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 … 7 8 9 10 11 Next »
Ummm…sure. Start a discussion on drug legalization and see what happens. Have a discussion on abortion or gay marriage. Have a discussion on gun regulation, and how much is “reasonable”.
You’ve been here long enough to know better.
MadisonConservative on August 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Anyone who doesn’t “see” Palin as a populist ain’t lookin’.
Being a populist politician is much more difficult than being a populist spokesman, because both major parties adopt and ‘co-opt’ populist ideas.
Palin’s problems with the Republican Party are precisely because she IS by far the most prominent populist politician in the USA. That’s also why the Dems and Libtards go nuts at the mention of her name.
Janos Hunyadi on August 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM
My husband makes sure of that ALL the time!
You are a bad man. Play nice and be seeing your for that lung…
HornetSting on August 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM
While she is speaking in ways about health care that people like, why is she consistently scoring favorability ratings even lower than King Bama?
MadisonConservative on August 29, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Yes, because conservatives always walk lock step, don’t they Madison. Or, wait isn’t that your whole assertion regarding liking Palin and Beck?
doriangrey on August 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM
You keep losing me. My assertion is that like or dislike of Beck or Palin doesn’t prove conservatism, something which many people here dispute. You just asserted that some conservatives are libertarian, and that all libertarians are conservative. That’s fallacious, because mainstream conservative positions on some social issues are not aligned with libertarian positions. Therefore, it’s impossible to say that all libertarians are conservative.
Man…basing someone’s conservatism on their positions rather than on their support of individuals. Remember those good ol’ days?
MadisonConservative on August 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Dunno; you dunno; nobody knows these things.
Being a populist has nothing to do with favorable ratings in polls. Populists are often unpopular–either at first, or throughout their careers. Sometimes they’re nuts, a la, Perot.
There is an emotional, some would say inherently irrational element to populism. Some variants of populism attract some very ‘variant’ people. Extreme versions of populism include the oxymoron ‘national socialism’; Mussolini was the editor of the Socialist Party newspaper in Italy before he grafted nationalism onto his Red beliefs
Also, populism is difficult to define clearly and this makes it easy to mis-characterize and defame–a la Palin
Janos Hunyadi on August 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I tell you folks………….I’ve listened to these videos a dozen times………….this guy is simply killing The Messiah……….at the same time he is making all sorts of sense to the average Joe Blow America like me and my kids…
Cinday Blackburn on August 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM
.
populism, undiluted…………
gee, which politician does anyone think has the greatest appeal these days to Joe Blow America?
a former governor of a state starting with “A” who’s name ain’t Huckabee ???
Janos Hunyadi on August 29, 2009 at 3:03 PM
No, it’s not. It’s your interpretation that’s fallacious. Mainstream Conservative issue bla bla bla, Mainstream Conservationism has shifted left into liberal land.
doriangrey on August 29, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Conservatism?
If you’re now not just aligning the Republican party as being shifted left, which I arguably agree with, but also claiming conservatism is becoming liberal, we’re not going to go any further by talking. That’s, again, a fallacy. Conservatism and liberalism are opposites. To say one is becoming the other is a paradox. The only explanation I can come up with for your perspective is that you’re a paleocon lamenting neocons.
MadisonConservative on August 29, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Been IN a long time.
Forget haircuts and “delivery” and the whole image thing. Too late for that. I think of Beck as a “Paul Revere” and I don’t care what he calls his horse.
Emmitt on August 29, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Populism has everything to do with polls, ratings, etc. Populism means that whatever message you are delivering is well received by a lot of people. Hence, O’Reilly and Beck are populists. They are bringing in the crowds. They get the ratings. Palin is getting attention, but pretty much from within conservatives. Beck and O’Reilly draw moderates as well. Hence, populism.
MadisonConservative on August 29, 2009 at 3:23 PM
No, I’m just some dude in CoCal who thinks the Founding Father’s got it right, and they were closer to being Libertarians then modern Neocons. I’m not lamenting anything, just pointing out the facts.
doriangrey on August 29, 2009 at 3:28 PM
doriangrey on August 29, 2009 at 3:29 PM
I was about to post something to this thread a couple hours ago but you fine people got trumped by the urgent need of my dog’s bladder so it had to wait. Now I come back and notice the conversation has changed alittle…right into the direction I wanted to see it go.
