Advertisers pulling from Glenn Beck show [Archive]

spaceboots06

Aug 11, 2009, 07:38 PM

Glenn Beck has a prime-time television show. I think the number of people on this forum who have a prime-time television show is near zero. Nobody here should be telling him what to do because he has a show, and the one criticizing probably does not.

Glenn Beck has every right to cry about his daughter who has cerebral palsy on his prime-time television show. Glenn Beck has every right to make the connection between another person who has cerebral palsy to his daughter. If my daughter had cerebral palsy I'd cry, especially if I thought that America would eventually adopt certain Nazi-Germany ideals. Eugenics might be watered down in Obama-care, but it is a possibility that the government won't want to pay for 92 year old grandma's throat surgery or a severely mentally disabled infant's birth. In some state run healthcare states similar situations have already arisen.

I've been around people who have cerebral palsy. It's like dealing with infants, but marginally worse. It's saddening and I've shed tears over it before, but at home, alone. Not on national television.

If Glenn Beck believes that the government wouldn't want to support his daughter, he can cry about that. That doesn't mean every other Republican will, one being that not every Republican has a crippled child and two because a fair amount of them don't believe what he's saying to the extremes that he's displaying them.

I do think that there is a chance that there will be remorse when the government runs healthcare on their budget and not everyone can afford to have so and so treatment when they really need it.

You do realize Obama-care is going to be run on a budget?

freeny

Aug 11, 2009, 07:40 PM

I was working today and the show was going in the background (not by my choice), he was actually trying to act like he was crying over nazi propaganda or something, I am sure it will be on youtube or something. ****ing ridiculous.

Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddZexeSYGoI

Doesn't show the second part of his cry segment IIRC.

i know its not the whole clip, but what was his point?....
Was this an attempt to connect Obama with Nazi's?

spaceboots06

Aug 11, 2009, 07:43 PM

i know its not the whole clip, but what was his point?....

His point was that Nazi-Germany had government healthcare and practiced eugenics.

The advertisement that Nazi-Germany used had a child with cerebral palsy on it.

His daughter has cerebral palsy.

Some state run healthcare states already have denied people of care or put them on long waiting lists.

Glenn Beck is sickened by this.

Glenn Beck cries.

Six step explanation.

Zombie Acorn

Aug 11, 2009, 07:49 PM

i know its not the whole clip, but what was his point?....
Was this an attempt to connect Obama with Nazi's?

Basically a linkage back to the death panels or whatever they are going on about right now. I think I have heard the word death panel at least 100 times today, Obama included.

I did hear Obama's speech earlier and I think he might have messed up when saying he didn't want a one payer system, he basically made it sound like he knew it wasn't viable right now so he wants to transition into it.

yoyo5280

Aug 11, 2009, 07:50 PM

On a sorta half related side note, did anybody see Keith Olbourmens (sp) take on all this?

Zombie Acorn

Aug 11, 2009, 07:52 PM

On a sorta half related side note, did anybody see Keith Olbourmens (sp) take on all this?

It was posted in another thread somewhere, can't quite remember which one.

freeny

Aug 11, 2009, 07:55 PM

Very sad about his son. Fortunately Glenn can afford the proper healthcare for him.

Iscariot

Aug 11, 2009, 08:21 PM

Glenn Beck has a prime-time television show. I think the number of people on this forum who have a prime-time television show is near zero. Nobody here should be telling him what to do because he has a show, and the one criticizing probably does not.
His point was that Nazi-Germany had government healthcare and practiced eugenics.

It is precisely because Glenn Beck has a prime-time television show on a news network that he has a responsibility to engage in fact based commentary and journalism. It is precisely because of his unwillingness or inability to do so that his sponsors are pulling their support. This is not difficult to understand, and trying to spin criticism as either a) professional jealousy or b) liberal conspiracy is asinine.

Dmac77

Aug 11, 2009, 08:40 PM

I personally don't blame them. Glenn Beck is a complete and total ass. He makes Conservatives look like brainless monkeys. People like him are killing the Republican party, and are slowly destroying any power that we Conservatives have. Once idiots like him are gone, things will start to get better for Conservatives IMO.

Don

spaceboots06

Aug 11, 2009, 09:00 PM

It is precisely because Glenn Beck has a prime-time television show on a news network that he has a responsibility to engage in fact based commentary and journalism. It is precisely because of his either unwillingness or inability to do so that his sponsors are pulling their support. This is not difficult to understand, and trying to spin criticism as either a) professional jealousy or b) liberal conspiracy is asinine.

Glenn Beck's only "true" responsibility is to make sure his show doesn't encourage assassinations or anything along those lines. I'm sure he thinks that his other responsibilities include reporting news accurately and so fourth, but talking about whether he does that well or not is just the typical Democrat / Republican argument. Which, by the way, became boring about a million years ago.

It's not like it's Geico's responsibility to advertise from 5-6 PM EST or 2-3 AM EST. They can leave if they want to. There are certainly other advertisers which would want to fill Geico's spot. There won't be any screen for 45 seconds of blankness where Geico's commercials should have been.

Counterfit

Aug 11, 2009, 09:17 PM

Excuse me while I shed a tear for a guy who thinks porn leads to adultery. :rolleyes:

yg17

Aug 11, 2009, 10:23 PM

And another one gone, and another one gone. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/11/765223/-Sargento-Cheese-says-bye-bye-to-Glenn-Beck) Another one bites the dust
(http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/11/765336/-Mens-Wearhouse-pulls-Glenn-Beck-ads)

Ugg

Aug 11, 2009, 11:18 PM

His point was that Nazi-Germany had government healthcare and practiced eugenics.

Some state run healthcare states already have denied people of care or put them on long waiting lists.

Glenn Beck is sickened by this.

Eugenics was invented and first practiced in, (GASP!) America.

