Glenn Beck Tanks

[Oldandtired]

He had a majority for the first 6 years...but not a fillibuster proof majority.
He had nothing his last two years.

My facts are straight.

As for the lying lips crap you loser......got anything better....like addressing the crux of what I was saying....you know...the part about ONE MAN has little power in govertnment?

Jeez....always looking waysto punch holes in the credibility f the messnger.....but never able to punch holes in the messge.

Go back to sucking your thumb...I d not debate childen.

Obama does not have a "filibuster proof" majority.

Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat, and agrees with Republicans on most issues.

In addition, The Democratic congress did not have enough votes to overturn vetoes during Bush's last 2 years, and Bush vetoed just about every major legislation that came across his desk. He used to brag about it.

Do you not know what a fillibuster proof majority is?

The republkicans can fillibuster and it wont make a dam biut of difference. A vote can still take place. Joe L. being an independant is irrelevant.

You are more naive to government than you make yourself out to be.

You are a regurgitator of talking points.

You are a sad example of a debater.

 

[Oldandtired]

Why must you lie to make a point?
Are you a progressive?
If you truly watched Beck over the years, you would know he had an allegiance to one thing and one thing only....SMALL GOVERNMENT.

He attacked any republican that wanted to increase government.

That makes him NON PARTISAN as it pertains to parties.

You did not watch the man or you would have known how he threw many republicans over the years under the bus.

So why do you lie?

Hey, genius, "Small Government" is what Republicans run on. It's one of their talking points.

The only time he attacked Republicans were when they either:

1. Didn't toe the party line.

or

2. Were no longer popular, and were dragging down the rest of the party with them, like George Bush.

And your point is what?
Beck is not at all a republican...but it is the party that represents more of his sentiments....but he has many times chucked republicans unbder the bus.

Nice try.

 

[ABikerSailor]

He had a majority for the first 6 years...but not a fillibuster proof majority.
He had nothing his last two years.

My facts are straight.

As for the lying lips crap you loser......got anything better....like addressing the crux of what I was saying....you know...the part about ONE MAN has little power in govertnment?

Jeez....always looking waysto punch holes in the credibility f the messnger.....but never able to punch holes in the messge.

Go back to sucking your thumb...I d not debate childen.

Obama does not have a "filibuster proof" majority.

Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat, and agrees with Republicans on most issues.

In addition, The Democratic congress did not have enough votes to overturn vetoes during Bush's last 2 years, and Bush vetoed just about every major legislation that came across his desk. He used to brag about it.

Do you not know what a fillibuster proof majority is?

The republkicans can fillibuster and it wont make a dam biut of difference. A vote can still take place. Joe L. being an independant is irrelevant.

You are more naive to government than you make yourself out to be.

You are a regurgitator of talking points.

You are a sad example of a debater.

Regurgitator of talking points? Might wanna look in the mirror there at yourself OATS (it's an acronym for Old And Tired Shithead).

All you do is spew what FAUX Noise tells you to.

 

[Vast LWC]

SO I will now ask a THIRD person on this thread....

Exactly how many intitiatives did Bush sign into law without a large handful of democrats on board and voting for it?

No one else will touch this question.

I wonder why that is?

Which would prove what exactly? That Democrats are less obstructive and less partisan than Republicans?

Because at the moment, Republicans have been specifically block-voting against any legislation that's proposed, period.

 

[Oldandtired]

SO I will now ask a THIRD person on this thread....

Exactly how many intitiatives did Bush sign into law without a large handful of democrats on board and voting for it?

No one else will touch this question.

I wonder why that is?

Which would prove what exactly? That Democrats are less obstructive and less partisan than Republicans?

Because at the moment, Republicans have been specifically block-voting against any legislation that's proposed, period.

Wow...what a spin.
When legislation can not pass WITHOUT democrats, the democrats are heros for voting along with the repoublicans....but of course, if such legislation proves to be harmful to our country, the democrats are not at all at fault...they were simply gooing along for the ride....and being bi partisan.

When republican votes are NOT necessary to pass legislation, it is the republicans fault that the legislation stalls.

Do you truly not see the irony in what you are saying?

 

[Gatekeeper]

Looks like good ole Glenn Beck ain't tanking in here The 'ratings seem pretty high in USMB
Anyone really watch these Fox people anymore?

 

[Vast LWC]

Do you not know what a fillibuster proof majority is?

The republkicans can fillibuster and it wont make a dam biut of difference. A vote can still take place. Joe L. being an independant is irrelevant.

You are more naive to government than you make yourself out to be.

You are a regurgitator of talking points.

You are a sad example of a debater.

A "filibuster proof" majority is 60 Votes. Or, enough votes to override a fillibuster.

"In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture." - Wikipedia

Without Joe Lieberman they have 59 votes.

Now, please stop making a fool of yourself.

