Another stereotype, however, rings true: tea-partiers are disproportionately attached to, and perhaps influenced by, FOX News. And they are particularly enamored of Glenn Beck. Nationally, just 18 percent of people have a favorable opinion of Beck (the majority have no opinion whatsoever about him). But most tea-partiers do. Do the math, and you'll find that 59 percent of those who do think highly of Beck consider themselves a part of the tea-party. This is, in fact, the single biggest differentiator of any of the items that the NYT asked about: not ideology, not any particular political belief, but whom they watch on television.
I've always found it fascinating that no one, especially if he is conservative, will acknowledge listening to Beck, Hannity or Limbaugh even though they are wildly popular with conservatives and their ratings are through the roof. These denials become most heated when one points out the similarities between their talking points and those of the unholy trinity.
Another stereotype, however, rings true: tea-partiers are disproportionately attached to, and perhaps influenced by, FOX News. And they are particularly enamored of Glenn Beck. Nationally, just 18 percent of people have a favorable opinion of Beck (the majority have no opinion whatsoever about him). But most tea-partiers do. Do the math, and you'll find that 59 percent of those who do think highly of Beck consider themselves a part of the tea-party. This is, in fact, the single biggest differentiator of any of the items that the NYT asked about: not ideology, not any particular political belief, but whom they watch on television.
Hammer meets nail.
Yawn, so a lot of independents and democrats are Glenn Beck fans, who cares. Your point is?
What's next? A survey about how many democrats jack off while watching Chris Matthews?
Another stereotype, however, rings true: tea-partiers are disproportionately attached to, and perhaps influenced by, FOX News. And they are particularly enamored of Glenn Beck. Nationally, just 18 percent of people have a favorable opinion of Beck (the majority have no opinion whatsoever about him). But most tea-partiers do. Do the math, and you'll find that 59 percent of those who do think highly of Beck consider themselves a part of the tea-party. This is, in fact, the single biggest differentiator of any of the items that the NYT asked about: not ideology, not any particular political belief, but whom they watch on television.
Hammer meets nail.
Yawn, so a lot of independents and democrats are Glenn Beck fans, who cares. Your point is?
What's next? A survey about how many democrats jack off while watching Chris Matthews?
I occasionally watch tweety (Chris Matthews). I seldom agree with what he says...and I hate his style when he has guests on. It's very Billo like in that he never gives anyone a chance to finish their point.
I've only paid attention to any of these shows in the last 3-4 years and out of all them O'reilly comes off as the least douchiest, he has his momenst but he is nowhere near the douche people make him out to be.
Olbermann, Beck, Hannity, Matthews, all the fucking same, and Maddow too, She's better than this group in alot of ways but she just irritates the fuck out of me and I can never make it past 10 minutes of her show. Hopefully she won't be featured too much during the McVeigh tapes cuz I'm looking forward to watching that shit.
MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:I've always found it fascinating that no one, especially if he is conservative, will acknowledge listening to Beck, Hannity or Limbaugh even though they are wildly popular with conservatives and their ratings are through the roof. These denials become most heated when one points out the similarities between their talking points and those of the unholy trinity.
My wife's boss is a conservative and she makes no bones about her affinity for Beck (watches the show, has all the books). The funny part is that she's REALLY upset that the tea party protesters are getting a bum rap. I told her that her boy Beck and guys like him are a big reason for it, she couldn't understand it. She's not stupid by any means, which is why her affinity to Beck surprises me.
HeavyMetalZombie666 wrote:Of course your asshole is going to be sore when you volunteer for an asspounding and not set any boundaries at all.
MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:I've always found it fascinating that no one, especially if he is conservative, will acknowledge listening to Beck, Hannity or Limbaugh even though they are wildly popular with conservatives and their ratings are through the roof. These denials become most heated when one points out the similarities between their talking points and those of the unholy trinity.
My wife's boss is a conservative and she makes no bones about her affinity for Beck (watches the show, has all the books). The funny part is that she's REALLY upset that the tea party protesters are getting a bum rap. I told her that her boy Beck and guys like him are a big reason for it, she couldn't understand it. She's not stupid by any means, which is why her affinity to Beck surprises me.
People being proud of listening to/supporting Beck is an odd phenomenon, at least to me. He's like the melodramatic guy who always makes up stories about what he did that are obviously BS, and yet he sticks to them. Nobody wants to hang around that guy, he just somehow shows up and you can't get him to leave. But for some reason he's OK with a TV show.
In her case I think it's because the guy espouses a strong belief in the Constitution and his opinion that our current administration is shitting all over it. Another humorous twist is that she buys into the "Socialism" talking points, but she's a Mormon. If tithing 30 percent of your yearly income to the church isn't socialism, I don't know what is.
HeavyMetalZombie666 wrote:Of course your asshole is going to be sore when you volunteer for an asspounding and not set any boundaries at all.
Oh, God, the "constitutionalist" thing is why I can't deal with Beck. I used to enjoy watching him for a laugh but his tenuous grasp of the constitution was what turned my stomach and made me have to stop.
I (very obviously) can't speak for Mormons with very conservative political beliefs, but let me take a crack at it: as far as they're concerned, giving over that much money to the church isn't socialist because theoretically they're doing what they want with their money and as long as they're NOT giving it to the government, it doesn't count as spending money on any kind of social program, even though most churches do have some kind of privatized social program on which they spend their money.
deathcurse wrote:The secret board you had with Itjogs. You talked about me obsessively on there. There were witnesses.
