Glenn Beck, LOL

[got tonkaed]

how different is that from what he is doing, exploiting 9/11 to make money and gain recognition?

Like i said earlier in the thread, im all for the idea of doing things to make your country better, and im not even 100 percent against how he did it, but i think its disingenous to assume he has pure motives here and if he doesnt have pure intentions, he isnt all that different than the people he hates.

The 9/11 families at the very least had the tragedy of losing a love one, he doesnt have nearly as much of a reason to grub for money and attention.

[captain.crazy]

how different is that from what he is doing, exploiting 9/11 to make money and gain recognition?

Like i said earlier in the thread, im all for the idea of doing things to make your country better, and im not even 100 percent against how he did it, but i think its disingenous to assume he has pure motives here and if he doesnt have pure intentions, he isnt all that different than the people he hates.

The 9/11 families at the very least had the tragedy of losing a love one, he doesnt have nearly as much of a reason to grub for money and attention.

He is, like Rush and Obernann, a part of the propaganda machine that divides the sheeple. His views just happen to most closely align with those of conservative persuasion.

[mpjh]

who is Obernann?

[captain.crazy]

who is Obernann?

That was a typo... should be Obermann as in Keith Obermann. He is the Liberal "O'Reily" wannabe.

[GabonX]

how different is that from what he is doing, exploiting 9/11 to make money and gain recognition?

Like i said earlier in the thread, im all for the idea of doing things to make your country better, and im not even 100 percent against how he did it, but i think its disingenous to assume he has pure motives here and if he doesnt have pure intentions, he isnt all that different than the people he hates.

The 9/11 families at the very least had the tragedy of losing a love one, he doesnt have nearly as much of a reason to grub for money and attention.

He's lost money on this. There is no money coming to him from it and he pays for the expenses out of pocket.

[got tonkaed]

I guess im not sure where hes losing money on the 9/12 project though i am sure its possible. I cant imagine the extra exposure hurts Fox News or his standing in it as a result however.

[GabonX]

The 'tea parties' have huge costs. Security, loud speakers etc. This is probably where most of the costs come from but he also has a website with millions of hits and a bunch of fancy pictures. None of this is free and he's paying for it out of pocket because he believes in the cause.

In regards to Glenn Beck not having a connection to 9/11, I think it's notable that Glenn Beck works in New York city. People are making a lot of claims about the man when they have no idea what the situation is.

Frankly I wouldn't care if this thread were about Bill Oreilly, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, Kieth Olbermann etc. but Glenn Beck is one of the few honest voices in American media. He isn't afraid to have dissenting voices on his show and he doesn't heckle people.

Frankly this thread is like gun control in the sense that the people who know the least about the situation feel that they have the greatest authority to speak out about it.

[got tonkaed]

I think the cost issue is a bit more complex than that though. Seemingly from the look of things, the people who run his website have been with him for a long time, initially seeming to work with him for peanuts. Sure they probably work at a more professional rate now, but you are also talking about a site driven by a fair amount of user content (comments and email suggestion) with similar material to what Glenn is already going to be talking about as part of his other ventures. Its not like he has to put a lot of work in on the website.

The thing about the tea parties is, i think so much of is charcteristic of the general internet movements in that it is heavily moved along by the people within the movement. Glenn doesnt have to pay a whole lot to get people to speak because (according to the 400,000 plus who are members as it stands) people who do speak know they are going to get a lot of exposure for doing so. While he is going to have to do a lot of the fronting for the first few, theres so much volunteer organization going on, that he isnt going to have to do as much as it seems. Security costs are going to be there id agree along with tech costs, but i have a feeling (though i cant find a link for it - nor would i expect to) that being under the huge media empire of Fox, someone must know a guy somewhere who can find some equipment for less than an earth shattering expense.

While i will say ive seen no donation links, which was somewhat surprising, i doubt the man is struggling by fronting this as you say. Even if 10 percent bought something from him as a result or even bought something before, id be willing to bet he makes a pretty decent turn out of it.

