pBills Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I honestly think of poop. Like a big turdsicle, to be exact. What do you think of? I think of the dumb posts like yours on this site.
pBills Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Tens of millions of morons being easily duped by empty 'hope' and 'change' slogans who can't see their own ignorance and won't make a better decision next time -- unless by accident. Which is what it's like with the Tea Party right? hahaha
Rob's House Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Which is what it's like with the Tea Party right? hahaha I think of people who think they can get actual news from the Daily Show, think Keith Olberman is insightful, and are so emotionally and religiously tied to the beliefs of liberal Democrat politics that any logic and reason contrary to their prejudices is lost on them.
pBills Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I think of people who think they can get actual news from the Daily Show, think Keith Olberman is insightful, and are so emotionally and religiously tied to the beliefs of liberal Democrat politics that any logic and reason contrary to their prejudices is lost on them. Just like those on the right that believe everything that O'Reilly, Beck and FOX "News" puts out. Quite sad.
Rob's House Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Just like those on the right that believe everything that O'Reilly, Beck and FOX "News" puts out. Quite sad. You must be a realist Edit: O'Reilly is a half-ass fence post sitter, but Beck, whether you agree with his general world view or not, is an honest man who tells it like he sees it. Unlike that stiff robot Olberman who is either blatantly dishonest, too stupid to realize his lapse in logic, or simply counts on the willing stupidity of his viewers to pass his illogical "gotchas" over on.
....lybob Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 You must be a realist Edit: O'Reilly is a half-ass fence post sitter, but Beck, whether you agree with his general world view or not, is an honest man who tells it like he sees it. Unlike that stiff robot Olberman who is either blatantly dishonest, too stupid to realize his lapse in logic, or simply counts on the willing stupidity of his viewers to pass his illogical "gotchas" over on. I hope you're talking about Jeff Beck because Glenn Beck is performance art, a freak show, you watch it the same way you watch a train wreck.
Rob's House Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I hope you're talking about Jeff Beck because Glenn Beck is performance art, a freak show, you watch it the same way you watch a train wreck. You disappoint me Bob. I though you were better than that.
keepthefaith Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 One dimensional passive intellectual OR Terrible decision by majority of Americans to elect him
keepthefaith Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Just like those on the right that believe everything that O'Reilly, Beck and FOX "News" puts out. Quite sad. Obama now has a record on which he can be evaluated. You can look at the bills he's signed and the agenda that he's pushing and make a judgment. Not very rosey is it.
Rob's House Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowel...albraith_effect This pretty well sums it up
....lybob Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 You disappoint me Bob. I though you were better than that. Does Beck ever have a good argument ? yes does he usually destroy that argument with extreme, over the top, disorganized crazed rantings? Yes or at least from the 5 or 6 times I've watched him. I sometimes listen to larouche that guy can make sense for twenty minutes before he goes into an insane rant which seems to be about 18 and a half minutes longer than Glenn Beck.
Rob's House Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Does Beck ever have a good argument ? yes does he usually destroy that argument with extreme, over the top, disorganized crazed rantings? Yes or at least from the 5 or 6 times I've watched him. I sometimes listen to larouche that guy can make sense for twenty minutes before he goes into an insane rant which seems to be about 18 and a half minutes longer than Glenn Beck. I can understand where Beck's over the top approach can be off putting. He really is very good though. He reads a lot and cites history often. He also predicted this financial crisis long before anyone in the mainstream was talking about it. He gets a little emotional at times, but that's part of what makes him so good. His radio show is far better than the TV. You have to get a feel for who the guy is and where he's coming from to fully appreciate him.
pBills Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Obama now has a record on which he can be evaluated. You can look at the bills he's signed and the agenda that he's pushing and make a judgment. Not very rosey is it. Moving forward.
pBills Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I can understand where Beck's over the top approach can be off putting. He really is very good though. He reads a lot and cites history often. He also predicted this financial crisis long before anyone in the mainstream was talking about it. He gets a little emotional at times, but that's part of what makes him so good. His radio show is far better than the TV. You have to get a feel for who the guy is and where he's coming from to fully appreciate him. Dear lord.
drnykterstein Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 I can understand where Beck's over the top approach can be off putting. He really is very good though. He reads a lot and cites history often. He also predicted this financial crisis long before anyone in the mainstream was talking about it. He gets a little emotional at times, but that's part of what makes him so good. His radio show is far better than the TV. You have to get a feel for who the guy is and where he's coming from to fully appreciate him. True, he does. He is very very inaccurate when he cites history, and more often than not cites some sort of revised history that suites his purposes. But he does cite history, most history revisionists do.
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 True, he does. He is very very inaccurate when he cites history, and more often than not cites some sort of revised history that suites his purposes. But he does cite history, most history revisionists do. Are you ever going to level a criticism against anyone that doesn't apply doubly to yourself?
Recommended Posts