Glenn Beck: Are you “In or Out”?
posted at 7:39 pm on August 28, 2009 by Allahpundit
The climax to his week of shows exposing Obama’s czars, which has seen him pulling O’Reilly-type ratings at 5 p.m. Don’t be surprised if he’s number one in all time slots tonight for this. I thought the big finale was going to be an announcement that he’s forming his own party — given the increasingly activist tone of the show and his penchant for addressing his audience as “America,” he clearly his grand aspirations — but he’s not there yet. Maybe if ObamaCare ends up passing? Dare to dream, Beckheads.
In the meantime, he’s starting small: The first clip has him ticking off five policy positions he wants viewers to confront their representatives with. If they don’t accede to them, they’re out next year. (Skip the first half of the clip; the “In or Out” bit doesn’t start until later.) The second clip is a summary of his czar coverage this week followed by a plea to viewers not to let leftist invective get them down — but never mind that. Skip ahead and watch the last two minutes, where he segues from a dramatic recitation of “Sticks and Stones” into the lyrics of “Revolution” off the White Album, a GB whiskey-tango-foxtrot moment if ever there was one. I appreciate the message, but I don’t think I’m ever going to groove on the delivery. Ah well. Different strokes…
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 Next »
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM
They’re repeating Beck right now.
kingsjester on August 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM
lol. Easily fooled and manipulated. I am sure Allahpundit is the only one here who can see threw this ridiculous moron.
Decider on August 29, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Ahem…
BTW, I didn’t know that Gingrich was speaker of the house when 9/11 happened. I’m talking (and Beck talked) about the fact that Bush declared a War on Terror and did nothing to secure our borders except make sure we board the plane bare-footed and without lighters and Swiss army knives. If you don’t wish to address the fact that Bush kowtowed to foreign corporations and foreign companies because you find it to be absurd shows you don’t know Beck. After all, Beck mentioned it in the same video where you said that he wants Bush impeached because of the NG on the boarder.
PS:
I live in a military town and I can tell you if the president asked for national guard to be stationed at our boarder, there would be an influx of volunteers.
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Decider on August 29, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Bwahahahaha! Before you call anyone a moron, You had better go back to school and learn how to spell. It’s through. Moron.
kingsjester on August 29, 2009 at 9:16 PM
I saw him last night in the wee hours of the morning – while cleaning my apt…
I don’t get what the big deal is. He wasn’t wild or anything. He said pretty much what I think…
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 9:16 PM
It’s the Rush Limbaugh program where they talk about the Diversity Czar.
kingsjester on August 29, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Oh, I didn’t see that one. I may have seen a clip.
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 9:19 PM
*Faced terror attack
*Declare War on Terror
*No secured borders
*Relying on a foreign company to provide security at ports.
And you wonder why Beck was ticked at Bush?
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 9:19 PM
You don’t have to be a Beck boy (or is that girl?). I just like to ruffle some crew cuts is all. And long hair to. ;-D
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Beck for President. : )
joshlbetts on August 29, 2009 at 9:24 PM
You forgot amnesty…
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 9:25 PM
At least I wouldn’t have to wonder if other people would vote third party with me ;)
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 9:25 PM
I’m all for it, if we can entice him to move here. He’s pretty devoted to his country, though. But he is a major Americaphile! :)
atheling on August 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM
I see more democrats & libertarians @ tea parties than GOP.
A third party would be the MAJORITY. Small platform req’d. Dissolve IRS, no social issues, fight corruption, states rights, national flat tax.
joshlbetts on August 29, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Easy peezy.
joshlbetts on August 29, 2009 at 9:31 PM
I have an outie.
To be serious re Beck: I haven’t had a TV since early 2002. So, the only things I’ve seen of Beck are little clips like this. When I read his statements, I agree with them. When I see his clips, I think this man is a performer, and a loopy one at that. When I used to listen to Rush daily (no radio either), I’d agree with him 99% of the time, but wouldn’t like his delivery about 5-10% of the time. I still have not gotten Beck’s. So, regarding the issues he had written up, yes, I’m in. But as to being in a Beck fan club: well, he is sort of funny looking and acting, I guess.