I think everyone is getting tired of the labels and the pigeon holing. I don’t think Joe Sixpack gives a rats butt about what party someone belongs so long as they will just keep their paws out of his and his family’s lives. I think that’s why Beck gets so much traffic from the middle because he is an equal opportunity basher when it comes to political parties. Beck attacks ideas and philosophies and demands explanations for behavior. THAT, my friends, is what we should be about. I don’t give a damn what party these people attend or belong too. If they can some how manage to push themselves away from the lobbyist trough long enough to realize that they might be standing on the Constitution they swore to defend then their might be hope for them.
Another thing that surprises me particularly among long time political junkies is the minimalizing of anyone who happens to mention the Constitution. It’s like they view the Constitution in the same light as they might view someone who said they are abstaining from sex until marriage. A crooked little grin spreads across their face, a shrug of the shoulders, and an “isn’t that quaint” kind of phrase escaping their piehole.
Folks, we gotta get away from that kind of thinking. As long as we cling to political parties as if they are all there is and treat our longest standing ideas and institutions as if they are items from a bygone era then we are doomed to effect any real change in DC or our state and local governments.
Pilgrim on August 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Your definition of populism is incorrect.
Janos Hunyadi on August 29, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Beck is on at 2:00 here in California. It is the perfect time for us stay at home moms. We may be helping to drive the ratings.
Rose on August 29, 2009 at 4:08 PM
STAND UP AMERICA…I’M IN!!!
Hate America liberals are becoming absolutely UNHINGED that we dare expose…the joker.
Scorp3j on August 29, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Beck wanted to impeach George Bush? Well, screw him then.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM
I wasn’t going to watch, but 800 comments?!
Okay, I watched it. Conclusion: Beck is one of the most annoying people to ever flap his lips for a camera….and he’s right. In.
ElectricPhase on August 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM
In or Out?
Almost any politician out there would say IN, themselves. There is nothing here that most politicians would say no to.
After all, if we are supposed to ignore the R and the D, then Reagan deserved to be impeached the same as Bush, right?
And we can not look at that R behind his name either, he raised taxes, he grew government, he signed an amnesty bill and the Ronald Reagan I remember did not build walls on our border or anywhere else.
There is nothing wrong with Beck’s list, as far as it goes, I would say in as well.
If he starts a third party, I don’t think I would be interested however.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Actions, not words please.
ElectricPhase on August 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM
I find it helpful to do something while watching his show… like do dishes or something. That way you can get the message but you don’t have to listen to all of the snarking… ;)
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM
ElectricPhase:
Yes, I get that. That is why I said, does Reagan deserve to be impeached according to Beck’s rules, should he have been in or out?
After all, he did not balance a budget, in fact there were deficits when he was in office. The government grew, it did not shrink..the border, all 22,000 miles of it {if you include all the border} was certainly not closed. And as Beck has instructed us we are to ignore that pesky R behind his name.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM
But then again, any politician is going to say yes to domestic power and things like that. Bush said yes, and the almost every initiative got tied up in the courts. So do we blame Bush for the environmentalists and their overuse of the court systems to stop domestic energy production?
Point being it is not a bad list, but it might be a bit more complicated than Beck lets on.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM
And if there is a financial crisis and the only thing that can stop collapse and possibility of widespread panic is some move by the government, should the government refuse to act and just nature take its course whatever the outcome would be? Is that realistic?
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM
You ask the question. Why don’t you answer it?
I’m really tired of the big government pragmatism, but I’ll let you answer your own question.
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Upstater:
There is nothing wrong with asking questions.
And I am not talking about big government pragmatism either. I am saying that if people can not cash their paychecks because all the banks are closing or something like that then the government will almost certainly step in..people will expect it too. And if you mean that government should do nothing even if that means a collapse of the financial system, then say that.
My point is that it is easy to say you would never do something,and even mean it when you say it…but then you might find yourself facing a crisis and when that happens, your perspective changes.
That does not mean that it has to be all government all the time however. I should think that would be obvious.
For instance, after Katrina, the local and federal government needed to respond, but at some point it is obviously up to the locals to rebuild.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM
I’m with you Glenn!
Cinday Blackburn on August 29, 2009 at 5:57 PM
I’M IN!!!
Scoreboard44 on August 29, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Who said there was? Although, I would prefer to hear good questions.
That is Big Government pragmatism – I assure you, a small government couldn’t do that.