[thegreekdog]

I think many times we (myself included) are blinded by the person or persons who are advocating on certain issues. Instead of focusing on the issues themselves, we focus on the person advocating for or against those issues. The media people that we identify with, whether they be conservative (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh) or liberal (Rachel Maddown, Keith Olbermann), can oftentimes be ridiculous. However, we agree with them on issues, not necessarily on how they act. We may also agree with them on their respective takes of certain issues and not others.

Another excellent example of this is not media related. I know a lot of people who voted for President Obama because it was a vote against President Bush. It was not necessarily that they voted for President Obama because of his stance on certain issues; rather, they hated President Bush, the person. Oftentimes, I heard arguments that it was nice to have an intelligent president, or a president that wasn't from the south, or a president who wouldn't rely on his vice-president. Whether justified or not, these people were voting for a person, not ideas. Personally, I find something inherently wrong with this, but I suppose it is a by-product of the media-driven times we live in, where it is more important how a person speaks than what a person is speaking about. Bottom line, one can detest Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or President Bush or President Obama, but one can also agree with his respective positions on various issues. Denegrating the person supporting those issues (in this example, Glenn Beck) should not really have an effect on a person's views on the issues. Just because one hates Glenn Beck or can prove that Glenn Beck is a racsist/fascist/war-mongerer, should not make one disagree with his stance on issues, per se. Rather, proving that Beck is a horrible person is more of a smokescreen to take people away from examining what the man is actually talking about.

[got tonkaed]

I think many times we (myself included) are blinded by the person or persons who are advocating on certain issues. Instead of focusing on the issues themselves, we focus on the person advocating for or against those issues. The media people that we identify with, whether they be conservative (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh) or liberal (Rachel Maddown, Keith Olbermann), can oftentimes be ridiculous. However, we agree with them on issues, not necessarily on how they act. We may also agree with them on their respective takes of certain issues and not others.

Another excellent example of this is not media related. I know a lot of people who voted for President Obama because it was a vote against President Bush. It was not necessarily that they voted for President Obama because of his stance on certain issues; rather, they hated President Bush, the person. Oftentimes, I heard arguments that it was nice to have an intelligent president, or a president that wasn't from the south, or a president who wouldn't rely on his vice-president. Whether justified or not, these people were voting for a person, not ideas. Personally, I find something inherently wrong with this, but I suppose it is a by-product of the media-driven times we live in, where it is more important how a person speaks than what a person is speaking about. Bottom line, one can detest Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or President Bush or President Obama, but one can also agree with his respective positions on various issues. Denegrating the person supporting those issues (in this example, Glenn Beck) should not really have an effect on a person's views on the issues. Just because one hates Glenn Beck or can prove that Glenn Beck is a racsist/fascist/war-mongerer, should not make one disagree with his stance on issues, per se. Rather, proving that Beck is a horrible person is more of a smokescreen to take people away from examining what the man is actually talking about.

I entirely agree. I fully support anyone who does this program because they feel like they should be doing something to make their country better. Theres absolutly nothing wrong with that. Nor do i say that Beck is entirely a villian for setting the program up and will admit he probably had some sense of doing something good out of it. I maintain however, that as we judge the person, not the program, its likely he saw an oppertunity to get something out of it.

[GabonX]

I think the cost issue is a bit more complex than that though. Seemingly from the look of things, the people who run his website have been with him for a long time, initially seeming to work with him for peanuts. Sure they probably work at a more professional rate now, but you are also talking about a site driven by a fair amount of user content (comments and email suggestion) with similar material to what Glenn is already going to be talking about as part of his other ventures. Its not like he has to put a lot of work in on the website.

The thing about the tea parties is, i think so much of is charcteristic of the general internet movements in that it is heavily moved along by the people within the movement. Glenn doesnt have to pay a whole lot to get people to speak because (according to the 400,000 plus who are members as it stands) people who do speak know they are going to get a lot of exposure for doing so. While he is going to have to do a lot of the fronting for the first few, theres so much volunteer organization going on, that he isnt going to have to do as much as it seems. Security costs are going to be there id agree along with tech costs, but i have a feeling (though i cant find a link for it - nor would i expect to) that being under the huge media empire of Fox, someone must know a guy somewhere who can find some equipment for less than an earth shattering expense.