Loxodonta on August 29, 2009 at 9:38 PM
not THRU? thanks, I spell it wrong too
Red State State of Mind on August 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Red State State of Mind on August 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Yeah. I do that my self. But I never threw a door. Although, I have gone through or thru one.
kingsjester on August 29, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Constitution & Liberty before political party.
joshlbetts on August 29, 2009 at 9:54 PM
IN. COMPLETELY.
I love me some Beck.
BVM on August 29, 2009 at 9:54 PM
When I watch beck on TV, I get the impression that how he acts on TV is pretty close to his actual personality, and that is appealing to me, as it increases the probability that he is being honest about his opinions and feelings.
Red State State of Mind on August 29, 2009 at 9:59 PM
I don’t have any reason to believe Beck is just saying things for ratings. And I can imagine him being entertaining, and I do agree with his positions, at least those I’ve read. But I have trouble imagining him in Congress or the WH. That’s a bit scary.
Loxodonta on August 29, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Maybe. But I have a feeling that he’s a mentally high-maintenance kind of guy. You know, the kind who mood swings so much that it’s mentally draining to you. It takes a certain type of person to anchor a mentally high-maintenance person like that.
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 10:15 PM
A good mommy.
Loxodonta on August 29, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Well…his mom had issues.
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 10:28 PM
At least one.
Loxodonta on August 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM
IN
mobydutch on August 29, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Me too, but not for President…not even for office. I like his as a town crier, though. I like him a lot, but not as much as Rush, Andrew Wilkow, Hannity and David Frum.
(J/K…threw that last one in there to see if y’all were paying attention.)
Grace_is_sufficient on August 29, 2009 at 10:53 PM
You guys want to see something that will make your head explode?
http://www.yantis.us/sq.pdf
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 11:11 PM
If those San Quentin inmates had been really smart, they would have gotten drunk one night and driven a car of the Chappaquiddick Bridge…
Loxodonta on August 29, 2009 at 11:18 PM
We have government rationing in our prisons. If it costs to much to keep murders and rapists confined we recycle them back into society. You believe in recycling don’t you?
Geochelone on August 29, 2009 at 11:22 PM
mizflame:
Bush was the guy who first declared war on Terror.
Bush did more to secure the borders than any previous administration.
Bush did not rely on any foreign company to provide security at ports. That was not part of the deal, ever. The problem is most people went off half cocked on the DubaiPorts deal and ended up looking silly over it.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:22 PM
I don’t think you would ever get a majority to agree to any of those things. Except for the fight corruption, that they would like.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:24 PM
mizflame:
I never said Gingrich was the Speaker during 9/11. My point was a porous border is a long standing problem and went back to previous administrations and previous political leaders. Bush did not invent the problem.
And Bush did not kowtow to foreign corporations. Are you a socialist? Bush was as close to a free trader as we have had in the White House. Was he supposed to be a protectionist and an isolationist and cut us off from all business with foreign companies?
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM
I wonder, if Teddy was still alive, would he have eventually become the Chappaquiddick Czar? Does he still qualify for that title?
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM
It seems to me that you were complaining about Smoot Hawley and the whole point to Smoot Hawley was to put the screws to the foreigners, of course it hurt American workers the most.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:30 PM
OUT: Elderly “who don’t contribute to society”
IN: Prisoners “who have so much to offer society”
PrincipledPilgrim on August 29, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Becks insanity is contagious. I feel like a Viking berserker ready to storm the shores of Hell.
Washington DC on 9/12 Baby.
Geochelone on August 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Dubai Ports was only going to lease port terminals as part of the deal made with the British company they were purchasing. They were never going to take control of any security at any American ports. They had a very good record of securing their cargo at previous ports of departure and did not have a history of dealing with any terrorists. The idea that Bush would turn American ports over to terrorists is just ridiculous and the truth is foreigners, British foreigners had been doing the job for years before Bush ever came along.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM
The Cape Cod Orca has gone from the endangered species list to complete extinction.