After seeing the past intervention, I lean more and more that way. I say it.
No, it’s not easy to say this. This is not a popular view in this “capitalist” country. Try selling that. No one wants to hear it. Sure, it’s easy to say anything you want if you don’t care about being taken seriously…
It would seem a lot of things are obvious to you.
There was some response – just not a very good one.
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM
With both parties leaning hard toward bigger government, “we the people” need to lean the other way. Does that apply to 1985 as well as 2009? The state of the economy should inform the answer. IIRC, Beck’s language covered that.
ElectricPhase on August 29, 2009 at 6:00 PM
ElectricPhase:
Beck’s language covered that? I am sorry, I must have missed that. He did make some mention about the last 40 years and politicians lying to us…that seems to include Reagan.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Unless you think Reagan was perfect and not a politician whatsoever, what’s your point?
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Relax, it’s just more lib semantic trickery. They love to be picky and when you respond, you lose.
And yeah, I remember when but those days pretty much were over by 1985.
Friendly21 on August 29, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Not to butt in here, but Reagan was great on foreign policy but a disaster domestically.
Friendly21 on August 29, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Upstater:
So, you would be willing to see your children go hungry? I mean because if you could not cash a paycheck, then it might be difficult to feed your family.
And you know what? You do not know what would have happened last September if there had been no intervention, no one does. There might have been a total collapse and then Obama would have won bigger and would have had even more leeway to spend and control.
My point is that any response needs to be limited and proportional to the problem. It needs to be temporary and targeted.
In the past there have been reforms that have been useful as well. I read Amity Shlaes book the Forgotten Man about the Great Depression. She was mostly critical of programs and interventions, but made the point that banking reforms were actually helpful in the long run.
I am just saying, it is not always that simple…it depends on the circumstances.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:08 PM
I just checked. He includes both “during difficult economic times” and “until our economy has rebounded” in his bullet point on spending.
…and darn you for making me listen to that man’s voice again!
ElectricPhase on August 29, 2009 at 6:09 PM
What was my point re Reagan? Only that if Bush deserved impeachment for not closing the border, why just him? He was the 43rd president after all, and none of them including the much loved Ronald Reagan had ever closed the border.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Electric:
Sorry.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Government intervention at best just postpones the inevitable.
jimmy2shoes on August 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Wow! Hold the breaks. Did I say that? Further, just because I couldn’t cash a paycheck doesn’t mean I couldn’t find a way to feed my family.
We have History to help us out there, Terrye.
And after looking at history, when has intervention ever been temporary?
Err… OK. Banking Reforms aren’t the same as Bailouts.
Yes, there needs to be a crisis. We got that.
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Yes, you say this again… So this would be your third post on the subject. Hey, why not e-mail Glenn Beck?
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 6:12 PM
jimmy2shoes:
Not always. Government can help feed people. And to be honest there are times when a bad situation can be made worse by panic. Government can sometimes help control that.
And if there had been a collapse and Bush had refused to even try and do something, do you think the Republicans would have ever been forgiven?
I think there were a million things that could and should have been done different and better, but I don’t think any president will ever hear the words complete collapse and do nothing.
That is just my opinion, it really does not mean anything.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Upstater:
You are right. I should email him and maybe he can do a show on how Ronald Reagan deserved impeachment.
Silly me for making an observation like this.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:15 PM
I’d watch. Good for you. Don’t be afraid to ask questions or whatever GB always tells his viewers.
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM
I’m wondering if he’d get the same attention if he presented this astonishing (and factual) information with a more low-key delivery. I just hope props and things like lederhosen turn off some potential converts. He might be unconventional, but the guy IS Paul Revere.
marklmail on August 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM
I wouldn’t say a disaster, but the 1986 firearms law, as well as the amnesty were both serious black marks.
MadisonConservative on August 29, 2009 at 6:18 PM
And you say we have history to help us out there. In what way? There is no way of knowing what would have happened if the government had just ignored the situation, you can guess, but you can not know..no one can.
As for not feeding your family…I think that when there was a fear of the system collapsing that was what a lot of people were afraid of. Collapse.
