Do You Think Rush Limbaugh And Glenn Beck Are Dangerous?

[Veritas]

Me too, but even more than that, I fear big business, which controls and finances the government. This is why, for example, I oppose the recent Supreme Court decision about campaign finance, and have joined the Target boycott. My greatest fears, in that regard, are of all the folks in government with an (R) after their name, and about a third of those with a (D) after their name. There are others I believe have integrity and truly care about helping the people, but they are, I fear, a minority, and I don't know of one of them currently with the (R), although that has not been the case in the past.

I do not think everyone in government is bad. I do not think government, conceptually, is a bad thing.
I do think a government controlled by big business is bad for the people.

If we, the people, took back the government by working on a grass-roots level, restoring the government "of the people, by the people, for the people" envisioned by the founding fathers and invoked by Abraham Lincoln, the government would serve us, and would not be something to fear.

I know that that's what groups on both side are claiming to do, both Tea Party and Move On, but I do believe that the Tea Party folks are misguided, as I'm sure they think the Move On folks are misguided. The reason I think the Tea Party folks are misguided is because of the power that their policies would give to the richest Americans, and the way they continually blame the poor for their own poverty and are willing to deny them the basics like health care--and who benefits from all this?--no one but the rich. I see the standard of living falling as the rich get richer, and those opposing assistance for the poor, arguing against so-called entitlements and saying, "There's no bread? Let them eat cake," instead of recognizing that currently, the truly "entitled" are not the welfare recipients but the CEOs and CFOs that are running off with billions as stock markets crash and while they foreclose on the people who are working their lives away trying to make ends meet.

There's another side to all of this, though, a reason to sometimes fear the people as well. The people have their own self-interests which sometimes conflict, and sometimes, a large number of people want to deny minorities their rights. This matter was discussed at length by Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et.al., and is why, thankfully, we have a representative Constitutional government, and not a mob rule where 51% of the people have the right to oppress 49% of the people.

The reason I have greater fear of big business is that, especially now, in an electronic age which is very different from the age in which our founding fathers lived, they can buy public opinion with well trained specialists in advertising and deceive the people by creating mass ad campaigns, leading people down the wrong road, against their self-interests and into the interests of the richest 1% who control those ad campaigns, and who also buy off the politicians.

When big business owns the media, they can shout in big headlines, "WILLY HORTON" or "SWIFT BOAT" or "VICTORY MOSQUE," not because they care about Willy Horton or Mosques or because they believe that a war hero faked his medals, but because their brand of government will help them take away more billions of $, and they don't care who suffers, while the same newspapers whisper "President Obama brings the troops home from Iraq" because it's impossible to entirely hide the good some folks in government are doing.

Only through campaign reform, stringent regulation, and great work informing the public, can we reign in big business, restore our economy and restore a government of, by and for the people, and bring us a government which should fear the people, not a people that fear the government.

We have the power of the vote. It is they who should be fearing us.

We also need to restore the power of unions so that big business fears the employees, and cannot grant themselves huge, multi-billion $ bonuses from the workers toils, even while the worker loses house and home and health.

But, ultimately, on reflection about what I just wrote... I don't fear Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Saun Hannity.
I fear the folks who sign their paychecks.

Because I honestly, with all my heart, believe that everyone typing here on this forum should have health care, and a good paying job with good benefits and a good amount of vacation time... and the guys paying Beck and Limbaugh and O'Reilly... don't... and will use all the resources they can to trick and deceive people, saying, LOOK, OVER HERE, A VICTORY MOSQUE... LOOK, UNDER YOUR BED, IT'S A RED, and when we look back, we find out we don't have a job, or our environment has been destroyed, or we have a cancer cluster where a rich big business dumped chemicals, or we can't get healthcare for an illness we get.

Charlie

So Big Biz throwing their own money into politics scares you but Big Union doing the same with hardworking members dollars doesn't? Ironic when you consider that most corporate campaign donations supported Obama in 08 along WITH union money.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Ringo84:

“However, I'm not inclined to believe that Rachel has ever incited anyone to anything, as she strikes me more as a political junkie than a pundit. I'd be interested to see some proof.”

