April 10, 2010

So Who Really is More Dangerous for America?

A fraudulent showman who twists people's emotions with falsehoods in order to get rich as Bob Cesca alleges, or a radicalized neophyte ideologue with his own extensive record of fraudulent and deceptive statements and a residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Glenn Beck might bankrupt a handful of true believers. Barack Obama seems intent on bankrupting 300 million. If Bob Cesca wants to spend time targeting who is more dangerous for America's future, he needs to change his target.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 10, 2010 05:58 PM

Terribly sorry, but I've seen Beck's show. He embodies none of the wild charges so blithely slung by his critics. Obama? He embodies all of them, indeed, relishes them.

Posted by: mikemcdaniel at April 10, 2010 06:07 PM

The group-think crowd at PuffHo blocks any comments that hit too close to the truth, so they shouldn't be linked by credible blogs such as CY.

The following was blocked by the PuffHo moderators:

Expose? Could Cesca be just another thesaurus-toting plagiarist trying to sound smart by stringing lots of "big" words together?

Much of what's on Beck's show is unaltered video of Beck's opponents in their own words. Unlike other pundits who lift out-of-context clips to misrepresent what had actually been said, the opposition video clips Beck uses show more than either side cares to watch.

In addition to the clips, another significant percentage of the show's content was written over 200 years ago by the founding fathers. Yep, that's terribly misleading to quote the words of real intellectuals, words that are easily verifiable, as they've been quoted in thousands of books for hundreds of years.

If public schools didn't stop teaching elementary-school civics in the mid-seventies, maybe those in what passes for today's e-media wouldn't be hearing Beck's material for the first time in their lives.

Beck does offer his opinion on the facts presented, but he isn't such a pretentious pseudo-intellectual that he brands those he disagrees with as the "world's worst," nor does he pass off his opinion as any part of news, as is the case day in and day out on the alphabet networks.

All that has been exposed here is incredible jealousy of Beck's success in deriving more revenue from his schtick, than Cesca has derived from his. No inaccuracies exposed, no facts disputed, no original thoughts offered, just another copy, paste and edit job.

I'm so impressed.

Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at April 10, 2010 11:20 PM

really? obviously you must have redacted all the four letter obscenities from that, otherwise why would they not want to here your point of view in thier echo chamber?////

Posted by: rumcrook¾ at April 11, 2010 12:12 AM

No group think around here, that's for sure.

The comments section in the Palin v Obama on the US nuclear weapons policy speaks for itself on the subject of how well differing views are aired and tolerated around here. Pots, meet kettles.

Posted by: Jim at April 11, 2010 12:17 AM


I've never been a fan of Beck's; he seems to lack a philosophical coherence. (Obviously, that's a matter of nuance and opinion, but hey...) In very general terms, he tends toward 'conspiratorial' thinking.

OTOH, he has a lot of very good moments; his review of the "Progressives" was solid, although not as comprehensive as Goldberg's book.

So you take the good stuff, and leave the silliness. What else is new?

Posted by: dad29 at April 11, 2010 09:55 AM

jim be reasonable. you comment, its here to see, people retort to it. how is it comparable?

just becuase we think your full of it, doesnt mean were an echo chamber unwilling to here the other side, your conflating two different things,

if someone doesnt discard thier ideas and ooh and ahh over your enlightenment doesnt make for group think or an echo chamber

what makes for an echo chamber and group think is the banning of any reasonable opposing views. like at lgf or apparently huffpo where a reasonable argument is not allowed to be displayed.

I dont think your unreasonable I just dont like your arguments, if you were unreasonable I would think you were a troll calling people names insulting or threatening taunting.

so since you comment here and some people respond to your arguments how is it an echo chamber?

I would say this place is just populated by mostly people with opinions contrary from yours,

if huffpo let his comment stand instead of deleating it I would say I dont like thier politics but im not sure I would call it an echo chamber.

i know plenty of people who asked or gave reasonable opposing opinions at lgf who were deleted and all of thier history also

its creepy cult of personality bull and that is to me what constitutes an echo chamber.

Posted by: rumcrook¾ at April 11, 2010 12:15 PM

@rumcrook - Nope, no redaction, I even tried posting it without the question of whether Cesca was just another thesaurus-toting plagiarist copying and pasting "his" opinion from the talking points at Media Matters, since it was clear that he had never watched Beck's show as broadcast.

Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at April 11, 2010 12:17 PM


Like I said, check out the black hole where the comments used to be in the last wisdom of Palin thread. About 90 comments got deleted because CY didn't like having been called out on a fairly silly post.

I have no idea how things are run at huff post, I don't read it. I know how things are run here, if CY feels like someone has gotten the better of him on a topic the posts disappear. In this case he deleted the whole comments section and added two or three updates. If that isn't a case of just wanting to hear yourself talk I don't know what is.

Posted by: Jim at April 11, 2010 02:25 PM

Premium entertainment is to be had watching the right oscillate between calling Obama an evil genius & a clueless tyro.