Glenn Beck, who used his appearance at CPAC as a chance to alert the crowd of the dangers of Progressivism.
At the conference, Beck compared Progressivism to Communism, and cited previous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR, who pushed for the income tax and universal health care, respectively. Despite the former being used by elected officials to create things for the common good, Beck stressed that these were the first steps on the road to ruin.
Upon hearing Glenn Beck announce that he learned this by reading books at the library, Jon Stewart had some choice words for the Fox News host:
"Glenn, the library isn't free! It's paid for with tax money. Free public libraries are the result of the Progressive movement to communally share books. The first public library was the Boston public library in 1854. It's statement of purpose: every citizen has the right to access community owned resources. Community owned? That sounds just like communist. You're a communist!!!"
tin00can wrote:That article would really have to try hard if it wanted to be any more vague and/or misleading.
That's 538.... that dude Nate Silver is the best when it comes to statistics. It might seem vague and misleading, but that dude knows his shit.
Nate is pretty fucking amazing when it comes to stats and calling elections. He was stellar in 2008. I'd like to take him to a horse race.
As for the crazy element of our society....there is a really sweet woman I know, we are sort of partners in business and have a lot in common, except for politics and that whole fundamentalist Christian thing. She literally planned to take the family cash and bury it in the backyard when Obama was elected. She and her husband listen to the Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity crowd. They feed her fears in a way that just makes me very, very sad. She is expecting Obama to literally come and take everything.
When she told me about the money, the only thing I could to respond to her was "Well, wrap it good, you know how wet the ground around here gets." Not that I haven't had the same thoughts in dark moments, but not from a partisan standpoint, just because I've watched several banks fail in my neck of the woods. Though I'd buy gold..if I were to bury anythiing.
My bubbie, king of the hill 1999-2013
LJP 2002-2014
Quick beats in an icy heart
Catch colt draws a coffin cart
There he goes and now here she starts
I don't know if education level has any factor in this because those who are educated can still be naive as hell. There's always been a contingent, no matter who's in power, that believes that the end is near and the current leader will bring it about. People in my family believed it when Bush II was president while I just laughed at them.
WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:In her case I think it's because the guy espouses a strong belief in the Constitution and his opinion that our current administration is shitting all over it. Another humorous twist is that she buys into the "Socialism" talking points, but she's a Mormon. If tithing 30 percent of your yearly income to the church isn't socialism, I don't know what is.
But is she being forced to give up 30 percent of her yearly income to the church? A big difference when one is forced to give up something so it can be redistributed than to voluntarily give it up so it can be redistributed.
vlad wrote:As for the crazy element of our society....there is a really sweet woman I know, we are sort of partners in business and have a lot in common, except for politics and that whole fundamentalist Christian thing. She literally planned to take the family cash and bury it in the backyard when Obama was elected.
That rules! What you need is some kind of map with a big "X" on it denoting where the stash is buried, and a good sturdy shovel. That'll learn her to be a crackpot!
WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:In her case I think it's because the guy espouses a strong belief in the Constitution and his opinion that our current administration is shitting all over it. Another humorous twist is that she buys into the "Socialism" talking points, but she's a Mormon. If tithing 30 percent of your yearly income to the church isn't socialism, I don't know what is.
But is she being forced to give up 30 percent of her yearly income to the church? A big difference when one is forced to give up something so it can be redistributed than to voluntarily give it up so it can be redistributed.
I don't know the rules or if she's being "forced"..."strongly encouraged" may be the better term.
HeavyMetalZombie666 wrote:Of course your asshole is going to be sore when you volunteer for an asspounding and not set any boundaries at all.
Jon Stewart had a montage of news channels this week covering the Teabaggers big party on April 15th and every one of them (including Faux News) were asking if anything violent had happened and if any "crazies" running around..
They're being taken about as serious as the Westboro Baptist Church protests..
WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:In her case I think it's because the guy espouses a strong belief in the Constitution and his opinion that our current administration is shitting all over it. Another humorous twist is that she buys into the "Socialism" talking points, but she's a Mormon. If tithing 30 percent of your yearly income to the church isn't socialism, I don't know what is.
But is she being forced to give up 30 percent of her yearly income to the church? A big difference when one is forced to give up something so it can be redistributed than to voluntarily give it up so it can be redistributed.
I I told you I would throw you in a lake of fire unless you gave me 10% of your earnings, would you still call it a voluntary contribution?
WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:In her case I think it's because the guy espouses a strong belief in the Constitution and his opinion that our current administration is shitting all over it. Another humorous twist is that she buys into the "Socialism" talking points, but she's a Mormon. If tithing 30 percent of your yearly income to the church isn't socialism, I don't know what is.
But is she being forced to give up 30 percent of her yearly income to the church? A big difference when one is forced to give up something so it can be redistributed than to voluntarily give it up so it can be redistributed.
I don't know the rules or if she's being "forced"..."strongly encouraged" may be the better term.
it's not 30%, it's 10%, and while they aren't outright forced to give it, they will be labeled by the church administration as someone who didn't pay the full 10% in their file (yes, they have files)
Mormons are probably more stringent than most, but asking for tithes or offerings is common in most mainstream religions
speaking of Mormons, has anyone who's listened to Becks TV or radio show ever heard him asked about his magic underwear? If so, I'd be very curious as to how he responded
I don't watch/listen to any of the aforementioned guys. But I admit I listen to Andrew Wilkow on Sirius when I'm in the car during his block (12-3, so not all that often).