You're obviously one of those confrontational morons who relies on attempting to browbeat your opponent into submission with dismissive insults.

Sorry, that doesn't work on me. Especially since your facts are just so wrong.

 

[Vast LWC]

And your point is what?
Beck is not at all a republican...but it is the party that represents more of his sentiments....but he has many times chucked republicans unbder the bus.

Nice try.

Glenn Beck voted Republican in the last two national elections. He has admitted that.

Glenn Beck supports Republicans on his show, and repeatedly criticizes their political opponents on the left.

Glenn Beck can SAY he's whatever the hell he wants to say he is, his actions prove that he is a Republican.

Bill O'Reilly tried the same BS a while back, claiming he was an "Independent", until it was discovered he was a registered Republican.

 

[Oldandtired]

Do you not know what a fillibuster proof majority is?

The republkicans can fillibuster and it wont make a dam biut of difference. A vote can still take place. Joe L. being an independant is irrelevant.

You are more naive to government than you make yourself out to be.

You are a regurgitator of talking points.

You are a sad example of a debater.

A "filibuster proof" majority is 60 Votes. Or, enough votes to override a fillibuster.

"In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture." - Wikipedia

Without Joe Lieberman they have 59 votes.

Now, please stop making a fool of yourself.

You're obviously one of those confrontational morons who relies on attempting to browbeat your opponent into submission with dismissive insults.

Sorry, that doesn't work on me. Especially since your facts are just so wrong.

You are a joke....

A fillibuster proof majority is based on whether or not a fillibuster is viable by the opposing party.
When you have only 39 members, you can no longer fillibuster.

Now...go away. I have no time for a child.

Later.

 

[Vast LWC]

You are a joke....

There you go again.

A fillibuster proof majority is based on whether or not a fillibuster is viable by the opposing party.
When you have only 39 members, you can no longer fillibuster.

Unless someone who is not part of your party joins you in your filibuster, like Joe Lieberman stated he would be willing to do just last week.

Now...go away. I have no time for a child.
Later.

You just keep on proving my point. ROFL.

 

[uscitizen]

Tell me something............how is a majority NOT a majority?

Face it ya ******* old and tired loser, Repugnicans fucked up this country from 2000-2006, because they had control of the whole government, which is why we WENT TO WAR IN THE WRONG ******* COUNTRY.

Iraq was nothing more than a war for oil, and even then, it didn't work as advertised.

SO I will now ask a THIRD person on this thread....

Exactly how many intitiatives did Bush sign into law without a large handful of democrats on board and voting for it?

No one else will touch this question.

I wonder why that is?

Because the republicans in congress gave the dems most of what they wanted?

And the dems knew they could not keep up with the republicans on spending anyway?

Dems in congress have been bought by big business just like the repubs.

We have a govt ran by corporations not the people of the USA.

 

[Vast LWC]

Because the republicans in congress gave the dems most of what they wanted?

And the dems knew they could not keep up with the republicans on spending anyway?

Dems in congress have been bought by big business just like the repubs.

We have a govt ran by corporations not the people of the USA.

Now that is the truth.

Want to know the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

Democrats want to let corporations run the country, they just want government to be a go-between.

Republicans just want to let corporations run the country straight out.

It's Socialism vs Corporate Oligarchy.

 

[Meister]

Tell me something............how is a majority NOT a majority?

Face it ya ******* old and tired loser, Repugnicans fucked up this country from 2000-2006, because they had control of the whole government, which is why we WENT TO WAR IN THE WRONG ******* COUNTRY.

Iraq was nothing more than a war for oil, and even then, it didn't work as advertised.

SO I will now ask a THIRD person on this thread....

Exactly how many intitiatives did Bush sign into law without a large handful of democrats on board and voting for it?

No one else will touch this question.

I wonder why that is?

Because the republicans in congress gave the dems most of what they wanted?

And the dems knew they could not keep up with the republicans on spending anyway?

Dems in congress have been bought by big business just like the repubs.

We have a govt ran by corporations not the people of the USA.

This post has so much spin to it, I need to sit down....getting a little dizzy.

 

[Rinata]

Hopey Changey kooks whining about "Negativity" and "Hoping for failure" really is pretty friggin hilarious. Do they actually think that everyone forgot about their incessant preaching of Gloom & Doom for eight straight years? Are these kooks delusional or what? Well anyone with common sense hasn't forgotten about the Hopey Changey's terrible behavior the previous eight years. So feigned outrage just isn't gonna cut it. What a hoot.

Yo.........Lying Lips Now.......the reason everyone was talking gloom and doom from 2000-2008, was because Bubble Boy Bush Jr. and Cheney were driving this country straight into the ground.

After 2004, it was a ******* mess, which exploded in their faces 6 months prior to leaving office. Bush and Cheney were hoping that it wouldn't tank until AFTER they left office.