While i will say ive seen no donation links, which was somewhat surprising, i doubt the man is struggling by fronting this as you say. Even if 10 percent bought something from him as a result or even bought something before, id be willing to bet he makes a pretty decent turn out of it.

I got the information from listening to his show yesterday morning, he is paying for the entire thing out of pocket. He also stated that it's big enough that it can go on without him and that he wants to turn the project over to an independent source because people are attacking the project by attacking him.

You can choose to believe him or not, but I've found Beck to be one of the most honest political voices around, on the right or left. If somebody actually demonstrates that this is not the case, my opinion will change, but from what I've seen he's a good guy.

[thegreekdog]

I think many times we (myself included) are blinded by the person or persons who are advocating on certain issues. Instead of focusing on the issues themselves, we focus on the person advocating for or against those issues. The media people that we identify with, whether they be conservative (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh) or liberal (Rachel Maddown, Keith Olbermann), can oftentimes be ridiculous. However, we agree with them on issues, not necessarily on how they act. We may also agree with them on their respective takes of certain issues and not others.

Another excellent example of this is not media related. I know a lot of people who voted for President Obama because it was a vote against President Bush. It was not necessarily that they voted for President Obama because of his stance on certain issues; rather, they hated President Bush, the person. Oftentimes, I heard arguments that it was nice to have an intelligent president, or a president that wasn't from the south, or a president who wouldn't rely on his vice-president. Whether justified or not, these people were voting for a person, not ideas. Personally, I find something inherently wrong with this, but I suppose it is a by-product of the media-driven times we live in, where it is more important how a person speaks than what a person is speaking about. Bottom line, one can detest Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or President Bush or President Obama, but one can also agree with his respective positions on various issues. Denegrating the person supporting those issues (in this example, Glenn Beck) should not really have an effect on a person's views on the issues. Just because one hates Glenn Beck or can prove that Glenn Beck is a racsist/fascist/war-mongerer, should not make one disagree with his stance on issues, per se. Rather, proving that Beck is a horrible person is more of a smokescreen to take people away from examining what the man is actually talking about.

I entirely agree. I fully support anyone who does this program because they feel like they should be doing something to make their country better. Theres absolutly nothing wrong with that. Nor do i say that Beck is entirely a villian for setting the program up and will admit he probably had some sense of doing something good out of it. I maintain however, that as we judge the person, not the program, its likely he saw an oppertunity to get something out of it.

However, there are many people (not necessarily you) that would assume that if a person agrees with Glenn Beck, he must be like Glenn Beck (i.e. in it for himself). Unfortunately, many people in the United States (and elsewhere based on my reading of posts on this site) believe that when a person agrees with Rush Limbaugh, that person is like Rush Limbaugh. Frankly, it's not only ignorant, it seems to be pervasive. It's not only identification with people, it's identification with political parties. Many people assume that if you identify with the Democratic party, you are a welfare-recipient or eco-terrorist or you hate the military. Similarly, many people assume that if you identify with the Republican party, you are a rich, white man or you are a hick. It's unfortunate and it takes away from the dialogue in terms of focusing on stereotypes rather than focusing on actual issues.

[GabonX]

I think many times we (myself included) are blinded by the person or persons who are advocating on certain issues. Instead of focusing on the issues themselves, we focus on the person advocating for or against those issues. The media people that we identify with, whether they be conservative (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh) or liberal (Rachel Maddown, Keith Olbermann), can oftentimes be ridiculous. However, we agree with them on issues, not necessarily on how they act. We may also agree with them on their respective takes of certain issues and not others.