Almost all states allow insurance companies to deny coverage with little or no explanation, even though premiums have been paid in full. What is that if not being denied care?

Everyone is sickened by Glenn Beck's misrepresentation of the facts. His personal tragedies have nothing to do with anything.

Life goes on.

Stop whinging.

Iscariot

Aug 11, 2009, 11:19 PM

Glenn Beck's only "true" responsibility is to make sure his show doesn't encourage assassinations or anything along those lines.

I'm sure his "true" responsibilities as per FCC guidelines are much more in-depth than that.
I'm sure he thinks that his other responsibilities include reporting news accurately and so fourth, but talking about whether he does that well or not is just the typical Democrat / Republican argument. Which, by the way, became boring about a million years ago.

Just because your nation has become polarized to the extent that partisanship is the only type of politics doesn't mean that there aren't objective facts and verifiable truths. That your country has devolved into right/left gimmickry and he-said she-said reporting doesn't absolve news anchors and commentators of the responsibilities of accountable reporting, nor does it make them immune to criticism for conducting business as usual.

spaceboots06

Aug 11, 2009, 11:49 PM

Eugenics was invented and first practiced in, (GASP!) America.

Almost all states allow insurance companies to deny coverage with little or no explanation, even though premiums have been paid in full. What is that if not being denied care?

Everyone is sickened by Glenn Beck's misrepresentation of the facts. His personal tragedies have nothing to do with anything.

Life goes on.

Stop whinging.

Yes because they're privately owned. Privately owned businesses don't have to help anyone that doesn't want to pay or will be consuming more medicine (ultimately meaning money) than they should be from said company.

Government AKA public healthcare denying people is eugenics. Privately owned healthcare denying people is competitive and successful business management.

Don't like Glenn Beck? Don't watch him! Tell everyone else not to watch him too!

Macky-Mac

Aug 12, 2009, 01:44 AM

.... Privately owned healthcare denying people is competitive and successful business management......

so you're in favor of death panels as long as they're privately run? :confused:

thegoldenmackid

Aug 12, 2009, 01:52 AM

iThink that Geico has realized that it has become not beneficial to associate themselves with Mr. Beck. Even spaceboots has to see where they are coming from. His views are a tad extreme and his show has taken particularly sour notes. It has gone from what used to be somewhat comedy to just plan lies now. Last week he fabricated a quote by taking a document that was written, quoting the footnotes from Page 16 and then text from Page 10, the text from Page 10 that he quoted was in the material only as an example and not as an actual argument. In addition, I understand that we live in a free country and what not, but calling the president a racist Nazi on a daily basis is not tasteful no matter if it is Glen Beck or Jon Stewart; Barack Obama or George Bush.

Zombie Acorn

Aug 12, 2009, 01:53 AM

so you're in favor of death panels as long as they're privately run? :confused:

Private industry isn't awarded the luxery of "free" money. The companies have to watch their bottom line when entering into contracts with people who have pre-existing conditions or no one whom they insure will be covered as they will be out of business. These ethical issues are going to be troubling if the government tries to take on a public option. At what point do we stop taking equity out on the next generations future? My guess is we will just continue to spend, and I don't believe any plan we come up with is going to dissipate the burdon we face for the elder generation.

Macky-Mac

Aug 12, 2009, 02:06 AM

thegoldenmackid

Aug 12, 2009, 02:08 AM

so you're in favor of "death panels" as long as they're private run? :confused:

This is "Going Places"

Macky-Mac

Aug 12, 2009, 02:11 AM

This is "Going Places"

Killing Sarah Palin's darling baby Trig is "ok" as long as it's done for profit by private industry??? :eek:

Eraserhead

Aug 12, 2009, 03:03 AM

Government AKA public healthcare denying people is eugenics. Privately owned healthcare denying people is competitive and successful business management.

Nice consistent view there.

Seriously, it reminds me of a certain George Orwell book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four).

Ugg

Aug 12, 2009, 04:37 AM

Private industry isn't awarded the luxery of "free" money. The companies have to watch their bottom line when entering into contracts with people who have pre-existing conditions or no one whom they insure will be covered as they will be out of business. These ethical issues are going to be troubling if the government tries to take on a public option. At what point do we stop taking equity out on the next generations future? My guess is we will just continue to spend, and I don't believe any plan we come up with is going to dissipate the burdon we face for the elder generation.

So, you advocate patient dumping and Denial of service, simply because a public option is distasteful to you?

I've always believed that medical advances happen much quicker than we're able to process them. Medical ethics has been shaped more by profit than common sense. Does it make sense to give a hip replacement to a 90 year old with Alzheimers? What about saving grossly premature babies? Giving lifelong alcoholics liver transplants?

Whether we like it or not, we need to somehow put a price on procedures like the British do. No system, public nor private can continue to pay for all medical advances. Rationing is inevitable if health care inflation increases at double digits.

paddy

Aug 12, 2009, 04:40 AM

His point was that Nazi-Germany had government healthcare and practiced eugenics.

The advertisement that Nazi-Germany used had a child with cerebral palsy on it.

His daughter has cerebral palsy.

Some state run healthcare states already have denied people of care or put them on long waiting lists.

Glenn Beck is sickened by this.

Glenn Beck cries.

Six step explanation.

He's still a ********** moron. Anyone from outside the US who sees him can't believe that he has a prime-time show.

Counterfit

Aug 12, 2009, 05:49 AM

Yes because they're privately owned. Privately owned businesses don't have to help anyone that doesn't want to pay or will be consuming more medicine (ultimately meaning money) than they should be from said company.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=insurance+rescission&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Government AKA public healthcare denying people is eugenics. Privately owned healthcare denying people is competitive and successful business management.

It doesn't matter who does it, it's wrong and borderline evil.

freeny

Aug 12, 2009, 06:49 AM

So Glenn shows propaganda and practices used in Nazi Germany to prove a point? He explains how the Nazi's found it more logical and profitable to spend money building houses instead of giving healthcare to certain afflictions?

