Discussion: FOX News

[Schlosser85]

By being a non-partisan advocate of peace?

Glenn Beck, a non-partisan?

To borrow a page from your own book:

 

[Paradoxium]

Economists have said if Obama didn't do the stimulus package the recession could've gotten much worse.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...nomy-would-be-in-worse-shape-without-stimulus

And those clowns said the stimulus was necessary or else unemployment would hit 10%. That it would end in 2009. Ooops fails

What the hell do you expect. Dude is a full blown Keynesian, who uses Keynesian models that have little baring on reality. Who gives a damn if he supported by Republican and Democrat, both parties don't have credibility. They use the same approach with different paint colors.

The actual data from that same school of thought (not even an opposing one) contradicts itself. As mentioned several times, the GDP Spending Output was a below 1 multiplier. Or a negative. In other words, every stimulus dollar spent, you lost approximately 20 cents. When "in theory" it should be 1.4 (surplus) hence justification of government spending. Thus Obama's stimulus was losing money and economic capital. And it's government data, how sad is that?

Of course the logic of this school of thought is if you got everyone to dig a ****ing hole, and bury the hole again at $100 an hour you'd still "stimulate" the economy.

So every 1 million jobs the Government created, you destroyed 1.2 million jobs in the private sector. Nevermind if those government gigs are temporary, unsustainable and/or stupid.

 

[8wid]

Those same economists probably credit the New Deal with getting us out of the Depression. lol.



By being a non-partisan advocate of peace?



That's where Beck kills himself. But I understand why he associates himself with Palin. It's because he has no one else and Palin is the closest to the sort of politician he wants - someone who relates to the common man and isn't manipulated by the political machine.

Unfortunately Palin's also an idiot.

Beck needs to find a better politician.



Beck would agree.



It would have been. The Civil War was a Constitutional nightmare.

Well just imagine if the CSA was able to media its independence, that with set a legal president for states to willingly secede. So basically we'd look like Europe right now with competing factions instead of a single union.

At exactly what point did America lose its honor? When Obama was elected?

When we allowed the military-industrial complex in to influence our government so heavily. Which goes back to at least the War of 1812, people act like that's new to the Cold War and Vietnam.

And those clowns said the stimulus was necessary or else unemployment would hit 10%. That it would end in 2009. Ooops fails

What the hell do you expect. Dude is a full blown Keynesian, who uses Keynesian models that have little baring on reality. Who gives a damn if he supported by Republican and Democrat, both parties don't have credibility. They use the same approach with different paint colors.

The actual data from that same school of thought (not even an opposing one) contradicts itself. As mentioned several times, the GDP Spending Output was a below 1 multiplier. Or a negative. In other words, every stimulus dollar spent, you lost approximately 20 cents. When "in theory" it should be 1.4 (surplus) hence justification of government spending. Thus Obama's stimulus was losing money and economic capital. And it's government data, how sad is that?

Of course the logic of this school of thought is if you got everyone to dig a ****ing hole, and bury the hole again at $100 an hour you'd still "stimulate" the economy.

So every 1 million jobs the Government created, you destroyed 1.2 million jobs in the private sector. Nevermind if those government gigs are temporary, unsustainable and/or stupid.

But if you let those major financial lending firms collapse then they would have taken half the banks in the U.S. down with them and wiped out personal savings of millions more Americans, plus smaller businesses which would make them unsustainable and take millions of jobs at the same time. That stimulus money, as foolishly as it may have distributed really went to keep money in the pockets of Americans who would likely be in the street if not for it. Plus with no banks and lending then that essentially means the Great Depression all over again.

 

[Paradoxium]

But if you let those major financial lending firms collapse then they would have taken half the banks in the U.S. down with them and wiped out personal savings of millions more Americans, plus smaller businesses which would make them unsustainable and take millions of jobs at the same time. That stimulus money, as foolishly as it may have distributed really went to keep money in the pockets of Americans who would likely be in the street if not for it. Plus with no banks and lending then that essentially means the Great Depression all over again.