Another excellent example of this is not media related. I know a lot of people who voted for President Obama because it was a vote against President Bush. It was not necessarily that they voted for President Obama because of his stance on certain issues; rather, they hated President Bush, the person. Oftentimes, I heard arguments that it was nice to have an intelligent president, or a president that wasn't from the south, or a president who wouldn't rely on his vice-president. Whether justified or not, these people were voting for a person, not ideas. Personally, I find something inherently wrong with this, but I suppose it is a by-product of the media-driven times we live in, where it is more important how a person speaks than what a person is speaking about. Bottom line, one can detest Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or President Bush or President Obama, but one can also agree with his respective positions on various issues. Denegrating the person supporting those issues (in this example, Glenn Beck) should not really have an effect on a person's views on the issues. Just because one hates Glenn Beck or can prove that Glenn Beck is a racsist/fascist/war-mongerer, should not make one disagree with his stance on issues, per se. Rather, proving that Beck is a horrible person is more of a smokescreen to take people away from examining what the man is actually talking about.

I agree with what you're saying here. People are attacking the 9/12 project not because the project is bad, but because Glenn Beck started it.

[thegreekdog]

I think many times we (myself included) are blinded by the person or persons who are advocating on certain issues. Instead of focusing on the issues themselves, we focus on the person advocating for or against those issues. The media people that we identify with, whether they be conservative (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh) or liberal (Rachel Maddown, Keith Olbermann), can oftentimes be ridiculous. However, we agree with them on issues, not necessarily on how they act. We may also agree with them on their respective takes of certain issues and not others.

Another excellent example of this is not media related. I know a lot of people who voted for President Obama because it was a vote against President Bush. It was not necessarily that they voted for President Obama because of his stance on certain issues; rather, they hated President Bush, the person. Oftentimes, I heard arguments that it was nice to have an intelligent president, or a president that wasn't from the south, or a president who wouldn't rely on his vice-president. Whether justified or not, these people were voting for a person, not ideas. Personally, I find something inherently wrong with this, but I suppose it is a by-product of the media-driven times we live in, where it is more important how a person speaks than what a person is speaking about. Bottom line, one can detest Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or President Bush or President Obama, but one can also agree with his respective positions on various issues. Denegrating the person supporting those issues (in this example, Glenn Beck) should not really have an effect on a person's views on the issues. Just because one hates Glenn Beck or can prove that Glenn Beck is a racsist/fascist/war-mongerer, should not make one disagree with his stance on issues, per se. Rather, proving that Beck is a horrible person is more of a smokescreen to take people away from examining what the man is actually talking about.

I agree with what you're saying here. People are attacking the 9/12 project not because the project is bad, but because Glenn Beck started it.

Yes, that's my point. No one on this thread has actually attacked the 9/12 project. Rather, they've attacked the perceived insensitive name and the person who started the project. In their minds, presumably, because the project is called the 9/12 project and because it was created by the greedy Glenn Beck, it must be bad. I just think that's unfortunate, but kind of par for the course (in the U.S. anyway).

[pimpdave]

Shepard Smith Mocking Glenn Beck

It's about fucking time. Let the backlash begin against that piece of shit.

And stupid conservatives who like to knee jerk, it's not because of his politics. He's just a douche bag who doesn't deserve a single cent of his income, the cunt.

[thegreekdog]

Shepard Smith Mocking Glenn Beck

It's about fucking time. Let the backlash begin against that piece of shit.

And stupid conservatives who like to knee jerk, it's not because of his politics. He's just a douche bag who doesn't deserve a single cent of his income, the cunt.

This, technically, is what this thread is about - whether or not Glenn Beck is an asshole attempting to capitalize on 9-11. It also illustrates the point that because pimpdave thinks Glenn Beck is an ass, pimpdave won't listen to what Beck has to say.

[Juan_Bottom]

9-11 is a personal subject for Mr. Pimpdave.

JB

[thegreekdog]

Understood. I read every post in this thread. I do not mean to offend pimpdave and I certainly don't fault him for finding fault with Glenn Back... again, that's the purpose of this thread - to show how Glenn Beck acts like a jackass.

[pimpdave]

Yes, that's my point. No one on this thread has actually attacked the 9/12 project. Rather, they've attacked the [EDIT: overtly exploitative] name and the person who started the project. In their minds, presumably, because the project is called the 9/12 project and because it was created by the greedy Glenn Beck, it must be bad. I just think that's unfortunate, but kind of par for the course (in the U.S. anyway).

So the cocksucker should change the name. Oh, and Beck proves he's a douche bag by calling the project what he has. My conception of him was as just as another cable news clown until this thing.