Is the irony completely lost on him?

Does he realize that this happens every day under the system he is supporting?

Does he realize that is the basis of the health reform?

Its ok because it happens under the name of capitalism?

That is FUC*ED UP!

Does he realize that the gov health option is meant to do away with this very subject?

Does he realize that it is only because of his wealth that he can afford his daughters healthcare?

Does he realize how many people in this country are rejected for healthcare because the money would be better spent elsewhere?

That is FUC*D UP!

He obviously takes his viewers for fools seeing that a good proportion of them are low income....

xUKHCx

Aug 12, 2009, 06:54 AM

Glenn Beck's only "true" responsibility is to make sure his show doesn't encourage assassinations or anything along those lines.

I'm sure his "true" responsibilities as per FCC guidelines are much more in-depth than that.

And from a business perspective being the anchor on a commercial program means his responsibilities are to create programmes to sell advertising in a sustainable way. Even if the network viewed it as essentially a loss leader the fact that major corporations are publicly pulling out will have a major impact.

This is of course the line of attack that will likely get him removed from his position.

Eugenics was invented and first practiced in, (GASP!) America.

Eugenics was around long long before America was, has been practiced all over the world throughout human history.

Thomas Veil

Aug 12, 2009, 06:56 AM

freeny

Aug 12, 2009, 07:03 AM

The irony here is that if all the advertisers pull their slots, Glenn will no longer be able to afford his daughters healthcare...

Queso

Aug 12, 2009, 07:33 AM

The irony here is that if all the advertisers pull their slots, Glenn will no longer be able to afford his daughters healthcare...
..at which point Germany and its excellent state run healthcare system won't seem such a bad option.

The neo-Cons are funny when they're losing an argument. The extremes they go to are truly pathetic :)

yg17

Aug 12, 2009, 07:57 AM

His point was that Nazi-Germany had government healthcare and practiced eugenics.

Nazis also drove Volkswagens and ate bratwurst. I drive a Volkswagen and eat bratwurst, am I a Nazi?

I don't see your point here....

Veldek

Aug 12, 2009, 08:27 AM

Nazis also drove Volkswagens and ate bratwurst. I drive a Volkswagen and eat bratwurst, am I a Nazi?

I don't see your point here....Also interesting is that public health care was introduced in Germany by Bismarck in 1883 (50 years before Hitler came to power) and is still used today which makes it 126 years old. And only 12 of them were accompanied by Nazi eugenics.

Tilpots

Aug 12, 2009, 08:50 AM

Hitler got the trains to run on time. Amtrak = Nazis.

Love the thought processes round here. Anyway, Glenn Beck is similar to the Nazi regime in his use of false propaganda.

geese

Aug 12, 2009, 08:50 AM

Also interesting is that public health care was introduced in Germany by Bismarck in 1883 (50 years before Hitler came to power) and is still used today which makes it 126 years old. And only 12 of them were accompanied by Nazi eugenics.

I think its more interesting that most other countries in Europe, if not the world, have a public health care system that isnt tainted with any kind of fascism at all. Yikes!

obeygiant

Aug 12, 2009, 08:54 AM

This is of course the line of attack that will likely get him removed from his position.

GB will be on air whether Geico Insurance advertises during his program or not.

yg17

Aug 12, 2009, 08:55 AM

Hitler got the trains to run on time. Amtrak = Nazis.

************! Amtrak is never on time ;)

GB will be on air whether Geico Insurance advertises during his program or not.
Geico isn't the first, nor will they be the last advertiser to pull ads from Beck's show. If all of the big time advertisers pull their ads (and he's in the primetime slot where ad time is expensive) he'll either be pulled from the air or his show will move to some odd hour like 1 AM with Shamwow and Cash4Gold ads.

Veldek

Aug 12, 2009, 08:58 AM

I think its more interesting that most other countries in Europe, if not the world, have a public health care system that isnt tainted with any kind of fascism at all. Yikes!Seems like I failed in showing that the German health care system is in no way bound to fascism, which was my intention here. :p

geese

Aug 12, 2009, 09:05 AM

Seems like I failed in showing that the German health care system is in no way bound to fascism, which was my intention here. :p

Oh.... you knew what i mean!

yellow

Aug 12, 2009, 09:12 AM

I am amused.

The Nazi regime was famous for it's powerful use of propaganda to sway the thoughts of an otherwise sane German populace. Recognizing it's power, this practice was taken up by the Stalin (and post-Stalin) era Soviet Communists, as well as the government of 40s and 50s America.

Now, in 2009, who in your opinion uses propaganda the most to get their message out to try and sway an otherwise sane American populace?

Amusing choice of topics, Glenn Beck.

obeygiant

Aug 12, 2009, 09:20 AM

Now, in 2009, who in your opinion uses propaganda the most to get their message out to try and sway an otherwise sane American populace?

Who uses propaganda the most is hard to say, but I think all sides are guilty of using it.

beatzfreak

Aug 12, 2009, 09:26 AM

Yes because they're privately owned. Privately owned businesses don't have to help anyone that doesn't want to pay or will be consuming more medicine (ultimately meaning money) than they should be from said company.

Since Glenn Beck most likely has private insurance, you're saying that his insurance company has the right to deny his daughter coverage since she may require more medicine or care.

yellow

Aug 12, 2009, 09:37 AM

Propaganda is all about being selective with information.

spaceboots06

Aug 12, 2009, 10:28 AM

I can't wait 'till Obama demands his name to be put in the Pledge of Allegiance somewhere. I bet you damned liberals will like that, wouldn't you!

yellow

Aug 12, 2009, 10:29 AM

I can't wait 'till Obama demands his name to be put in the Pledge of Allegiance somewhere. I bet you damned liberals will like that, wouldn't you!