My grandparents were okies during the Depression. They had to leave Oklahoma along with hundreds of thousands of other people. They were literally starving, right in the middle of America in the 20th century. Things can and do fall apart sometimes.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:18 PM
marklmail, you said:
I
I think you are correct.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Upstater:
Somehow I have the feeling that if Beck went after Saint Reagan, the way he does the handy dandy punching bad George Bush, he would lose some of his audience.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM
That should be punching bag preview is for RINOs and sissies.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:22 PM
’m wondering if he’d get the same attention if he presented this astonishing (and factual) information with a more low-key delivery. I just hope props and things like lederhosen DO NOT turn off some potential converts
Corrected.
marklmail on August 29, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Obama’s Auntie just got her 5th Felony Arrest Warrant for deportation – she flushed it down the toilet in her government paid condo with big-screen Tv and $600 of foodstamps – she “hates” America but doesn’t want to leave and go back to where The Messiah was born in Kenya where she had to crap in the street………….got to love the U.S. Immigration Service under Pelosi/Reed/Rahm “The F-Word” Emmanuel.
Cinday Blackburn on August 29, 2009 at 6:25 PM
I knew what you meant.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:25 PM
And just in case I left any doubt, I do not support Obama’s huge spending plans. I think he will bankrupt the country if he is not stopped.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Is that true? Do you have a link?
tessa on August 29, 2009 at 6:30 PM
FNC needs to give Glenn Beck a spot in the prime timr lineup replacing either Shep or Hannity as neither is using their spot very effectively.
bw222 on August 29, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Glenn, Sarah, Rick Perry…………we need you!
Cinday Blackburn on August 29, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Right on “You Sick Twisted Freak” /Glenn Beck saying.
Geochelone on August 29, 2009 at 6:43 PM
bw222:
The surprising thing is Shep is really pretty popular at his job. I am not sure if it is him, or his time slot.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 6:45 PM
We are all in Glenn – go for it.
Cinday Blackburn on August 29, 2009 at 6:51 PM
You are a Great American. Glenn recommends some pretty good books. I got “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine along with the Federalist Papers. Very illuminating. Haven’t got the 5,000 year leap yet. Glenn had a sharper sense of humor when he was just on radio (before he exploded onto TV). Now he is spread too thin maybe. Humor is very subjective and I have very low standards.
Geochelone on August 29, 2009 at 6:52 PM
I just think he sometimes oversimplifies things, but he has the right basic idea.
For instance, last year a Michigan stopped a nuclear power plant. Bush was for the plant, a lot of people were, but environmentalists got some kind of injunction and stopped it. This sort of thing happens all the time.
So a president or representative can honestly say he supports domestic energy production and still not be able to make that happen.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 7:02 PM
WOW – I haven’t had a chance to read comments here today, but you GOTTA WATCH Pastor Manning here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut-UPttf-dg
Match, meet Powder keg.
Fishoutofwater on August 29, 2009 at 7:02 PM
I think there are a lot of people who would watch FNC if it was showing test patterns. I switched to Lou Dobbs about two years ago.
bw222 on August 29, 2009 at 7:06 PM
All the Czars love you Glenn!
Cinday Blackburn on August 29, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Oh, yeah – I’M IN. I’m ALL IN!!!!!!!!!! AAALLLL INNNN! There’s no other choice really, is there?
Fishoutofwater on August 29, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Maybe to get a White House Czar job you have to a) be a Marxist, and b) not pay your taxes?
Cinday Blackburn on August 29, 2009 at 7:26 PM
and something else. Beck says close the border, does he mean all 22,000 miles? And then he says freeze spending..well can you do both?
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 7:43 PM
…still going strong…
Mommypundit on August 29, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Rick Perry and Sarah and Glenn.
Cinday Blackburn on August 29, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Been “in” for a long time now… Welcome aboard!!
Khun Joe on August 29, 2009 at 7:49 PM
That second vid was spot on; especially ironic was the part about name calling. That happens when they know they have lost the debate. It is their attempt to throw up a cloud of obfuscation or to silence you and temper your enthusiasm. But true conseravtives know better. We are united and we are speaking out like never before; its about time.
Geochelone on August 29, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Yeah, thanks to our government. If Hoover didn’t sign off on the Smoot-Hawley Tarrif and if FDR didn’t continue to run the economy into the ground with his two new deals, your grandparents probably would have been able to stay in OK and prospered instead of having to face starvation or relocation. Heck, they might have been able to survive the dust bowl if the government didn’t slaughter millions of hogs and ration food instead of giving it to the people who needed it. Now you think it’s a good idea to hand over our fate to the government AGAIN?! Honey, I might not know what the stock market will do if the government does nothing, but history has shown what happens when the government does something. I rather take my chances without the government’s help TYVM.
