone NOT in office. Enough people doing the same for enough times and perhaps the message will get through.

Honest now RML, has the change in the political party affected any positive result in this country? The Republicans may be fixed 'nay-sayers' but are all the 'blue dogs' wrong? Their fear of not being elected is the only hurdle facing this Administration.

Regarding that hurdle, if there were any substance behind a predictable positive outcome - their election would be guaranteed! The reticence they're showing points to the unspoken reality that, as I've been suggesting for a long time, the only interest being served are 'special'. When that becomes obvious after the fact, the results are going to be dramatic and very detrimental to the few remaining freedoms we citizens have left to enjoy.

Selfishly, I want some success from this Administration because I don't want the right wing back and more powerful than it was during Reagan. Most of the personal stuff I enjoy, and assume you do as well, will potential be lost as a consequence of the tidal wave of voter disgust. There are only polarized viewpoints being represented. I dislike both, but can live with the far liberal end of the spectrum, remember you can't tax a corporation; however the stringent, right wing, fanaticism that will come in as a red wave if we continue down the current path, closes down events I enjoy like the SF Folsom Street Fair. A right wing conservative USA is a USA I don't want to experience.

The most troubling thing I saw in London and even Amsterdam, was how 'tame' it was. The reason given most often was that people were tired of the results of liberal politics and elected 'conservatives'. As a result just about every day I was in London I broke the law because of how I "abused" my wife. Were my computer taken, some of the pictures would qualify under the new "impossible to consent to abuse" laws and I'd be considered a criminal.

Maybe it's illogical, but I see voting 'no' as the only vote I have which can make a difference, and insure that doesn't happen here.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 5:27:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


So, anything Bush did it's recomended Obama does times ten. [8D]

Joking aside, how many Czars does Obama have now?


Sanity, the term "czar" is  just a figure of speech. They don't ride in sleighs and throw peasant children to the wolves. I'm almost positive of that.



Arpig -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 5:31:00 PM)

quote:

The point is that Obama can do absolutely no wrong in the eyes of his true believers, not matter how low or troubling. No amount of evidence could possibly convince them, there is nothing that can ever shake their faith.
And apparently he can do no good in the eyes of his detractors.



Sanity -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 6:05:58 PM)


Dissent IS the highest form of patriotism, you know.

I have that on very good authority. [;)]



mnottertail -> RE: Attack on Obama riles Glenn Beck's advertisers (8/25/2009 6:09:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Dissent IS the highest form of patriotism, you know.

I have that on very good authority. [;)]



Sanity.......I am [that] close to punking you off my friends list you know..That was not the hue and cry when Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses.........

Ron



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875