My sarcasm meter is on the fritz.. you're kidding, right?

spaceboots06

Aug 12, 2009, 10:31 AM

My sarcasm meter is on the fritz.. you're kidding, right?

Not at all. :D ;) :p

freeny

Aug 12, 2009, 10:42 AM

I can't wait 'till Obama demands his name to be put in the Pledge of Allegiance somewhere. I bet you damned liberals will like that, wouldn't you!
And he expects to be taken seriously :p

Queso

Aug 12, 2009, 11:24 AM

I can't wait 'till Obama demands his name to be put in the Pledge of Allegiance somewhere. I bet you damned liberals will like that, wouldn't you!
You can wait for that. You'll be waiting a very long time, far longer than the eight years Obama will be your president.

Eraserhead

Aug 12, 2009, 12:30 PM

You can wait for that. You'll be waiting a very long time, far longer than the eight years Obama will be your president.

The idea of Obama wanting to be in the Pledge of Allegiance is laughable.

paddy

Aug 12, 2009, 12:36 PM

Eraserhead

Aug 12, 2009, 12:38 PM

spaceboots06

Aug 12, 2009, 01:03 PM

You can wait for that. You'll be waiting a very long time, far longer than the eight years Obama will be your president.

Tsk. You really think Obama will only let himself stay in presidency for eight years? He'll probably change the two term rule before 2010. :p

hulugu

Aug 12, 2009, 01:03 PM

Nazis also drove Volkswagens and ate bratwurst. I drive a Volkswagen and eat bratwurst, am I a Nazi?....

Jawohl Herr Kommandant!

My sarcasm meter is on the fritz.. you're kidding, right?

I'm sending him a cleaning bill, my Silly-Person Meter™ just blew up and left a little smoking pile on my desk.

Of course, I buy them by the crate these days.

spaceboots06

Aug 12, 2009, 01:05 PM

It's absolutely stunning to anyone outside the US to watch the chaos that this debate is calling. I mean, how many people like Spaceboots (who believe in all these psychotic conspiracy theories) are out there? Are they just an extremely rabid and vocal yet small minority? Or are there enough of them there to sway an election?

Actually, no. Turn on any news channel and you'll see the healthcare debates raging where both democrats and republicans are expressing themselves very seriously and clearly.

The idea of Obama wanting to be in the Pledge of Allegiance is laughable.

I pledge allegiance to Obama, and the United States of America... :p

nbs2

Aug 12, 2009, 01:08 PM

Hitler got the trains to run on time. Amtrak = Nazis.

I believe it was Mussolini who was noted for getting the trains to run on time. Just last week, as I arrived at my 90 minutes away destination that took 3 hours to get to, I was thinking about how easily something that simple could sway so many people...

Geico isn't the first, nor will they be the last advertiser to pull ads from Beck's show. If all of the big time advertisers pull their ads (and he's in the primetime slot where ad time is expensive) he'll either be pulled from the air or his show will move to some odd hour like 1 AM with Shamwow and Cash4Gold ads.

I suspect that his noteriety, as evidenced by the amount of attention he gets on a site like this, will be enough to keep him on the air. Even without advertisers, he draws enough of a crowd that he can be a lead-in to other shows and still earn his keep. Advertisers will need to produce a full scale boycott of FNC to get him booted.

I don't care for him one way or another, and find it rather nice to not get CNN/MSNBC/FNC/any national all news station other than CSPAN at home.

Now, in 2009, who in your opinion uses propaganda the most to get their message out to try and sway an otherwise sane American populace?

Last year it was moveon, this year it's Beck. Contrary to what folks on both sides of the aisle spectrum argue, I think more than 85-95% of the country is, and has always been, sane at any given time. Everybody is always going to use propaganda to make noise.

On the outside, we see that as mentioned earlier the stories about Beck show him going from comedic to disturbing; in the same way, the number and tone of stories make indicate to me that moveon has gone from omnipresent to the point of irritation to near-invisible.

In the inside, Obama's "dangerous" line sounds like something we would have heard from the Bush,er Cheney, administration in justifying Iraq.

leekohler

Aug 12, 2009, 01:11 PM

Private industry isn't awarded the luxery of "free" money. The companies have to watch their bottom line when entering into contracts with people who have pre-existing conditions or no one whom they insure will be covered as they will be out of business. These ethical issues are going to be troubling if the government tries to take on a public option. At what point do we stop taking equity out on the next generations future? My guess is we will just continue to spend, and I don't believe any plan we come up with is going to dissipate the burdon we face for the elder generation.

That's a perfect argument for UHC right there.

I suppose your answer is that we just let insurance companies deny coverage to elderly instead? And that makes it better because it's not the government doing it? :confused:

Again- look at other countries' systems. NO one can tell me that we can't do it if places like Cuba can, for god's sake.

Macky-Mac

Aug 12, 2009, 01:15 PM

Alaska's other well known Republican weighs in on "death panels"

Anchorage Daily News (http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/895431.html)

Murkowski: Don't tell lies about the health-care reform bill

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski on Tuesday told an Anchorage crowd that critics of health care reform, the summer's hottest political topic, aren't helping the debate by throwing out highly charged assertions not based in fact.

"It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels," Murkowski, a Republican, said. "Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill....

...Former Gov. Sarah Palin stirred up controversy last week by suggesting on her Facebook page that people like her parents and Down syndrome son might have to appear before "Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care...."

leekohler

Aug 12, 2009, 01:17 PM

In the inside, Obama's "dangerous" line sounds like something we would have heard from the Bush,er Cheney, administration in justifying Iraq.

Difference is- Obama's talking about saving lives, not destroying them.

Eraserhead

Aug 12, 2009, 01:17 PM

Again- look at other countries' systems. NO one can tell me that we can't do it if places like Cuba can, for god's sake.