Geochelone on August 29, 2009 at 11:34 PM
mizflame:
You said:
Bush did ask for the Guard, the Governors agreed to his plan. The Governors have to agree, because they have a say in where the Guard goes.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Sigh…
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 11:41 PM
I”m talking about civilians signing up for NG if that would be their exclusive duty and not that temporary stint Bush had for them.
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 11:43 PM
mizflame:
How old are you?
”m talking about civilians signing up for NG if that would be their exclusive duty and not that temporary stint Bush had for them.
This is not how the Guard works, it never worked this way. You can not sign up to the Guard and just pick and choose what you get to do. That is just crazy.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:48 PM
And do not sigh because I brought up your obvious inconsistency when it comes to foreign trade. The whole point to the Dubai deal was that a British company named Peninsular and Oriental was selling its business to Dubai Ports, and leasing those American port terminals were part of that business and had been for years.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:50 PM
I’m old enough to know how the military works and too old to have you talk to me as if I don’t know this. I’m wondering your IQ right now because surely you must remember the influx of military recruitment right after 9/11. I bet you dollars for doughnuts that not all of those recruits wound up in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden.
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 11:51 PM
And I know what Smoot Hawley was, I actually read a frigging book by just recently about the Great Depression by someone named Amity Shlaes, the book was entitled The Forgotten Man. It was not a proNew Deal book and Democrats as a general rule hate it.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Hey, someone has to guard Germany from Poland /s
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I’m sihing because you are mixing Smoot-Hawley and the affects it had on the Great Depression with the Dubai Ports and our security after 9/11. Apples and Oranges my dear.
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM
LMAO!
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM
mizflame:
Well of course they did not all end up in Afghanistan, who said they did?
But when they joined the military after 9/11, they joined to serve their country. The military decides what that means.
The idea that Bush could have told the National Guard to sign up a bunch of people just to set on the border and nothing else, is ridiculous.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:54 PM
I’m working on FDR’s Folly myself. Forgotten Man is on standby.
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 11:55 PM
mizlfames:
I am sighing because you are complaining that Bush did business with foreigners and all that stuff while totally ignoring the point that the whole reason behind the idiots in Congress passing the Smoot Hawley bill was that they claimed they wanted to protect the American people from avaricious foreigners. It was protectionism.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Forgotten Man is a good book. Very interesting. You can get it on audio as well if you have a long commute.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:58 PM
And it was not apples and oranges.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 11:58 PM
You do realize that you are talking to someone with prior service and thus knows how it all works. Right? It’s not what the President says that motivates them, but the idea that they are serving a noble cause. One that makes sense. Recruitment went up after 9/11. It went down after we went to Iraq. If the president put out that he would have the military on the border 24-7, we would have had an influx of recruits. We would probably be real heavy with NG because there would be many recruits that would want to serve their state and not go overseas. If they thought they had that chance, they would sign up with that in mind and the recruiters would not stop them from thinking that they will get what they want. I know how the game is played.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Way ahead of you. I’m listening to FDR’s Folly first.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 12:01 AM
mizflames:
George Bush did ask for the Guard to go to the border, he made a plan and ask the Governors to call along with it. They said yes. Bush never backed away from that plan. The Governors got a little tired of it, the Border Patrol brought more people on after a period of hiring and training and began to complain some about it, but it was Bush’s idea to send them there.
Now if the idea is that people will join up if they know the Guard is going to be on the border, then they already should have done that.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM
It is apples and oranges because Smoot Hawley is protectionism based on the financial health of a nation. Not having a UAE company in charge of our ports makes common sense when we are at war in the same region of the world where the company originates. Even more so when our intelligence of said area and our ability to infiltrate these enemy cells are quite weak.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM
And the military always met their recruitment goals in recent years, even after the war in Iraq began.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:07 AM
mizflames:
They were not going to be in charge of our ports. They were leasing terminals and all of the security was going to remain in the hands of the local and federal authorities. They were buying a British firm which already had the contract. There has been no record at all of Dubai Ports being anything other than reputable. The guy running the operations at that time was a retired Naval officer. This was protectionism and hysteria as well.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:11 AM
It was a temporary stint and he requested this almost 5 years after we were attacked. By then recruitment was down and many people felt that Bush didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing over in the Middle East. This was before the Surge mind you and let’s face it. No one wanted to stick their necks our for Rumsfield’s plans.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 12:14 AM
I never said they didn’t meet their recruitment goals. They just met their minimum. They wanted more troops. If we had more troops then we wouldn’t have soldiers on their 4th and 5th tour in Iraq.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM
mizflame:
Five years after we were attacked? Oh come on. What about the Governors? Did they take it upon themselves to deploy their NG units?