Ok.

In a secretly recorded interview conducted in the back rooms of the Air Americas studios (recorded there because the rooms were never used for anything else), Maddow plots to kill all Tea Party members and Harry Potter and take over his spot in the next movie (because she looks just like him) by mixing some evil concoction called “the Jack Rose”, which only a demonic witch would know how to mix. She then rallies her lesbian army around her and incites them to drink the evil concoction and then go out and eat the children of conservative republicans. Really.
　
YouTube - Rachel Maddow, Mixologist

So top that, Ringo!!

 

[XTE]

Beck and Limbaugh and their "followers" are about as dangerous and stupid as Maddow and Olbermann and their followers.

"I know you are but what am I."

This is always your packaged response Chaz...

It takes a strange breed to recognize a problem, and then say everyone is to blame rather than address the problem specifically.

I don't remember a guy shooting up a Conservative Church because a book told him to do so. I don't remember a father and son shooting up Police because of Olbermann or Maddow telling them the police state is coming. There are several other cases that clearly fit a deviant line of thought brought on by AM radio that just doesn't pass coming from MSNBC.

Personally, instead of your packaged response, why don't you give me similar circumstance for Olbermann and Maddow from the left, as we have clearly seen from the right.

Maybe I should post a certain manifesto from one of these brainless, deviant, wussy right-wingers?

 

[MariaRegina]

Mod hat on

Closing for staff review

Mod hat off

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On​

This thread has been cleaned up and reopened.
If your post has gone, it may have quoted or responded to a post found to be in violation.
Please avoid flaming other members in your posts.
Mod Hat Off​

 

[Hisbygrace]

MOD HAT ON
Thread has been reopened.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Gawron]

Bump because I want Ringo to see post number 142.

 

[Ringo84]

Bump because I want Ringo to see post number 142.

I just watched it, and that video is clear proof that Rachel is trying to indoctrinate all of us into becoming alcoholics!!!

In all seriousness, that seems like an interesting drink. I'll have to give it a try sometime.
Ringo

 

[Charlie V]

So Big Biz throwing their own money into politics scares you but Big Union doing the same with hardworking members dollars doesn't?

No, a group representing the common working man, does not scare me.

Big business being able to throw unlimited funds into a campaign is problematic, however.

 

[reverend B]

I fear the government more than its citizens.



Spoken as a man of God?

absolutely. mans law will never coincide with the intents of the one true God. we have concocted a constitution that must work for even our minorities, and that insists we stay out of the workings of the churches.

why is that hard to understand? why would you challenge my devotion to God because of a political position?

why does my position threaten you as a Christian?

 

[reverend B]

Bump because I want Ringo to see post number 142.

why? it shows rachel mixing a drink. what point do you think it makes? the only proof offered is the 100 proof she refers to. is this the point?

if this is all you have that is damning of rachel, then you have absolutely nothing, which was exactly ringo's point.

 

[jgarden]

36% of Republicans believe that President Obama was not born in America (22% aren't sure).

39% of Republicans think President Obama should be impeached.

31% of Republicans believe President Obama is Muslim.

63% of Republicans think President Obama is a socialist.

53% of Republicans believe that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama.

23% of Republicans think their state should secede from the United States.

31% of Republicans believe President Obama is a racist who hates white people.

24% of Republicans believe that President Obama wants the "terrorists" to win (33% aren't sure).

Poll: One-third of Republicans believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates white people | Cup o' Joel

Do You Think Rush Limbaugh And Glenn Beck Are Dangerous?

Under normal circumstances, Limbaugh and Beck could be dismissed as the "Horward Sterns" of American politics!

With the current lack of political leadership within the GOP and their daily access to the American public, Limbaugh and Beck have filled that "vacuum" and emerged as the self-appointed spokesmen of the American "right!"