The Cubans even have longer life expectancy than the Americans :eek:.

leekohler

Aug 12, 2009, 01:18 PM

The Cubans even have longer life expectancy than the Americans :eek:.

That's completely embarrassing.

yellow

Aug 12, 2009, 01:21 PM

The Cubans even have longer life expectancy than the Americans :eek:.

That's completely embarrassing.

Well, it's hard to get fat (and die of the related diseases) in a society where it's hard to get enough to eat.

On a side note, that's probably a good thing since (apparently) Cuba is running dangerously low on toilet paper!

I was greatly amused by last night's "The Colbert Report" on the topic of 'it's not in the bill'. Steve said, it's 1000 pages! Who could read all that!?

leekohler

Aug 12, 2009, 01:24 PM

Well, it's hard to get fat (and die of the related diseases) in a society where it's hard to get enough to eat.

Starvation usually kills people fairly quickly as well.

yellow

Aug 12, 2009, 01:30 PM

Starvation usually kills people fairly quickly as well.

True.. but it's a slower process. I can hardly turn around without being "forced" to wolf down some McD fries. And by forced, I mean "doing so with pleasure as often as possible".

leekohler

Aug 12, 2009, 01:35 PM

True.. but it's a slower process. I can hardly turn around without being "forced" to wolf down some McD fries. And by forced, I mean "doing so with pleasure as often as possible".

Haha! Too funny. :)

But I personally can't stand McDonald's. It makes me nauseous. The times I have eaten it, I just thought to myself, "This can't actually be food". ;)

yellow

Aug 12, 2009, 01:40 PM

But I personally can't stand McDonald's. It makes me nauseous. The times I have eaten it, I just thought to myself, "This can't actually be food". ;)

IIRC, you actually care about your body temple. So, this is not a shocker.
Me? I'm like most Americans. I'm lazy, it's cheap, and I'm hooked. When I eat it, I KNOW it's bad for me, I KNOW it doesn't taste that good, but I do it anyway! It's a little frightening, actually.

I hope I don't get sent to Obama's Camps for the Reformation of Overweight Americans (aka, death camps for fatties!). Or maybe McDonald's is practicing eugenics! That's Glenn Beck's headline tomorrow! :rolleyes:

yg17

Aug 12, 2009, 02:07 PM

I hope I don't get sent to Obama's Camps for the Reformation of Overweight Americans (aka, death camps for fatties!). Or maybe McDonald's is practicing eugentics! That's Glenn Beck's headline tomorrow! :rolleyes:

If I was under threat to be sent to an Obama fat camp that actually might get me even more motivated to lose weight :D

Zombie Acorn

Aug 12, 2009, 03:34 PM

That's a perfect argument for UHC right there.

I suppose your answer is that we just let insurance companies deny coverage to elderly instead? And that makes it better because it's not the government doing it? :confused:

Again- look at other countries' systems. NO one can tell me that we can't do it if places like Cuba can, for god's sake.

The insurance companies aren't burdened with an ethical decision because its the only way they stay in business, from a broad perspective it insures the many at the expense of a few. The government will have to take on the ethical concern because they are expected to create more money if we run out.

Personally I don't even care if they implement the system, I will opt out either way. I just have a feeling its going to snowball into deficit spending and we are going to end up handing more and more debt to the next generation before we have even dealt with the debt handed to the generation previous to that and the one previous to that.

leekohler

Aug 12, 2009, 03:40 PM

The insurance companies aren't burdened with an ethical decision because its the only way they stay in business, from a broad perspective it insures the many at the expense of a few. The government will have to take on the ethical concern because they are expected to create more money if we run out.

Personally I don't even care if they implement the system, I will opt out either way. I just have a feeling its going to snowball into deficit spending.

Again I ask- why can the rest of the civilized world accomplish this, but we can't? Why won't someone answer this question? The rest of the world isn't doing what insurance companies do either. Care isn't "auctioned off" as you guys like to claim it is, but insurance companies aren;t there when you need them most, so what happens? People lose everything and go bankrupt. How can you possibly think that's OK? I truly do not understand this thinking.

yellow

Aug 12, 2009, 03:44 PM

Why won't someone answer this question?

<-- propaganda time!

BoyBach

Aug 12, 2009, 03:46 PM

Goodness. Will you please make your minds up. Is Pres. Obama a Communist or a Nazi?

thegoldenmackid

Aug 12, 2009, 03:47 PM

Goodness. Will you please make your minds up. Is Pres. Obama a Communist or a Nazi?

Mr. Beck claims both.

yg17

Aug 12, 2009, 03:55 PM

Mr. Beck claims both.

It's about as dumb as saying Porky Pig is both a dog and a cat.

yellow

Aug 12, 2009, 03:56 PM

Goodness. Will you please make your minds up. Is Pres. Obama a Communist or a Nazi?

He's both! Never neglect the "3rd option". :)

Zombie Acorn

Aug 12, 2009, 04:16 PM

Again I ask- why can the rest of the civilized world accomplish this, but we can't? Why won't someone answer this question? The rest of the world isn't doing what insurance companies do either. Care isn't "auctioned off" as you guys like to claim it is, but insurance companies aren;t there when you need them most, so what happens? People lose everything and go bankrupt. How can you possibly think that's OK? I truly do not understand this thinking.

No other country that I am aware of is supporting a world empire either. If we didn't spend money on that we could save a bunch of money for our national insurance policies. Divert the funds instead of adding to our deficit and I have no problem with trying whatever system the government comes up with. We can start by getting the **** out of germany, japan, iraq, and korea. Then stop supplying other governments with military training, humanitarian support, and weapons and worry about our own problems.