I don't know much of anything about the project, and won't bother, either. I'm sure it has something to do with being nice to one another and acting like a unified nation, but if that's the case, why not call it the unity project?

Please, someone, if you can actually rationally explain to me how the name of the project is not completely exploitative, I'd appreciate it. I'll even be willing to read what you write about the project if that's the case. But I'm not going to go back through this thread and read all of the back and forth. Feel free to post a quote from earlier in the thread, but only if it pertains to my question. I don't care about too much detail about the project, only about how it is related to the events of 9/11, because from what I've heard, it has only to do with exploiting the perceived emotional response of "unity" immediately following the attacks.

[thegreekdog]

Yes, that's my point. No one on this thread has actually attacked the 9/12 project. Rather, they've attacked the [EDIT: overtly exploitative] name and the person who started the project. In their minds, presumably, because the project is called the 9/12 project and because it was created by the greedy Glenn Beck, it must be bad. I just think that's unfortunate, but kind of par for the course (in the U.S. anyway).

So the cocksucker should change the name. Oh, and Beck proves he's a douche bag by calling the project what he has. My conception of him was as just as another cable news clown until this thing.

I don't know much of anything about the project, and won't bother, either. I'm sure it has something to do with being nice to one another and acting like a unified nation, but if that's the case, why not call it the unity project?

Please, someone, if you can actually rationally explain to me how the name of the project is not completely exploitative, I'd appreciate it. I'll even be willing to read what you write about the project if that's the case. But I'm not going to go back through this thread and read all of the back and forth. Feel free to post a quote from earlier in the thread, but only if it pertains to my question. I don't care about too much detail about the project, only about how it is related to the events of 9/11, because from what I've heard, it has only to do with exploiting the perceived emotional response of "unity" immediately following the attacks.

I have no explanation. The name is exploitive and unfortunate.

[GabonX]

Yes, that's my point. No one on this thread has actually attacked the 9/12 project. Rather, they've attacked the [EDIT: overtly exploitative] name and the person who started the project. In their minds, presumably, because the project is called the 9/12 project and because it was created by the greedy Glenn Beck, it must be bad. I just think that's unfortunate, but kind of par for the course (in the U.S. anyway).

So the cocksucker should change the name. Oh, and Beck proves he's a douche bag by calling the project what he has. My conception of him was as just as another cable news clown until this thing.

I don't know much of anything about the project, and won't bother, either. I'm sure it has something to do with being nice to one another and acting like a unified nation, but if that's the case, why not call it the unity project?

Please, someone, if you can actually rationally explain to me how the name of the project is not completely exploitative, I'd appreciate it. I'll even be willing to read what you write about the project if that's the case. But I'm not going to go back through this thread and read all of the back and forth. Feel free to post a quote from earlier in the thread, but only if it pertains to my question. I don't care about too much detail about the project, only about how it is related to the events of 9/11, because from what I've heard, it has only to do with exploiting the perceived emotional response of "unity" immediately following the attacks.

It would be exploitive if this was being done for personal profit. It's not.

Everyone remembers 9/11, it is a major historic event. There was a percieved sense of unity and coming together after the event and the name tries to remind people of that. It may have been a poor choice because of the reaction you're having to it, and you probably aren't alone, but the intentions are good.

[thegreekdog]

Yes, that's my point. No one on this thread has actually attacked the 9/12 project. Rather, they've attacked the [EDIT: overtly exploitative] name and the person who started the project. In their minds, presumably, because the project is called the 9/12 project and because it was created by the greedy Glenn Beck, it must be bad. I just think that's unfortunate, but kind of par for the course (in the U.S. anyway).

So the cocksucker should change the name. Oh, and Beck proves he's a douche bag by calling the project what he has. My conception of him was as just as another cable news clown until this thing.

I don't know much of anything about the project, and won't bother, either. I'm sure it has something to do with being nice to one another and acting like a unified nation, but if that's the case, why not call it the unity project?