First, the bailout has **** all to do with the stimulus.

Second, the bailout didn't even accomplish its goal, which is to get banks to lend again to small business. Thus deflation numbers. If there was no bailout, it would be right now without the debt. Especially with the government hogging all the credit from small businesses "to stimulate" the economy with bad spending. Thus destroying more jobs and capitals at a very high rate, all in the name of saving jobs and capital of course.

Third, the bailout gave the big banks more money to buy out the smaller and more sound competition who could have otherwise replaced them. Further monopolizing the market with more harm.

Forth, the reason why they were collapsing to begin with, because they were unsound institutions full of fraud. They ballooned to unsustainable levels from government "regulation of interest rate" which people voted to continue. This is what we call malinvestments. You don't go on a diet by eating more junk food.

 

[8wid]

First, the bailout has **** all to do with the stimulus.

Second, the bailout didn't even accomplish its goal, which is to get banks to lend again to small business. Thus deflation numbers. If there was no bailout, it would be right now without the debt. Especially with the government hogging all the credit from small businesses "to stimulate" the economy with bad spending. Thus destroying more jobs and capitals at a very high rate, all in the name of saving jobs and capital of course.

Third, the bailout gave the big banks more money to buy out the smaller and more sound competition who could have otherwise replaced them. Further monopolizing the market with more harm.

Forth, the reason why they were collapsing to begin with, because they were unsound institutions full of fraud. They ballooned to unsustainable levels from government "regulation of interest rate" which people voted to continue. This is what we call malinvestments. You don't go on a diet by eating more junk food.

Indeed they were institutions filled with fraud, but they could not have grown to monopolize the market because that is illegal. But you miss my point, if they had failed and just been allowed to go under they would taken have the banks in the U.S. down with them because significant chunks of their financing is tied to these organizations and essentially eliminated more and more options for capital when competition is horrendously high. Entrepreneurs and smaller corporations you refer to that could replace them would not have the ability to get capital and financing necessary to replace them if they didn't have it already because this particular sect of the finance industry has such a huge influence over the rest. The ones who had them already bought out and merged with the companies were the ones who had the capital to do so already. Without any banks investing slows and criteria becomes harder to be selective, that already did happen on a much smaller level, but it could have nearly collapsed without the backing of major investment firms in the national markets.

 

[Grievous]

That's because you're anti-american.

Hey man watch what you say about people!

 

[Kelly]

That's because you're anti-american.

You might have been posting this with sarcasm, but I don't know....which is my point. People don't know if you are kidding or not...so don't post in this manner anymore when speaking directly to a poster or describing posters on this board.

You can debate both civilly and respectfully, I've seen you do it.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

When I say that blue states and red states should be seperate countries I meant that in a modern day context.

I think it would be interesting if all conservatives moved to red states and all progressives moved to blue states. What would the two Americas evolve into? I think the blue America would be closer to a futuristic Canada while the red America would be like one big Texas with a huge, anti-immigrant wall around it.

I'd bet right wing libertarians would leave in droves once the red America outlawed porn and blue America legalized weed.

 

[Carcharodon]

You might have been posting this with sarcasm, but I don't know....which is my point. People don't know if you are kidding or not...so don't post in this manner anymore when speaking directly to a poster or describing posters on this board.

You can debate both civilly and respectfully, I've seen you do it.

Holy ****, really? Are you bored or something? The level of over-moderating lately is approaching the ridiculous.

...apparently I'm a message-board conservative. Who knew?

 

[bell110]

You might have been posting this with sarcasm, but I don't know....which is my point. People don't know if you are kidding or not...so don't post in this manner anymore when speaking directly to a poster or describing posters on this board.

You can debate both civilly and respectfully, I've seen you do it.

Yeah, it was sarcasm.

 

[Kelly]

Yeah, it was sarcasm.

Hard to tell, on a message board.....but ok.

 

[CGHulk]

When I say that blue states and red states should be seperate countries I meant that in a modern day context.

