Glen Beck wars, Palin wars, Anarchy wars

[klamath]

They go in cycles, one goes up when the other goes down. It is starting to get quite humorous actually if you don't look at the threads themselves but just look at the titles.
Do the members here just love to be in the state of war? It seems to be human nature. Thank God they aren't in the same place with sticks and Guns!

[eOs]

I can speak for the Glenn Beck War. 2 factions

One faction sees what Glenn Beck is doing as a cause for liberty: promoting the constitution, the founding fathers, questioning everything, supporting 3rd parties, etc. etc. They see Glenn Beck as a mouthpiece for some of the things that they could only wish to speak to millions of people at a time. And while Glenn has some faults, like the drug war, some foreign policy,(but he seems to be coming around on that) the people in this faction realize it, see passed it, and are happy to see someone in the main stream media supporting some of the things we work so hard to support.

The other faction seems to dislike Beck very much, insulting him, bringing things up about his past, calling him a cry baby, etc, and some of these claims are in fact just. Glenn Beck has been pro Iraq war in the past, he has supported the drug war as well, and even likened RP supporters as terrorists. This faction will not stand by and agree with anything Beck says because of these very things. They probably have not watched Beck recently, and are basing all of their judgments of what they remember Beck as being like.

I understand both sides but I tend to sympathize more with the 1st faction. but here's my view on it...

Glenn Beck has a past no one would want to hug, not even his mother. He’s done and said some very irresponsible things such as untruthfully labeling supporters of political candidates as terrorists, fake crying on national television, and reiterating the same old tired Neoconservative talking points on foreign policy. Within the past 5 or 6 months or so, a very big change has occurred within his program, you could even say it started as soon an Mr. Obama took the presidency. The change was sudden, like an automation trigger effect. At first it wasn’t as noticeable, but as time progressed he became more and more vehemently opposed to Obama’s policies, and even shouting out reminding everyone how much he was against some of Bush’s. And now, at current time, an almost transformational shift has occurred in Beck’s attitude. He has started to question our foreign policy, rightfully so, the way in which we handle terrorism, the safety of our constitution, and Obama’s true motives. Somewhere between the switch of an agenda in a news agency, and now is where a lot of speculation on Beck’s true motives sprout. Is this part of the false left-right paradigm? Ratings? Or is Beck truly concerned for our country and the dangerous direction it is headed?

I am almost convinced the man really means well, and truly is concerned. The White House itself seems to be convinced as well, putting Anita Baker in charge of keeping Fox News and Glenn Beck in check and even White House press secretary Robert Gibbs jabs at specifically Fox in one conference. This is not to say Fox News doesn’t lie, or doesn’t have a right wing agenda. While I agree all the news agencies seem to have their own agenda, Glenn Beck himself seems the only one in the mainstream truly asking the tough questions, questions I have asked myself, like: Is the H1N1 vaccine safe to inject into your body, something all other MSM outlets failed to ask, but rather encouraged you to just take. Another is the community organizations(Acorn, SEIU, etc.) tied to Obama and the people in his administration affiliated with them. In fact, I would consider Beck one of the forerunners in getting Van Jones removed from the White House. The list goes on. As far as I’m concerned I will keep tuning in as long as Beck keeps asking the tough questions.

[Cowlesy]

They go in cycles, one goes up when the other goes down. It is starting to get quite humorous actually if you don't look at the threads themselves but just look at the titles.
Do the members here just love to be in the state of war? It seems to be human nature. Thank God they aren't in the same place with sticks and Guns!

You forgot about shoot-the-Mods wars

But yes you're absolutely correct. It goes in cycles. Someone drops a flame-out thread about X Topic, and the pack all need to have their say. Derivative threads of the original topic are then created because some feel that their important point (in their mind) is being lost in the discussion.

and round and round we go.