He certainly is going about "bankrupting 300 million" by a rather unusual route, though: turning around a Grand Canyon of negative unemployment numbers in about one year when it should've probably taken more like 5-10 years? Taking a ton of student-loan financial misery out of the equation overnight? Passing long-overdue reform in a health-insurance industry that rules 1/6 of the US economy? Ending useless Cold War weapons systems that cost many billions each? Going through every federal department with a fine-tooth comb to hunt down & cut waste?

Even for a notorious workaholic like Obama, that sort of thing is gonna take a hell of a long time to bankrupt a country as big as the US, & it looks like he's just going to keep right on doing more of the same.

You know what I'd do if I wanted to bankrupt America? I think I'd fight entire wars on credit when my country is already deep in debt ... do absolutely nothing to reduce outsourcing of high-wage jobs overseas, & even reward the companies who do so ... maybe pass a huge tax-cut or two without reducing government expenditures - in fact, I'd create an entire vast new ministry that does next to nothing useful whatsoever, & pass out LOTS of no-bid sweetheart deals to cronies on the public's dime ... ignore a growing tide of ominous warnings when the stock-market grew more & more like a sidewalk three-card-monte table, for year after year after insane year ... & then for the coup-de-grace, I think I'd tell a nation already in debt up to its eyebrows & living on high-interest credit that their dreamworld lifestyle CAN go on forever, & that the most patriotic thing in the universe is for them to go shopping with money they don't have, to buy even more useless crap they don't need.

* Mission Accomplished *

Posted by: jim at April 11, 2010 09:10 PM

"Even for a notorious workaholic like Obama"

who didn't do jack in Law School, who was an absentee senator, and who has affirmative action'ed his way from job to job. Rich. I mean, it takes EFFORT to be so lazy you don't even write anything of note during the Law Review presidency that was handed to you based on skin color.

"Taking a ton of student-loan financial misery out of the equation overnight?"

So the gov't socializing money-losing endeavors means that said money loss is out of the equation. Uh-huh.

I honestly admire the shiftless Kenyan despite his laziness - he's a terrific showman, has a crude animal cunning despite his ignorance, and really has a knack for putting one over on all the blue state rubes out there. I guess that answers the "evil genius vs. incompetent" paradox.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 11, 2010 09:39 PM

Jim, Jim? You have something on your nose, you might want to wipe it off...

Starting with the truly moronic idea that the war in southeast Asia (Iraq/Afghanistan) is somehow responsible for the two trillion dollar increase in our national debt since Barry took office. And when did he "turn around" unemployment? Last I heard we were still at 10%+...

Whoops, silly me, it's the work of the International Jewish Conspiracy (AKA Big Business) who farmed out every job in America to Asia. Dolt.

So. It is true that outsourcing has been a significant issue for at least 10-15 years. But. To claim this as one of the primary issues destroying the credit rating of this country is, at best, fatuous.

Jimmy, you're so busy sucking the (er) teat of the Democratic party line that you missed basic indicators like Dubya's attempt to reform our unfunded Social Security obligation, not to mention his attempt (in collaboration with McCain) to do something about Sallie Mae/Freddie Mac several years before the meltdown, with Barney Frank demonstrating hysterical FUD as a form of political comedy. Considering that Barney was literally in bed with the exec of Freddie Mac at the time, one wonders if improper influence was exercised....

This whole mess is a bi-partisan cluster-hump of epic proportions, aggravated by the insane level of power concentrated in DC. This is not just the fault of the Democrats, any more than it is just the fault of the Republicans. Every sorry SOB in Washington for the past fifty years owns this one.

Apparently Jim is buying into the cracker-jack level of Democratic Party reasoning that claims everything is Bush's fault. The Democrats have been running Congress since '06, but it's Bush's fault. They've owned the Executive branch since March of '09, not to mention a super-majority in both houses, but it's still Bush's fault.

Helpful Hint for Jimmy: the President proposes, but the Congress disposes budget changes.

Now go back and double-check when the Democrats gained a majority in the legislative branch. The very people you're knob-jobbing have been jacking spending through the roof for several years, in the name of national prosperity. NOW they're whinging that they need more money to pay for all the insanity.

But never mind me, because I'm just a mindless sheeple forming part of the assimilation of the Greater Borg of CY. Git...

The sad part is that I'm not even a Conservative, as more than a few folks have thrown at me the past couple years.

Posted by: Casey at April 12, 2010 04:39 AM
turning around a Grand Canyon of negative unemployment numbers in about one year when it should've probably taken more like 5-10 years?

How's the weather in your dimension today, Jim?

Posted by: Pablo at April 12, 2010 09:06 AM

Yo, Jimbo,
Neither Bush nor O-bot-ma, nor any other administration, can spend the tax rate, they spend the tax revenue. Bush cut the tax rate, and then tax revenues went up. Yes, that eeevull George Bush, he increased the level of tax revenue, over and above the level of inflation.

What, you say that you can't increase revenues by cutting rates? You've never heard of that? It's impossible?

I'll give you the inside secret. Go buy the Sunday paper and look at all the color pages. No, not the comics, the store circulars. Look for the secret code that the stores use to increase revenue by cutting rates. It's just four letters, so you'll have to look close. Pssst: the word is "sale," but don't tell anybody, it's just our secret.

Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at April 13, 2010 01:52 AM