Too bad for them that they were wrong.

Wanna know who I think is delusional Lying Lips Now? You.

Interesting observation.......when Bush was President without a majority in congress, he was responsible for everything. Now that Obama is the man, and he HAS NOT ONLY A MAJORITY...but a fillibuster proof majority, yet the reason he cant get anything done is because of the obstructionist republican party.

Do you truly not see the irony in this?

Do you truly not listen to what all of the Republican senators say when they are being interviewed?? If you'd listen to what comes out of their mouths, you'd see why they are accused of being obstructionists!!! Damn!!! Do you need them to write you a letter???

 

[Avatar4321]

So there are a few cities Glenn supposedly didnt do well. Whatever all the other theatres across the nation? Did he tank there too?

Im curious what is so offensive about Christmas? You seem to think that this indicates Glenn was unsuccessful. Why is it unsuccessful for Glenn to convince people of the power of Redemption? Why is it bad for Glenn to encourage people to get off drugs? To overcome addictions?

Are you so blindly partisan and full of hate toward Glenn that you want him to fail in everything, including the non-partisan actions he takes to encourage this world to be a better place?

 

[Vast LWC]

So there are a few cities Glenn supposedly didnt do well. Whatever all the other theatres across the nation? Did he tank there too?

Im curious what is so offensive about Christmas? You seem to think that this indicates Glenn was unsuccessful. Why is it unsuccessful for Glenn to convince people of the power of Redemption? Why is it bad for Glenn to encourage people to get off drugs? To overcome addictions?

Are you so blindly partisan and full of hate toward Glenn that you want him to fail in everything, including the non-partisan actions he takes to encourage this world to be a better place?

Well now, here's my question. Why didn't Glenn just donate most of considerable wealth to the cause? Why did he feel he needed to be the star of his own charity?

The thing about people like Beck is this: If they donate to something, they want to be damn sure everyone knows how charitable they are.

And that's not really charity at all. It's self-aggrandizement.

Now, take myself for instance. I may or may not have donated a whole bunch of objects and money to various causes. But I don't care if anyone knows whether I did or not, I just did it because it was the right thing to do.

That's how your supposed to give to charity.

And no, I'm not happy that the money that Glenn might have raised didn't go to charity, but I'm relatively sure that the people who would have paid to go see Glenn's show will probably find another way to give to charity, or hell, maybe they'll just actually pay their taxes for once to help everyone get out of this massive debt.

I am happy that Glenn wasn't able to get an even bigger head by showing everybody how great a guy he is now. Now that he's not a drug addict male prostitute like he used to be.

 

[uscitizen]

And his programmed minions just suck it in their ears and out their mouths.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well now, here's my question. Why didn't Glenn just donate most of considerable wealth to the cause? Why did he feel he needed to be the star of his own charity?

No. He simply realizes he can actually help people. So rather than sitting on his ass throwing money at a problem he is actually going to go out and try to fix it.

The thing about people like Beck is this: If they donate to something, they want to be damn sure everyone knows how charitable they are.

And that's not really charity at all. It's self-aggrandizement.

Encouraging people to be better is self-aggrandizement. Actually caring enough to do something is not really charity. But hey stealing someone elses money to give to others is the most caring and charitable thing you can do.

Now, take myself for instance. I may or may not have donated a whole bunch of objects and money to various causes. But I don't care if anyone knows whether I did or not, I just did it because it was the right thing to do.

That's how your supposed to give to charity.

He isnt giving to charity here. He is trying to teach people. You cant teach people by throwing money around. You actually have to get off your butt and doing. I have no doubt that Glenn does tons of charity without bringing it to anyones attention. I bet you had no idea that He regularly does work to help people overcome addictions with his wife. He doesnt advertise it. I know about it through mutual friends who have seen him doing it.

And no, I'm not happy that the money that Glenn might have raised didn't go to charity, but I'm relatively sure that the people who would have paid to go see Glenn's show will probably find another way to give to charity, or hell, maybe they'll just actually pay their taxes for once to help everyone get out of this massive debt.

I am happy that Glenn wasn't able to get an even bigger head by showing everybody how great a guy he is now. Now that he's not a drug addict male prostitute like he used to be.

Again, we arent talking about giving to charity. We are talking about actively going out there and trying to help people.

What's so ridiculous about this is you think Glenn is the partisan hack and dont even see your own blinders.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, Glenn Beck isn't really interested in helping people, he's only interested in promoting himself.

Wanna see a show with a charity that is working? Countdown with Keith Olberman, which has been sponsoring free clinics all over the country, paid for by Mr. Olberman himself, as well as donations from viewers, and it provides free health care and dental to whoever shows up.

They're going to keep 'em going as long as they can, or until they're no longer needed.

What is it Blech does for charity again?

 

[Jay Canuck]

has there been any update on his sales in other cities yet?