[jmdrake]

I can speak for the Glenn Beck War. 2 factions

One faction sees what Glenn Beck is doing as a cause for liberty: promoting the constitution, the founding fathers, questioning everything, supporting 3rd parties, etc. etc. They see Glenn Beck as a mouthpiece for some of the things that they could only wish to speak to millions of people at a time. And while Glenn has some faults, like the drug war, some foreign policy,(but he seems to be coming around on that) the people in this faction realize it, see passed it, and are happy to see someone in the main stream media supporting some of the things we work so hard to support.

The other faction seems to dislike Beck very much, insulting him, bringing things up about his past, calling him a cry baby, etc, and some of these claims are in fact just. Glenn Beck has been pro Iraq war in the past, he has supported the drug war as well, and even likened RP supporters as terrorists. This faction will not stand by and agree with anything Beck says because of these very things. They probably have not watched Beck recently, and are basing all of their judgments of what they remember Beck as being like.

I understand both sides but I tend to sympathize more with the 1st faction. but here's my view on it...

What about the faction that simply distrusts Beck and gets tired of all of the cheerleading? What ticks me off is people who say things like "All of the rest of you who don't worship Beck must be leftists and hate liberty etc blah blah." And unfortunately these same people seem to think any criticism of Palin must be somehow coming from the "evil liberal media". They don't want Palin held accountable for anything she said. At least Beck has changed his mind on some things. Some members of the "Let's embrace Beck and Palin" club are quick to attack anybody who says something nice of a Ron Paul friend that they don't like (*cough* Dennis Kucinich *cough*) so the "Let's not kick at people who agree with us a large percentage of the time" argument doesn't fly. (And no. I don't think Palin's agreement with Paul is any greater than Kucinich's agreement with Paul. They just agree in different areas.)

I don't hate Beck. He's helpful at some times. At other times he's hurtful. Sometimes he's helpful and hurtful at the same time.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

You forgot about shoot-the-Mods wars

But yes you're absolutely correct. It goes in cycles. Someone drops a flame-out thread about X Topic, and the pack all need to have their say. Derivative threads of the original topic are then created because some feel that their important point (in their mind) is being lost in the discussion.

and round and round we go.

Divide and conquer even works on those that know it's coming. Just when you thought you were awake!

time to wake up again

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I can speak for the Glenn Beck War. 2 factions

One faction sees what Glenn Beck is doing as a cause for liberty: promoting the constitution, the founding fathers, questioning everything, supporting 3rd parties, etc. etc. They see Glenn Beck as a mouthpiece for some of the things that they could only wish to speak to millions of people at a time. And while Glenn has some faults, like the drug war, some foreign policy,(but he seems to be coming around on that) the people in this faction realize it, see passed it, and are happy to see someone in the main stream media supporting some of the things we work so hard to support.

The other faction seems to dislike Beck very much, insulting him, bringing things up about his past, calling him a cry baby, etc, and some of these claims are in fact just. Glenn Beck has been pro Iraq war in the past, he has supported the drug war as well, and even likened RP supporters as terrorists. This faction will not stand by and agree with anything Beck says because of these very things. They probably have not watched Beck recently, and are basing all of their judgments of what they remember Beck as being like.

I understand both sides but I tend to sympathize more with the 1st faction. but here's my view on it...

Glenn Beck has a past no one would want to hug, not even his mother. He’s done and said some very irresponsible things such as untruthfully labeling supporters of political candidates as terrorists, fake crying on national television, and reiterating the same old tired Neoconservative talking points on foreign policy. Within the past 5 or 6 months or so, a very big change has occurred within his program, you could even say it started as soon an Mr. Obama took the presidency. The change was sudden, like an automation trigger effect. At first it wasn’t as noticeable, but as time progressed he became more and more vehemently opposed to Obama’s policies, and even shouting out reminding everyone how much he was against some of Bush’s. And now, at current time, an almost transformational shift has occurred in Beck’s attitude. He has started to question our foreign policy, rightfully so, the way in which we handle terrorism, the safety of our constitution, and Obama’s true motives. Somewhere between the switch of an agenda in a news agency, and now is where a lot of speculation on Beck’s true motives sprout. Is this part of the false left-right paradigm? Ratings? Or is Beck truly concerned for our country and the dangerous direction it is headed?