Queso

Aug 12, 2009, 04:24 PM

Sadly now corrected, but this peach from the Investor's Business Daily had me in stitches :D :D

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Even better is the riposte from the Fred-voiced one himself... :D

"I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS," Hawking told The Guardian. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

hulugu

Aug 12, 2009, 04:28 PM

Sadly now corrected, but this peach from the Investor's Business Daily had me in stitches :D :D

Yes, and Hawking is clearly aware of such a dangerous situation when he said (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/12/birthers-stephen-hawking-paul-rowen), "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS... I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

I can't believe that someone at IBD didn't look at Hawking's wikipedia entry and notice that he's living in England right now and has since before he was diagnosed with ALS.

leekohler

Aug 12, 2009, 04:29 PM

No other country that I am aware of is supporting a world empire either. If we didn't spend money on that we could save a bunch of money for our national insurance policies. Divert the funds instead of adding to our deficit and I have no problem with trying whatever system the government comes up with. We can start by getting the **** out of germany, japan, iraq, and korea. Then stop supplying other governments with military training, humanitarian support, and weapons and worry about our own problems.

I agree with all but the humanitarian support thing. We do need to get out of other countries.

BoyBach

Aug 12, 2009, 04:29 PM

Sadly now corrected, but this peach from the Investor's Business Daily had me in stitches :D :D

Even better is the riposte from the Fred-voiced one himself... :D

Why are people even bothering to debate with these idiots? Surely the correct response is to point and laugh.

NT1440

Aug 12, 2009, 04:30 PM

No other country that I am aware of is supporting a world empire either. If we didn't spend money on that we could save a bunch of money for our national insurance policies. Divert the funds instead of adding to our deficit and I have no problem with trying whatever system the government comes up with. We can start by getting the **** out of germany, japan, iraq, and korea. Then stop supplying other governments with military training, humanitarian support, and weapons and worry about our own problems.

Your idea that America is the only country of its kind is laughable. Tons of other countries have massive populations as well as riches (just because they aren't #1 doesn't mean they are third world countries) and still manage to pull off healthcare.

Zombie Acorn

Aug 12, 2009, 04:34 PM

Your idea that America is the only country of its kind is laughable. Tons of other countries have massive populations as well as riches (just because they aren't #1 doesn't mean they are third world countries) and still manage to pull off healthcare.

Who said anything about populations? Obviously most of these plans would scale as we have more tax payers. I am talking about our presence in other countries, there is no other country like ours in that respect. Time for the great exodus of American military presence in the world. We are in one of the best tactical positions anyways, the other countries are the ones near the loons.

I agree with all but the humanitarian support thing. We do need to get out of other countries.

Would you trade American health for foreign humanitarian support? Im not saying it has to be a direct exchange, but if it came down to it I would always choose to fix our problems first.

Gelfin

Aug 12, 2009, 04:35 PM

I believe it was Mussolini who was noted for getting the trains to run on time.

Except he didn't (http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp).

leekohler

Aug 12, 2009, 04:57 PM

Would you trade American health for foreign humanitarian support? Im not saying it has to be a direct exchange, but if it came down to it I would always choose to fix our problems first.

No- but it's not coming down to that. Also- right now, we spend far more than any country on health care, and get the least. All the evidence points to this being cheaper for us. Also, think about how much we could sell American products for if corporations weren't burdened with paying health insurance premiums. We could actually get some manufacturing back in the US! Look at the big picture here.

NT1440

Aug 12, 2009, 05:06 PM

Who said anything about populations? Obviously most of these plans would scale as we have more tax payers. I am talking about our presence in other countries, there is no other country like ours in that respect. Time for the great exodus of American military presence in the world. We are in one of the best tactical positions anyways, the other countries are the ones near the loons.

So because we are arguably the strongest nation force wise, we aren't allowed to take care of our own citizens with healthcare? I've been confused by your talk of "this is america we are _______" as your reasoning for why we aren't capable of having a system where we all can have healthcare.

Zombie Acorn

Aug 12, 2009, 05:09 PM

No- but it's not coming down to that. Also- right now, we spend far more than any country on health care, and get the least. All the evidence points to this being cheaper for us. Also, think about how much we could sell American products for if corporations weren't burdened with paying health insurance premiums. We could actually get some manufacturing back in the US! Look at the big picture here.

The problem I foresee is though we relieve them of the costs of premiums, we tax them on the back end to pay for the government system. Our companies are already taxed to the hilt in my opinion.

I change my mind every other day about how its best to deal with this issue, its complicated and I see pit falls in every approach. Obviously what we are doing now isn't working though, and I don't have enough experience on the medical side of things to come up with something better.

So because we are arguably the strongest nation force wise, we aren't allowed to take care of our own citizens with healthcare? I've been confused by your talk of "this is america we are _______" as your reasoning for why we aren't capable of having a system where we all can have healthcare.

Lets make it a bit more simple then.

2 employees both work for 1000 a month

Employee 1 chooses a BMW and pays a 500 dollar car payment.

Employee 2 chooses a kia and pays a 50 dollar car payment.

Employee 1 lives in a crappy 500 dollar apartment in the hood.

Employee 2 lives in a nice 950 dollar condo.

Employee 2 asks Employee 1 why he lives in such a ********.

Employee 1 replies its because he stupidly spent all his money on a BMW instead of doing something more sensible.

End of weird scenario.

The money comes from somewhere, we spend it on a national empire or we spend it on national health care. No other country spends like we do in the national empire department. I will agree that we spend more than other countries (which needs to be looked into, I imagine its because we live like pigs), but even so it wouldn't be unsustainable if we weren't spending all of our money elsewhere.

rdowns

Aug 12, 2009, 06:08 PM

I change my mind every other day about how its best to deal with this issue, its complicated and I see pit falls in every approach. Obviously what we are doing now isn't working though, and I don't have enough experience on the medical side of things to come up with something better.

This I can agree with you on. While I am for UHC, I think they're moving too fast just to get it done. I'd much rather see it done more slowly. First, let people buy coverage from out of state. That competition will lower prices immediately. Do that for 6 months while you work on a well thought out, comprehensive plan.