The problem is that American "conservatives," as demonstrated in this forum, have always played "fast and loose" with the facts and have never been particularly good at discerning "fact" from "fiction!"

America has a long history of attempts to assassinate its leaders - given the current climate, if an attempt was ever made on President Obama's life (God forbid), I would not want to be in Rush Limbaugh's and Glenn Beck's "shoes!"

 

[Avaitor]

Do I think they are dangerous?

Glenn, No

Rush, Yes

Why? Because Rush yells more, and it's hurting my eardrums! (okay I don't listen to his show because he is always yelling, but to be fair, he is part deaf)

 

[BoltNut]

Sorry, I did not read every post in this thread. I did watch the Rachael Maddow video, though, and got a kick out of it. I don't agree with her very often, but still like to watch her show from time to time. I enjoy her point of view but don't necessarily agree. Does that make me some kind of political schizophrenic? I enjoy Rush from time to time also. Glenn Beck's radio show is okay, but he isn't really one that I'd go out of my way to watch or listen to. Bottom line is that I enjoy all points of view. Some I totally agree with, some I don't. I'm quite conservative but there have been occasions where I have to agree with someone like Maddow.

Why is it that most here think conservatives cannot support an independent thought? These "personalities" are paid big bucks to be controversial. That's their "thing". I consider that fact whenever I listen to any of them. Some here are so caught up in all the "fear-mongering" stuff that it's beginning to sound like they are the ones stirring up fear. Fear of anyone conservative. Come on, folks. Not every conservative is living in a trailer out in Alabama somewhere married to their cousin. They don't all wear white hoods and burn crosses. They don't all carry guns and belong to some kind of paramilitary group. But this is what you all seem to think. Beck and Limbaugh are basically people who entertain. They sometimes actually make a point or two that make sense. They also sometimes say something that sounds a bit over the top. People are capable of filtering out some of the absurd things. As Rush sometimes says, "I illustrate absurdity by being absurd."

 

[Kamrian]

Yes.

Glenn Beck more so then Limbaugh. He terrifies me. His overtones about "reclaiming America for God" and speaking about near-militancy against the government and the President really do frighten me.

Not for their political overtones, but for much different matters.

As people know, I am scared of social conservatives. In my opinion they want to turn back the clock on women's rights, religious freedoms, and tolerance. I do not want that to happen. Even though I'm not American, I am concerned that it could inspire a rise in social conservatism in Canada and the same thing could happen.


I respect social conservative's rights to be social conservatives, but I think I can be a bit scared of them.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by reverendB:

"if this is all you have that is damning of rachel, then you have absolutely nothing, which was exactly ringo's point."

You are kidding with this, right? This is a joke, your attempt at satire? Because if you were serious with that post, then you really, really, really, need to lighten up.

 

[Ringo84]

Gawron really was joking, revB.
Ringo

 

[rambot]

Why is it that most here think conservatives cannot support an independent thought? These "personalities" are paid big bucks to be controversial. That's their "thing". I consider that fact whenever I listen to any of them. Some here are so caught up in all the "fear-mongering" stuff that it's beginning to sound like they are the ones stirring up fear. Fear of anyone conservative. Come on, folks. Not every conservative is living in a trailer out in Alabama somewhere married to their cousin. They don't all wear white hoods and burn crosses. They don't all carry guns and belong to some kind of paramilitary group. But this is what you all seem to think. Beck and Limbaugh are basically people who entertain. They sometimes actually make a point or two that make sense. They also sometimes say something that sounds a bit over the top. People are capable of filtering out some of the absurd things. As Rush sometimes says, "I illustrate absurdity by being absurd."

The problem with Beck and Rush is, let's say they are right 1 time in a 100 (just hypothetical). The question is: Do you trust the average American to be able to distinguish that one time from the other 99? I would ask the same question about left wing radio shock jocks by the way (I just don't know any).
The way some conservatives on this website react to B&R's rantings, I have little hope for conservatives. But, Boltnut, for you, I will do what I can to remember that there are many conservatives out there who are not lost causes.