I am almost convinced the man really means well, and truly is concerned. The White House itself seems to be convinced as well, putting Anita Baker in charge of keeping Fox News and Glenn Beck in check and even White House press secretary Robert Gibbs jabs at specifically Fox in one conference. This is not to say Fox News doesn’t lie, or doesn’t have a right wing agenda. While I agree all the news agencies seem to have their own agenda, Glenn Beck himself seems the only one in the mainstream truly asking the tough questions, questions I have asked myself, like: Is the H1N1 vaccine safe to inject into your body, something all other MSM outlets failed to ask, but rather encouraged you to just take. Another is the community organizations(Acorn, SEIU, etc.) tied to Obama and the people in his administration affiliated with them. In fact, I would consider Beck one of the forerunners in getting Van Jones removed from the White House. The list goes on. As far as I’m concerned I will keep tuning in as long as Beck keeps asking the tough questions.

you should have taken a bat to you tv and radio 2 years ago

[eOs]

What about the faction that simply distrusts Beck and gets tired of all of the cheerleading? What ticks me off is people who say things like "All of the rest of you who don't worship Beck must be leftists and hate liberty etc blah blah." And unfortunately these same people seem to think any criticism of Palin must be somehow coming from the "evil liberal media". They don't want Palin held accountable for anything she said. At least Beck has changed his mind on some things. Some members of the "Let's embrace Beck and Palin" club are quick to attack anybody who says something nice of a Ron Paul friend that they don't like (*cough* Dennis Kucinich *cough*) so the "Let's not kick at people who agree with us a large percentage of the time" argument doesn't fly. (And no. I don't think Palin's agreement with Paul is any greater than Kucinich's agreement with Paul. They just agree in different areas.)

I don't hate Beck. He's helpful at some times. At other times he's hurtful. Sometimes he's helpful and hurtful at the same time.

Well yea, but I see a lot of blind anti-cheerleading just the same. Meh, I've covered what I think on this topic enough, I'm done with it =P

[georgiaboy]

just wait until election time comes around again. The 'I'm voting for x-candidate & why' wars are awesome.

[Aratus]

this onion piece trades on 20 years of jay leno quips, yet is shudderingly like the transition
from woodrow wilson's high idealism to warren g. harding's laid back ease and grace. is onion
correct in that our potus is about to quietly scale back his ambitions despite his campaign rhetoric? http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ly_scales_back enjoy! i still see sarah palin running in 2012...

[teacherone]

anarchy wars? impossible--because of the NAP, the PDfs and don't forget the ROUSs.

[Andrew-Austin]

Why would you use the word "wars"?

Its just $#@!ing debate. Exchanging ideas and opinions isn't war, its pretty twisted to equate the two.

You don't see the American troops showing up in the middle east asking "so do you want us in your country, why or why not? do you want us to meddle in your politics?" They just do it.

anarchy wars? impossible--because of the NAP, the PDfs and don't forget the ROUSs.

You are not that good at sarcasm.

[eOs]

you should have taken a bat to you tv and radio 2 years ago

Lol, you have the wrong idea of where I stand. I'm watching a tv show bro, I'm not hanging off his balls. I like some of the words he speaks, I'm not going to support a presidential run coming out of this guy. I like the constitutionality and founding fathers speak thats coming out of his show in recent times. You need to understand that. I don't look to this guy for my answers. It's like an unspoken rule here, if you watch Beck, or listen to something you are going to become a sheep, or you are a sheep, or I better bash my television in. Gimme a break.