Here in NY, competition is a joke. My former employer (about 165 employees) would get a 20-25% increase every year (and until last December they paid the full cost) and be forced to shop. With so few providers, we rotated among 3 insurers. Frickin ridiculous.

Macky-Mac

Aug 12, 2009, 07:07 PM

.....Here in NY, competition is a joke. My former employer (about 165 employees) would get a 20-25% increase every year (and until last December they paid the full cost) and be forced to shop. With so few providers, we rotated among 3 insurers. Frickin ridiculous.

the situation you describe is all too common unfortunately. The reality is that we're not facing a choice between healthcare reform and keeping the system we currently have since our current system is deteriorating into such a mess

Eraserhead

Aug 13, 2009, 02:38 AM

This I can agree with you on. While I am for UHC, I think they're moving too fast just to get it done. I'd much rather see it done more slowly. First, let people buy coverage from out of state. That competition will lower prices immediately. Do that for 6 months while you work on a well thought out, comprehensive plan.

I didn't realise the current position was so bad. Damn, why not just try that for starters (hell even allow international companies to compete)? And make it easier for individuals to buy healthcare plans separately from their companies?

johnnyjibbs

Aug 13, 2009, 10:42 AM

thejadedmonkey

Aug 13, 2009, 10:53 AM

I find this whole thing fascinating.

A quick Google search of Glenn Beck and the controversy led me to a few stories (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i41bbbd5e87896f55a34bd72ad2489571) about his comments. Makes the whole Jonathon Ross/Russell Brand "Sachsgate" fiasco (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7694989.stm) look like small fry.

But Glenn Beck's show only gets 2 million views for a prime time show? Generally a prime time show in the UK would be axed if it only got that number, and don't forget the US has 5 times the number of people!!!

the thing is that everyone who watches him likes him and agrees with him and is fanatical about him and his views.... and buys the things he wants them to buy..... I work for a large bookstore, and one of our #1 books is Common Sense by, you guessed it! Glenn beck.

People tell their friends, who buy it because it's highly recommended, without knowing at all what it's about. His viewers are a goldmine for money, but usually very closed minded (from what I've seen of the people who buy his book, at least).

fivepoint

Aug 13, 2009, 10:57 AM

But Glenn Beck's show only gets 2 million views for a prime time show? Generally a prime time show in the UK would be axed if it only got that number, and don't forget the US has 5 times the number of people!!!

FYI - Glenn Beck's show is not on in primetime. I'm pretty sure it's on at around 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon in most markets.

atszyman

Aug 13, 2009, 11:19 AM

Our system costs more and has worse results than other countries with a public option. By not having a public option the government is still assigning a value to human life, it's just that the value is always zero because we'd rather let the private insurance companies deny service than spend one extra dollar on healthcare.

The two arguments I most hear against it are that it won't work or that our costs fund innovation. That leads me to believe that we're either too dumb to improve upon other plans that yield better results, or we're content paying higher costs for worse results so that the innovation can happen and other countries can benefit from that innovation (in effect subsidizing other countries healthcare through our costs).

Furthermore, the youth, disabled, and elderly are typically demographics that the Democrats do well in. If anyone should be afraid of "Death Panels" it would be white middle aged males.

leekohler

Aug 13, 2009, 11:21 AM

The problem I foresee is though we relieve them of the costs of premiums, we tax them on the back end to pay for the government system. Our companies are already taxed to the hilt in my opinion.

I change my mind every other day about how its best to deal with this issue, its complicated and I see pit falls in every approach. Obviously what we are doing now isn't working though, and I don't have enough experience on the medical side of things to come up with something better.

Lets make it a bit more simple then.

2 employees both work for 1000 a month

Employee 1 chooses a BMW and pays a 500 dollar car payment.

Employee 2 chooses a kia and pays a 50 dollar car payment.

Employee 1 lives in a crappy 500 dollar apartment in the hood.

Employee 2 lives in a nice 950 dollar condo.

Employee 2 asks Employee 1 why he lives in such a ********.

Employee 1 replies its because he stupidly spent all his money on a BMW instead of doing something more sensible.

End of weird scenario.

The money comes from somewhere, we spend it on a national empire or we spend it on national health care. No other country spends like we do in the national empire department. I will agree that we spend more than other countries (which needs to be looked into, I imagine its because we live like pigs), but even so it wouldn't be unsustainable if we weren't spending all of our money elsewhere.

So we stop spending it elsewhere- end of story.

yg17

Aug 13, 2009, 11:51 AM

So we stop spending it elsewhere- end of story.

Let's start with Iraq.

Zombie Acorn

Aug 13, 2009, 12:33 PM

Let's start with Iraq.

No argument here. Also Korea, Germany, and Japan host quite a few of our soldiers (75K in Germany if I recall) and I am sure its costing us a bundle.

leekohler

Aug 13, 2009, 01:15 PM

No argument here. Also Korea, Germany, and Japan host quite a few of our soldiers (75K in Germany if I recall) and I am sure its costing us a bundle.

I'm all for pulling them out. Iraq first though, since we haven't been there that long.

yg17

Aug 13, 2009, 01:18 PM

No argument here. Also Korea, Germany, and Japan host quite a few of our soldiers (75K in Germany if I recall) and I am sure its costing us a bundle.

Agreed. I've generally been OK with soldiers in those countries as they're not in harmsway, but I'm sure it is a huge money pit. But definitely Iraq first, as it's more dangerous (and likely more costly) than Korea, Japan and Germany combined.

opinioncircle

Aug 13, 2009, 07:01 PM

No argument here. Also Korea, Germany, and Japan host quite a few of our soldiers (75K in Germany if I recall) and I am sure its costing us a bundle.