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 8:04 PM
National Guard.
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 8:09 PM
On Glenn Beck’s issues: I’m in. On Glenn Beck, the man: I don’t find him attractive, for some reason.
Loxodonta on August 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Glenn we need you bro…………….
Cinday Blackburn on August 29, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Me ‘n’ mine: IN
“chaaaaclick”
davidk on August 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM
LOL. Not that there would be anything wrong with that.
Geochelone on August 29, 2009 at 8:17 PM
I just want to ruffle his hair. Some crew cuts feel real neat.
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 8:18 PM
mizflame:
I never said that the government should have signed Smoot Hawley or anything else, but some banking reforms in the 20′s might have helped.
As for the dust bowl, it had nothing to do with the policy of killing hogs. That was actually something entirely different. The dust bowl was a combination of an economic and a natural disaster. The pig slaughtering was a silly policy designed to raise hog prices for midwestern farmers.
My point was that there are times when some catastrophe strikes that government can and will intervene. That does not mean they have to take everything over and spend trillions of dollars for ever and ever. There has to be some proportion.
My grandparents went to California and worked the migrant camps, they knew what it was like to be hungry. In time the government came across with some food rations for people. And the conservation programs were created to help bring back some of the land and stop the erosion. That in turned helped to bring some of the people.
As for the National Guard, Bush sent them to the border and Beck still wanted to impeach him apparently. And no, they would not be enough on a border like ours. The truth is to to actually close off a border as long and porous as ours would take a lot of resources and man power. It would not be free.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Where do you get the idea that Beck has called for the impeachment of anyone? I don’t recall Beck complaining about the National Guard being on the border. In fact, I remember him complaining when they pulled the Guard back from the boarder because their presence was such a vast improvement from what was going on before. You really have to post some links to support what you are saying.
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Oh no you don’t! I’ll take Hannan!
atheling on August 29, 2009 at 8:26 PM
mizflame:
Listen to the videos. He said that he called for Bush’s impeachment because of the border. He was making the point to prove to everyone that he is not just another Republican. I am just repeating what he said.
And it was Bush who sent the Guard down there, after the Governors agreed. Remember them? The Governors? They are the people who actually control the Guard.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Can’t we change the constitution just this one time so Mr. Hannan can run for President?
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Beck is not a friend to any party and to a lot of conservatives that is okay, even good.
But the truth is that the GOP are the people most likely to support conservatives, not the Democrats and not any third party.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Err… wouldn’t the Conservative or Libertarian parties support Conservatives and Libertarians (both righties) by definition?
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Uh, I live in a border state (Lone Star) so I know about the National Guard down here. And, no. Beck wasn’t ticked at Bush because he put the National Guard down there but because he didn’t seal up the border the way he should of after 9/11. He was too deep in bed with the big global corporations. Why else would the UAE get awarded a contract to inspect cargo coming into our ports?
mizflame98 on August 29, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Bush sends NG to border
I never said Beck was pissed that Bush sent the Guard there, I said he said Bush should be impeached. I said that because of the above video in which he was bragging about it.
As for the whole in bed with the corporations thing, I am not even going to get into that. I think it is absurd.
The point is that the border was not closed when Bush came to office, it was never closed. It was not closed when Gingrich was Speaker and no one made a big deal of it. It was not even a campaign issue in 2000 or 2004.
To put that all on Bush and Bush alone is absurd. The truth is Bush put more men and more resources on the southern border than any President in history, for all the good it did him.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 8:39 PM
As for the UAE, that is even more stupid. Dubai ports was run by Americans out of the home of the Sixth Fleet. The US was only one of 19 countries involved in that deal and the only country to refuse it. The Dubai Ports company has the best record when it comes to security of virtually any company of its kind and they would not have inspecting cargo coming in anyway.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Sorry. I’m just not a Beck Boy.
Loxodonta on August 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM
My National Guard link did not work. Maybe this time.
Terrye on August 29, 2009 at 8:46 PM
But I bet you come to his every beck and call…
Wait, is that even a phrase?
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM
No, that would be Hornet.
Loxodonta on August 29, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Yep. And a bad pun. Congratulations.
kingsjester on August 29, 2009 at 8:53 PM
LOL!
atheling on August 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM
I try
*bow
Upstater85 on August 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Next »