We have almost 22,000 miles of border, if you actually consider all of our coast line and the Canadian border as well. In fact it would be just as easy to walk in from Canada, easier in fact.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:17 AM
mizflames:
The truth is the military as met its recruitment goals because they do not want a huge standing army. They did not set higher goals because they do not want a huge standing army. It has been many years since we had huge numbers in the military.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:19 AM
That may be, but it’s also a CYA moment on the administration that was lost. Kind of like how the detainees were handled. First off, I consider water boarding to be something used during frat initiations (only they would use beer instead) The fact is, Bush could have saved an awful lot of headaches et al. if he stated that we would use the Geneva Convention and treat Gitmo as a POW camp. We wouldn’t have to worry about military tribunals and we can hold these dudes until the end of the war (whenever that would be)
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Oh man, I wish I can go. I’ll just be there in spirit. And I agree about the Berserker thang! :)
atheling on August 30, 2009 at 12:21 AM
As far as how many tours they have done, we had huge armies in WW2, millions of men in uniform and yet how many of those men were deployed for years without seeing their families?
No one has to do that anymore. Not like those guys did.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:22 AM
That’s a farce and you know it. They were not turning people away because they didn’t want a large army during wartime. They couldn’t get the recruits. Congressmen don’t float the idea of reinstating the draft just because they wish to keep troop levels low.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 12:23 AM
mizflames:
If Bush had done that, there might be thousands of more dead Americans because these men gave up information. And they are not POWs. No one ever considered them that because they do not fit the legal definition of the word. That is not what they are.
And there was no CYA moment re Dubai, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Shumer made an issue of that knowing full well that there would be people on the right who would jump on it..the idea was to hurt Bush. But the truth is the Brits were selling the company and there was not much Bush could do about that. Someone was going to buy it.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:26 AM
mizflames:
It is not a farce. They have changed the military from the days when I was young. I knew young men then who joined up who probably could not even get in the service today.
They are not as reliant on big armies. You could argue that they should be, but long before Bush came along the military was changing. They wanted smaller numbers and more technology.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:28 AM
It’s funny (in a sling blade kind of way) that everyone is so concerned about what Bush did while ingesting hard leftist sausage from the wrong end.
AES on August 30, 2009 at 12:29 AM
A little O/T but not much really….
Guess who tried to call my hom yesterday….Global Solutions!…..not sure what they want yet…..
gee, I wonder how they got my home phone number?
Vntnrse on August 30, 2009 at 12:30 AM
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_introduced_the_tour_of_duty_in_vietnam
We learned from WWII what it does to a soldier to keep them on the battlefield continuously. To use WWII as an excuse for the piss poor way our troops were handled during this war is not a valid argument.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 12:32 AM
mizflame:
I am not using anything as an excuse. I am saying that even when we did have huge armies of men, they did longer deployments away from their families.
It was a different world. They could not fly commercial airlines home, they could not connect via the internet. They were dependent on mail from home for communications. But there were a lot more of them. That still did not mean they got to come home.
Even our navy is smaller today, we do not have as many ships as we used to have.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:35 AM
And I don’t get what your point is anyway. Are you saying that if we did not go to Iraq, but just sent everyone to the southwest US and let them sit on the border then all of a sudden we would have this huge vast army of men knocking down the recruiter’s doors?