[andrewh817]

Within the past 5 or 6 months or so, a very big change has occurred within his program, you could even say it started as soon an Mr. Obama took the presidency. The change was sudden, like an automation trigger effect. At first it wasn’t as noticeable, but as time progressed he became more and more vehemently opposed to Obama’s policies, and even shouting out reminding everyone how much he was against some of Bush’s. And now, at current time, an almost transformational shift has occurred in Beck’s attitude. He has started to question our foreign policy, rightfully so, the way in which we handle terrorism, the safety of our constitution, and Obama’s true motives. Somewhere between the switch of an agenda in a news agency, and now is where a lot of speculation on Beck’s true motives sprout. Is this part of the false left-right paradigm? Ratings? Or is Beck truly concerned for our country and the dangerous direction it is headed?

I am almost convinced the man really means well, and truly is concerned. The White House itself seems to be convinced as well, putting Anita Baker in charge of keeping Fox News and Glenn Beck in check and even White House press secretary Robert Gibbs jabs at specifically Fox in one conference. This is not to say Fox News doesn’t lie, or doesn’t have a right wing agenda. While I agree all the news agencies seem to have their own agenda, Glenn Beck himself seems the only one in the mainstream truly asking the tough questions, questions I have asked myself, like: Is the H1N1 vaccine safe to inject into your body, something all other MSM outlets failed to ask, but rather encouraged you to just take. Another is the community organizations(Acorn, SEIU, etc.) tied to Obama and the people in his administration affiliated with them. In fact, I would consider Beck one of the forerunners in getting Van Jones removed from the White House. The list goes on. As far as I’m concerned I will keep tuning in as long as Beck keeps asking the tough questions.

That's the suspicious part to me. I'm not saying that once a neo-con always one but to have his program change so drastically so fast waves a few flags to those of us who would rather listen to people with past and present credibility. Not to say I don't agree with him sometimes, it's just that identifying him with the liberty movement might not be the wisest choice.

[SelfTaught]

I like Glenn Beck for a lot of the issues he covers, yet cringe at some of the guests and opinions he has on certain issues. Overall, he talks about America's debt, the failing dollar, and THE CZARS. I'm especially appreciative that he exposes the CZARS. CZARS are the type of people that Americans should see as foreign and offensive. What the hell are CZARS doing in America? The more exposure we get on these CZARS, the better.

And I have to say, Glenn has had a lot of really good liberty loving guests on his shows. In fact, if it were not for Glenn, Tom Woods' book "Meltdown" probably would not have gotten as far up on the NYT bestseller list. Rand has gotten much needed exposure on Glenn's TV and radio show.

It is what it is. We don't have to agree with everything Glenn says. Of course not! I've read posts where people like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow said one good thing about Ron Paul, and people go nuts with praise and satisfactions, even though they're hardcore leftists.

And then people on this forum try to insinuate or flat-out call Glenn supporters fools, when in fact, they were fooled by the marxist/socialist freak Alan Grayson. I mean, talk about hypocrisy.

[teacherone]

You are not that good at sarcasm.

teach me master

[constituent]

You forgot about shoot-the-Mods wars

But yes you're absolutely correct. It goes in cycles. Someone drops a flame-out thread about X Topic, and the pack all need to have their say. Derivative threads of the original topic are then created because some feel that their important point (in their mind) is being lost in the discussion.

and round and round we go.

but it keeps 'em clickin'

[__27__]

Don't forget the "_______ is controlled opposition" wars. Every time someone in the public light says something positive about the liberty movement they are labeled as controlled opposition here (unless their last name is Paul or Schiff). It gets quite old.

[Bucjason]

Oh , and don't forget the Alex Jones Wars....

[klamath]

You forgot about shoot-the-Mods wars

But yes you're absolutely correct. It goes in cycles. Someone drops a flame-out thread about X Topic, and the pack all need to have their say. Derivative threads of the original topic are then created because some feel that their important point (in their mind) is being lost in the discussion.

and round and round we go.

The Mod wars are almost always the byproduct of the end of one of the other wars. Blowback for bombing raids
And Yes I call them wars because it is in humor.
I know full well what a real war is.