 

[BoltNut]

The problem with Beck and Rush is, let's say they are right 1 time in a 100 (just hypothetical). The question is: Do you trust the average American to be able to distinguish that one time from the other 99? I would ask the same question about left wing radio shock jocks by the way (I just don't know any).
The way some conservatives on this website react to B&R's rantings, I have little hope for conservatives. But, Boltnut, for you, I will do what I can to remember that there are many conservatives out there who are not lost causes.

1 in 100??? LOL

I think that most political talk show personalities are masters of having enough "truth" in their material to make them sound "legitimate". I know this is a badly put together sentence, but it seems that most of them put out a "true" statement and then elaborate on it. It's more in the "elaboration" where they become controversial. They'll take a statement made by someone and then infer things from it. They hypothesize and just put something out there for the audience to consider. Guys like Rush and Beck put themselves in a position of being controversial by making statements that draw "fire" from opposing viewpoints. If they didn't do this, their shows would be somewhat boring to even the most conservative in their audiences. Doing this also gives those like Rachael Maddow and others a lot of "material" for their own shows. Sort of like the old "Point - Counterpoint" shows. I sometimes think they need each other to keep fresh material coming in. In some ways that is a good thing. It gets people like us talking about issues, after all.

 

[BoltNut]

Glenn Beck more so then Limbaugh. He terrifies me. His overtones about "reclaiming America for God" and speaking about near-militancy against the government and the President really do frighten me.

Not for their political overtones, but for much different matters.

As people know, I am scared of social conservatives. In my opinion they want to turn back the clock on women's rights, religious freedoms, and tolerance. I do not want that to happen. Even though I'm not American, I am concerned that it could inspire a rise in social conservatism in Canada and the same thing could happen.


I respect social conservative's rights to be social conservatives, but I think I can be a bit scared of them.

Hey, we don't bite....

There is no reason to be scared of someone because to their political stance. In regard to social conservatives "turning back the clock", I think I understand your position but maybe your understanding of how a real conservative thinks might be a bit different than reality. Granted, there are some who only like to hear themselves talk, while saying very little that is constructive. In regard to women's rights, some would argue against abortion but don't want to turn the clock back to the days of womens suffrage. For the most part, infringing on religious freedoms is another issue where the thinking conservative must be watchful of where he treads. I'll admit that some of us have verbally walked into a minefield on this subject lately. Our desire is not so much to walk all over the First Amendment, but to avoid what we have seen happen in some other countries where in our zeal to be 'tolerant', we end up compromising some of our own rights for the benefit of a minority purely on religious grounds. We just don't want to end up having a legal system for one group and a varied legal system for another. I really hope this makes some kind of sense since it's a bit difficult to paraphrase this idea in a short statement. Regarding general "tolerance", I'd have to say that this means different things to different people. Some look at tolerance as a means of being flexible or open minded. Others, such as myself and other conservatives, don't necessarily see tolerance as bad, but we do see where some appear to be tolerant to the extreme. So much so that it presents a real concern for the well being and even the sovereignty of our nation. It's more a matter of degree.

I don't see how anyone can actually "turn back the clock". Many issues have become too ingrained even though there is still discussion and disagreement amongst liberals and conservatives. In my opinion abortion is one such issue. Philosophically, it is something that I believe is not "good". Realistically, it is an issue that has been decided and has become law. As much as some want to keep trying to abolish the practice, I just don't see it happening unless it creates a health risk or social breakdown of some kind. Obviously not too likely. Civil rights, Gay rights, Womens rights, etc. are most likely here to stay and for the majority of these rights, conservatives don't really have a problem with that. We may take issue with things like rights for Illegal Immigrants and that issue will be argued vehemently by conservatives. But just because we don't see things the same doesn't mean we don't consider what is being said during dialogue on the matter.

Conservatives may not agree with your point of view. Heck, some conservatives can't even agree with each other on some things. I imagine liberals are the same way at times.