I think it would be interesting if all conservatives moved to red states and all progressives moved to blue states. What would the two Americas evolve into? I think the blue America would be closer to a futuristic Canada while the red America would be like one big Texas with a huge, anti-immigrant wall around it.

I'd bet right wing libertarians would leave in droves once the red America outlawed porn and blue America legalized weed.

Porn in the USA: Conservatives Are Biggest Consumers
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=6977202&page=1

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users

 

[Superman]

Hard to tell, on a message board.....but ok.

Oh bull Kel, It was obviously sarcastic. I'm with Carcharodon on this one, That was a bit of over-moderating on that one.

Not saying you or Marx or any of the mods around here have been over-moderating lately, Just this time.

 

[Superman]

Well since it was a Fox funded thing I'll ask here. How did the Beck party go? I hear it went pretty good all things considered.

 

[StorminNorman]

Every time I go to defend you against those who would try to paint you as a right-wing crazy...you go and make a comment like this?

Glenn Beck is about as non-partisan as Keith Olbermann is. You honestly cannot believe some of the things you type on this forum. I tend to think you make comments like this to purposely stir the pot.

Glenn Beck is ideological, he isn't partisan. For Beck to be partisan, he would have to be in the a cheerleader for the GOP - instead he frequently bashes them. Olbermann isn't partisan either, he is also ideological. So is Bill O'Reilly. So is Maddow.

The best example of partisan is Sean Hannity.

There is nothing wrong with ideology - as long as you are consistent and genuine. Beck is both.

Well just imagine if the CSA was able to media its independence, that with set a legal president for states to willingly secede. So basically we'd look like Europe right now with competing factions instead of a single union

Unlikely. For one, it would be hard to blame states rights and not the unconstitutional growth of federal government for a hypothetical secession. And it wasn't limited to slavery. There were legit, non slavery issues that were apart of the larger umbrella of states rights.

 

[Shifty]

Well since it was a Fox funded thing I'll ask here. How did the Beck party go? I hear it went pretty good all things considered.

Depending on who you ask 87,000 to 96,000 or 500,000 people showed up.

 

[dnno1]

Glenn Beck is ideological, he isn't partisan. For Beck to be partisan, he would have to be in the a cheerleader for the GOP - instead he frequently bashes them. Olbermann isn't partisan either, he is also ideological. So is Bill O'Reilly. So is Maddow.

The best example of partisan is Sean Hannity.

There is nothing wrong with ideology - as long as you are consistent and genuine. Beck is both.



Unlikely. For one, it would be hard to blame states rights and not the unconstitutional growth of federal government for a hypothetical secession. And it wasn't limited to slavery. There were legit, non slavery issues that were apart of the larger umbrella of states rights.

Marx is absolutely right about you. You say that Glen Beck is non partisan, but yet he invited Sara Palin to his event. Even though the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King gave an address as well, she is a conservative activist, and don't get me started on Marcus Luttrell. If Beck is supposedly non partisan, why did he not invite any Democrats or Independants to come and speak? You are either very foolish, or an out and out appologist for the Republican Party.

 

[8wid]

Unlikely. For one, it would be hard to blame states rights and not the unconstitutional growth of federal government for a hypothetical secession. And it wasn't limited to slavery. There were legit, non slavery issues that were apart of the larger umbrella of states rights.

The motivation for secession is essentially irrelevant, the very act of the Federal government to allow and negotiate independence to states means that in order to be equal under the law, they would have to permit the same for any state seeking to do so. Which of meant that the Union would have disintegrated over time.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

Marx is absolutely right about you. You say that Glen Beck is non partisan, but yet he invited Sara Palin to his event. Even though the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King gave an address as well, she is a conservative activist, and don't get me started on Marcus Luttrell. If Beck is supposedly non partisan, why did he not invite any Democrats or Independants to come and speak? You are either very foolish, or an out and out appologist for the Republican Party.