Well at least for Germany, they've been here a while. I know for a fact that some troops have moved out of Germany. I don't know the amount though.

kavika411

Aug 13, 2009, 08:18 PM

I am so tired of people saying that it's not a grass roots effort to pull advertising from Beck's show, such as at:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/13/powerful-new-york-pr-firm-helps-campaign-against-glenn-beck

Clearly, each of these advertisers came to the same conclusion at the same time to pull their advertising. Unlike the anti-universal-health-care protesters at the otherwise legitimate townhall meetings ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L3FnWNkIzU ), the Beck advertising pulling is legitimate.

bobber205

Aug 13, 2009, 09:23 PM

so you're in favor of "death panels" as long as they're private run? :confused:

Not so much private, just as long as someone makes a profit! :D

Who doesn't love profit. It's awesome.

Sky Blue

Oct 6, 2009, 07:35 PM

19 more advertisers pull out from Beck's show.

Here's the full list of new companies ditching Beck: AmMed Direct, Citrix Online, Concord Music Group, Diageo, Eggland's Best, Equifax, Eulactol USA (producer of Flexitol), GetARoom.com, Hoffman La Roche (maker of BONIVA), Metropolitan Talent Management, ooVoo, Overture Films, Scarguard, Schiff Nutrition (maker of Tiger's Milk and Fi-Bar), Seoul Metropolitan Government, Subaru, Toyota-Lexus, Waitrose and Woodland Power Products, Inc.

Two companies--Waitrose (the British supermarket chain) and Metropolitan Talent Management--pulled their ads not only from Beck's show, but from Fox News in general.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/6/790236/-19-more-advertisers-ditch-Glenn-Beck

macfan881

Oct 6, 2009, 08:36 PM

well if they do ever wake up and fire this guy im sure they will just replace him with Dobbs who is just as bad :rolleyes:

Zombie Acorn

Oct 6, 2009, 09:13 PM

19 more advertisers pull out from Beck's show.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/6/790236/-19-more-advertisers-ditch-Glenn-Beck

I usually have to listen to the show when I help my grandpa out as fox news is going 100%, the only commercials I have ever heard in that list are lexus and seoul.

leekohler

Oct 6, 2009, 09:27 PM

19 more advertisers pull out from Beck's show.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/6/790236/-19-more-advertisers-ditch-Glenn-Beck

Good. They should.

chstr

Oct 6, 2009, 09:37 PM

His point was that Nazi-Germany had government healthcare and practiced eugenics.

The advertisement that Nazi-Germany used had a child with cerebral palsy on it.

His daughter has cerebral palsy.

Some state run healthcare states already have denied people of care or put them on long waiting lists.

Glenn Beck is sickened by this.

Glenn Beck cries.

Six step explanation.

yawn... give me a break. government health care had nothing to do with the atrocities of WWII. Its not like the nazis killed jewish people because they wanted to save on healthcare. it was a different kind of insanity. Next thing you're gonna tell me is that France is a neo-nazi state

AP_piano295

Oct 6, 2009, 10:12 PM

He might get viewers but viewers dont pay :D

Zombie Acorn

Oct 6, 2009, 10:31 PM

He might get viewers but viewers dont pay :D

He does have a book out, I imagine hes getting paid either way.

Thomas Veil

Oct 7, 2009, 06:14 AM

He does have a book out....Yeah, but it has to be back in two weeks.

Queso

Oct 7, 2009, 06:46 AM

Yeah, but it has to be back in two weeks.
Another fan of The Hungry Caterpillar ?

yg17

Oct 7, 2009, 07:36 AM

Another fan of The Hungry Caterpillar ?

No, I think Everybody Poops is closer to Beck's level of reading comprehension.

Of course, if everybody pooped, that would be communism. He believes that only those who work hard and deserve it should poop, and those who can't poop are just lazy and don't deserve help pooping.

Thomas Veil

Oct 7, 2009, 07:57 AM

...the only commercials I have ever heard in that list are lexus and seoul.Frankly, if I hear that Boniva commercial once more, I'll be tempted to break some of Sally Field's bones myself. :p

(That was just a joke, DHS. :o )

I'd be interested to see (though we likely never will) how this is affecting Fox "News". Ratings and ad sales are funny games. FNC may overall get 2-3x the ratings of MSNBC, but shows like Countdown fare very favorably in the coveted 18-34 viewer category. Those are the people who apparently spend the most money. I can't imagine Beck is doing all that well among that group.

But then again, Rupert Murdoch's motives are as ideological as they are economic. In the movie "Network", Howard Beale ultimately proves to be a huge drag on the network's ratings, yet the network chairman, Arthur Jensen, wants him kept on the air because he's "delivering a very important message."

In the long run that may be the best result: discrediting Beck and costing Fox money, rather than getting him pulled off the air. If the latter happens, he might simply be replaced by another fanatical ideologue, someone more subtle and less clownish, and therefore potentially more effective.

leekohler

Oct 7, 2009, 11:53 AM

Frankly, if I hear that Boniva commercial once more, I'll be tempted to break some of Sally Field's bones myself. :p

(That was just a joke, DHS. :o )

I'd be interested to see (though we likely never will) how this is affecting Fox "News". Ratings and ad sales are funny games. FNC may overall get 2-3x the ratings of MSNBC, but shows like Countdown fare very favorably in the coveted 18-34 viewer category. Those are the people who apparently spend the most money. I can't imagine Beck is doing all that well among that group.

But then again, Rupert Murdoch's motives are as ideological as they are economic. In the movie "Network", Howard Beale ultimately proves to be a huge drag on the network's ratings, yet the network chairman, Arthur Jensen, wants him kept on the air because he's "delivering a very important message."

In the long run that may be the best result: discrediting Beck and costing Fox money, rather than getting him pulled off the air. If the latter happens, he might simply be replaced by another fanatical ideologue, someone more subtle and less clownish, and therefore potentially more effective.

I say let the fool speak. And the next time he starts whining about getting into people's pasts, somebody should hold a mirror to his face.