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:37 AM
look. I’m heading to bed. Bush was a pin head with regards to our boarder security. Obama is just downright scary because of what he’s doing by going after the CIA as well as having a Green Jobs Czar (oops! I mean Green Jobs Dictator. I’m going back to the old title) acting as a headhunter in San Quentin. Bush screwed with our civil liberties and I went along with it (like a fool) because there was a war going on and I had nothing to hide. Obama is just building on the foundation that Bush left for him. We wouldn’t have as much to fear if it wasn’t for our complacency of some of the things Bush did.
Good night.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 12:37 AM
We can pick this up where we left off tomorrow if you wish.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Bush screwed with our civil liberties and I went along with it (like a fool) because there was a war going on and I had nothing to hide.
Name one civil liberty you have lost.
Just one.
And as for Bush being a pin head in regards to border security, well there was more security on the border when he left office than there was when he got there. Name one other president you can say that about.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM
So does Beck want to get rid of the Patriot Act?
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:41 AM
And besides that why complain about what Obama is doing with the CIA if you think Bush was missing with your civil liberties and if you think water boarding was such a bad idea?
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 12:42 AM
I didn’t say water boarding was a bad idea. I’ve seen worse on college campuses.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 12:48 AM
The sheer girth and breadth of this thread is astounding, I tell you. Astounding.
Mommypundit on August 30, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Definitely worth discussing!!!
Upstater85 on August 30, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Uh…You might want to ask him. I’m not his spokesperson after all. But I have a feeling that he wouldn’t cry (more than normal) if it disappeared.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 1:03 AM
I’ve definitely gotten the impression he wouldn’t mind revisiting it…
Upstater85 on August 30, 2009 at 1:04 AM
I think border security is important for a lot of reasons, but the truth is if there had been a Patriot Act before 9/11.2001, there might well not have been a 9/11 attack.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 1:09 AM
I think border security is important for a lot of reasons, but the truth is if there had been a Patriot Act before 9/11.2001, there might well not have been a 9/11 attack.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 1:10 AM
I have no idea why that double posted.
I hate insomnia.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 1:12 AM
I’m going to bed. I mean it this time!!!
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 1:15 AM
mizflame:
You said we should have called them POWs and used the Geneva Conventions as our guide. In that case all we can ask them for is name, rank and serial number…no water boarding.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 1:15 AM
I am going to bed too. That way no one has to worry about who gets the last word.
Good night.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 1:16 AM
No one can keep a secret any more. The whole idea is to let the CIA do their job and as Sgt. Schultz once said, “I see nothing” Just a suggestion.
mizflame98 on August 30, 2009 at 1:17 AM
If you want astounding girth and breadth, why would you be following Madison?
Loxodonta on August 30, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Yeah, but the whole idea behind the POW thing, is that you have to use the Army Field Manual..which they pretty much do now anyway.
Like I said, good night. Bye bye.
Terrye on August 30, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Good question. I’m not nearly as much of an overweight doppelganger of Chris Farley as you.
MadisonConservative on August 30, 2009 at 2:49 AM
I’m in, but then again, I’ve been in for 30 years, 12 on the Internet.
Connie on August 30, 2009 at 2:53 AM
Beck’s show from Wednesday where he interviewed Rush, in full. Change the day (‘beckfriday,’ ‘beckmonday,’ etc) to get the rest if you’re interested. I’d heartily recommend it – and if you’ve got a ripper program, using it, so as not to lose these videos should the link need to disappear.
Blacksmith on August 30, 2009 at 2:55 AM
I remember, btw, when AP posted his first GB thread asking if there was something a little off about Beck. I find Beck refreshingly honest and something a little off about AP.
Connie on August 30, 2009 at 2:56 AM
Olympia snowe
this is off topic but it has to be posted here. She is going to cave and side with the libs on healthcare. Burn her phones at her offices. Pick a zip code or a town in Maine, call her office saying you represent a group of seniors and let her know she’s out if she votes with the libs. Better yet, take a page out of alinskys rules for radicals and say your moderate democrats against the bill. Stop her now before she caves! Call now!!
texaninfidel on August 30, 2009 at 3:31 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 Next »