Wasn't Michelle Bachmann there too? and If Normin wants I can provide him with hours of clips of Glenn railing on about the conspiracies that Obama and his people are up to. And if you go back and try to find the same kind of stuff on Bush good luck.

he can pretend to be non partisan all he wants. it's as believable as one of his conspiracy theories.

 

[redhawk23]

There is nothing wrong with ideology



.

There is when you want objective reporting*

*I fully understand the arguement that Glenn Beck has stated mutiple times that he is not a news man. However there are many that look to him as such. This excuse does not apply though to equally ideological "reporters" Keith Olberman and others from across the political spectrum.

 

[dnno1]

First, the bailout has **** all to do with the stimulus.

Second, the bailout didn't even accomplish its goal, which is to get banks to lend again to small business. Thus deflation numbers. If there was no bailout, it would be right now without the debt. Especially with the government hogging all the credit from small businesses "to stimulate" the economy with bad spending. Thus destroying more jobs and capitals at a very high rate, all in the name of saving jobs and capital of course.

Third, the bailout gave the big banks more money to buy out the smaller and more sound competition who could have otherwise replaced them. Further monopolizing the market with more harm.

Forth, the reason why they were collapsing to begin with, because they were unsound institutions full of fraud. They ballooned to unsustainable levels from government "regulation of interest rate" which people voted to continue. This is what we call malinvestments. You don't go on a diet by eating more junk food.

Let's not get it twisted, although our hope was to see banks lending again, the goal of the bailout bill was to to relieve certain banks of their troubled assets to keep them from going under (not to get banks to lend to small businesses). Even though I wanted to belive that banks were encouraged to by other failed banks, they were free to do so and it helped account holders from losing their assets. The reason why these banks were collapsing was because of the housing crisis, the fact that a lot of banks held mortgage backed securities, and that banks in an effort of self preservation ceased lending and the purchasing of assets. Another thing to note is that even though $700 billion was approved for the bailouts only half of it was spent. Furthermore, about a third of the $350 billion was paid back by the banks.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

There is nothing wrong with ideology - as long as you are consistent and genuine. Beck is both.

Nazis are both as well.

Unlikely. For one, it would be hard to blame states rights and not the unconstitutional growth of federal government for a hypothetical secession. And it wasn't limited to slavery. There were legit, non slavery issues that were apart of the larger umbrella of states rights.

What state right was so sacred it overrided the freedom of 3.5 million slaves?

The south seceded because of slavery. Not because of "umbrella of state rights".

 

[Kelly]

The south seceded because of slavery. Not because of "umbrella of state rights".

This site gives a really good explanation of the reasons, using Primary Sources, its really interesting...you go down the first page to documents, and it gives each states documentation to their reasons.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/south_secede/south_secede_menu.cfm


And for those in college and high school taking history classes, this site is one of the best.

 

[Marx]

...so how 'successful' was this 'nonpartisan' 'Restoring America' with Sarah Palin as the equally nonpartisan keynote speaker rally in DC?

All I've heard is that Glen Beck seemingly turned it into a 'spiritual revival' and no one seems to be wanting to release numbers...

 

[Kelly]

I'm not sure that you can quantify that...I mean, will policy come from it? who knows... Should policy come from it? That's a question that has to be answered by our representatives... is that even what it was about? I don't know...

They are waiting on the numbers they got from the aerial views. Apparently those are the most accurate or something, I don't know how the police do that, but it usually takes a couple of days. I have heard numbers that are around 100s of 1,000s up to 87,000 -- 500,000 and 1 number was 1 million (very doubtful, very, very doubtful)..... but I have no idea. They will probably put out the Fire Department and Police Department numbers, that's usually what they do.

I don't know that there is some kind of a conspiracy or something to keep the numbers under wraps, the pictures I've seen the crowd was freaking enormous, buts that is often misguiding unless you know what the hell you are looking at, and I don't know how they estimate that.

Also, he didn't turn it into that, he has never said it was anything but something based on "Spiritual Restoration Of America" he has stated that several times when talking about this.... before and after.