Please, someone, if you can actually rationally explain to me how the name of the project is not completely exploitative, I'd appreciate it. I'll even be willing to read what you write about the project if that's the case. But I'm not going to go back through this thread and read all of the back and forth. Feel free to post a quote from earlier in the thread, but only if it pertains to my question. I don't care about too much detail about the project, only about how it is related to the events of 9/11, because from what I've heard, it has only to do with exploiting the perceived emotional response of "unity" immediately following the attacks.

It would be exploitive if this was being done for personal profit. It's not.

Everyone remembers 9/11, it is a major historic event. There was a percieved sense of unity and coming together after the event and the name tries to remind people of that. It may have been a poor choice because of the reaction you're having to it, and you probably aren't alone, but the intentions are good.

Ignoring the emotional ramifications of the name, it is also wildly unpopular to associate anything with 9/11 in anyway. For example, Rudy Giuliani was roundly criticized for "using 9/11" as his main campaign platform in the Republican primaries (by both Democrats and Republicans). Therefore, if I were creating some organization to exhibit a sense of unity, I would probably think twice, from a popularity standpoint, of using 9/11 or 9/12 or any other such name.

I agree with the guy's message, it's unfortunate he named it what he named it.

[pimpdave]

Ignoring the emotional ramifications of the name, it is also wildly unpopular to associate anything with 9/11 in anyway. For example, Rudy Giuliani was roundly criticized for "using 9/11" as his main campaign platform in the Republican primaries (by both Democrats and Republicans). Therefore, if I were creating some organization to exhibit a sense of unity, I would probably think twice, from a popularity standpoint, of using 9/11 or 9/12 or any other such name.

I agree with the guy's message, it's unfortunate he named it what he named it.

Yeah, but at least with Giuliani, it's a part of his resume. The main criticism of Giuliani wasn't that he cited his experience in crisis management, given his experience governing in the aftermath of 9/11, but rather that his campaign consisted of little else.

So while Giuliani just looked like a fool, Beck looks like a complete asshole, fully cognizant of trying to associate his vainglorious program with an event he had nothing to do with.

Plus, don't forget, the prick hates anyone who WAS THERE! And for what? Because he thinks he tried so hard? Well f*ck him, what the f*ck has he done besides exploiting the event for his own personal gain? Especially when HE WASN'T EVEN THERE.

[thegreekdog]

Ignoring the emotional ramifications of the name, it is also wildly unpopular to associate anything with 9/11 in anyway. For example, Rudy Giuliani was roundly criticized for "using 9/11" as his main campaign platform in the Republican primaries (by both Democrats and Republicans). Therefore, if I were creating some organization to exhibit a sense of unity, I would probably think twice, from a popularity standpoint, of using 9/11 or 9/12 or any other such name.

I agree with the guy's message, it's unfortunate he named it what he named it.

Yeah, but at least with Giuliani, it's a part of his resume. The main criticism of Giuliani wasn't that he cited his experience in crisis management, given his experience governing in the aftermath of 9/11, but rather that his campaign consisted of little else.

So while Giuliani just looked like a fool, Beck looks like a complete asshole, fully cognizant of trying to associate his vainglorious program with an event he had nothing to do with.

Plus, don't forget, the prick hates anyone who WAS THERE! And for what? Because he thinks he tried so hard? Well f*ck him, what the f*ck has he done besides exploiting the event for his own personal gain? Especially when HE WASN'T EVEN THERE.

I think back to that primary and still cringe. I would have joined the Guiliani campaign... he was as close to a viable Libertarian candidate as there was (though he is a Republican). And, yes, he did look like a fool at times; but in his defense, the media (conservative and liberal) concentrated on any instance when he mentioned "9/11" and did not focus on his stance on the issues. Rudy also did not campaign in a number of important primary states, which surely hurt him.

[GabonX]

Plus, don't forget, the prick hates anyone who WAS THERE! And for what? Because he thinks he tried so hard? Well f*ck him, what the f*ck has he done besides exploiting the event for his own personal gain? Especially when HE WASN'T EVEN THERE.

He hates anyone who was there? What is this based off of?

Also, I don't know where Beck worked in 2001 but I know he works in New York City now. I do believe that he WAS there although you may be able to find a source which states the contrary.