ROFL @ Glenn Beck

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Perknose
There is no more complete idiot on the national stage than Glen Beck.

There is no more bloated hypocrite blowhard than Rush Limbaugh on our national stage.

There is no shallower, more ignorant and gibbering twerp than Sarah Palin on our national stage.

There was arguably no worse President, both personally and as president, than George Bush.

There was no more dark, ugly facist prick in recent memory in our government than Dick Cheney.

I'm sensing a pattern here.

Is the pattern that all of these people could make a better political argument than you without namecalling and insults? WHAT DO I WIN!?

for being wrong? Nothing?

You got a little something on your nose..

and you've got a little something in your eye...

/Matthew 7

 

[First]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: First
What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

Is he? I've never listened to him.

Who listens to you? Oh yeah, I remember now. Nobody.

Ironic from the guy that keeps quoting my posts while being laughed at, ignored, and owned 100% of the time.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: First
What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

No he is not. Libertarianism is a term commonly thrown around by those actually encouraging corporate-statism, in other words, been hijacked by the right. Left libertarians recognize the importance of some degree of egalitarianism and collectivism in order to reduce exploitation coming from other private actors. Many anarcho-socialists and anarcho-communists end up near the left libertarians as well thinking that any Capitalist system results in hierachy and exploitation, which they obviously oppose (an-archy).

I would say that the Libertarian party's candidates don't quite fit in well with much of those descriptions. Barr being a prime example based on his voting record (which he reversed mid-career). Beck does neither party (R or L) much good because he's a self-admitted clown, without realizing he's not actually doing anything worthwhile. The L platform on their own web site looks great, too bad none of their candidates have voting records that show or prove any of it since their birth as a party nearly 4 decades ago. Tough to break from the D and R mold I suppose, but that's what Americans want.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: First
What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

Is he? I've never listened to him.

Who listens to you? Oh yeah, I remember now. Nobody.

Ironic from the guy that keeps quoting my posts while being laughed at, ignored, and owned 100% of the time.

LOL @ what must go on in that young mind of yours.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Amused
He mistook the 1976 Montreal Olympics for Vancouver.

If you look at the 76 Olympics, they were a financial disaster for Montreal.

So no, he wasn't making shit up. He just got the city name wrong.

The Olympics were a financial disaster for Montreal, as the city faced debts for 30 years after the Games had finished. The Quebec provincial government took over construction when it became evident in 1975 that work had fallen far behind schedule; work was still under way just weeks before the opening date, and the tower was not built. Mayor Jean Drapeau had confidently predicted in 1970 that "the Olympics can no more have a deficit than a man can have a baby", but the debt racked up to a billion dollars that the Quebec government mandated the city pay in full.

The Olympic Stadium, a daring design of French architect Roger Taillibert, remains a lasting monument to the huge deficit and as such is known as the Big Owe; it never had an effective retractable roof, and the tower was completed only after the Olympics. In December 2006 the stadium's costs were finally paid in full.[5] The total expenditure (including repairs, renovations, construction, interest, and inflation) amounted to C$1.61 billion. Today, despite its huge cost, the stadium is devoid of a major tenant, after the Montreal Expos moved in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Summer_Olympics

So, um, blog fail and thread fail.

Oh, actually, he mistook the Vancouver Olympics for McDonalds. And when he said a billion dollar loss, he meant a billion dollar profit. Yeah.

And why talk about the '76 olympics with a $1bn loss when he could have gone more recent and talked about the '84 LA olympics making a $250m profit?

Seoul '88 made $300m.

Barcelona '92 made $5m.

Atlanta '96 made $10m.

Sydney '00 made $1.75 billion.

Athens '04 posted a loss (not sure how much).

Not sure on Beijing either.

So yeah, let's focus on an olympiad from 30+ years ago, and fuck up the name.

He's still a tool.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: smashp

Really douche, maybe you need to touch up on your history. Lets go right to the transcript of the Debate on the Floor of the Federal convention in 1787

No need to get snippy with me and call names.

It's not my history anyways.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: First
What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

Not that I like the guy, but what is sad is that both examples given in this thread of him being wrong or making shit up are completely false. On the fly he got the name of a Canadian city wrong. That's it.

no he is wrong with his facts, as always

He got a city name wrong, but was right on the facts. The 1976 Olympics left the city a billion dollars in debt.

So what? To ignorantly portray it that he actually meant Vancouver only shows that the blogger who wrote that is an idiot with no knowledge of recent history. As is the OP who passed it on.

Whoa whoa, so I'm an idiot with no knowledge of recent history for posting a video of what the guy actually said, and he gets a pass as making a simple mistake?

My post was entirely factual. He fucked up. And I'm the idiot?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: bamacre
Too bad Democrats are more interested in the loony right than what their own party is doing.

Yes.

But why even do this OP? The same people will froth about his evilness, a few will pop in to chuckle at the frothers, rinse, repeat, same shit different day. What decent conversation can come from this topic? What's goal here?

Boring.

That is the goal. This forum is a political circle jerk where sex starved losers come to stroke each other while they visualize their politician of choice.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: First
What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

Is he? I've never listened to him.

Who listens to you? Oh yeah, I remember now. Nobody.

Never listened to him, really? That why you're so quick to ride his nuts in every thread that criticizes him? You want me to post how many times you've done it? It won't take long.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: bamacre
Too bad Democrats are more interested in the loony right than what their own party is doing.

Yes.

But why even do this OP? The same people will froth about his evilness, a few will pop in to chuckle at the frothers, rinse, repeat, same shit different day. What decent conversation can come from this topic? What's goal here?

Boring.

Cause it's funny? He's arguing a point and doesn't have his facts right. On TV. It's funny no matter who it is.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

That is the goal. This forum is a political circle jerk where sex starved losers come to stroke each other while they visualize their politician of choice.

LOL WTF, project much??:shocked:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Amused
He mistook the 1976 Montreal Olympics for Vancouver.

If you look at the 76 Olympics, they were a financial disaster for Montreal.

So no, he wasn't making shit up. He just got the city name wrong.

The Olympics were a financial disaster for Montreal, as the city faced debts for 30 years after the Games had finished. The Quebec provincial government took over construction when it became evident in 1975 that work had fallen far behind schedule; work was still under way just weeks before the opening date, and the tower was not built. Mayor Jean Drapeau had confidently predicted in 1970 that "the Olympics can no more have a deficit than a man can have a baby", but the debt racked up to a billion dollars that the Quebec government mandated the city pay in full.

The Olympic Stadium, a daring design of French architect Roger Taillibert, remains a lasting monument to the huge deficit and as such is known as the Big Owe; it never had an effective retractable roof, and the tower was completed only after the Olympics. In December 2006 the stadium's costs were finally paid in full.[5] The total expenditure (including repairs, renovations, construction, interest, and inflation) amounted to C$1.61 billion. Today, despite its huge cost, the stadium is devoid of a major tenant, after the Montreal Expos moved in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Summer_Olympics

So, um, blog fail and thread fail.

Oh, actually, he mistook the Vancouver Olympics for McDonalds. And when he said a billion dollar loss, he meant a billion dollar profit. Yeah.

And why talk about the '76 olympics with a $1bn loss when he could have gone more recent and talked about the '84 LA olympics making a $250m profit?

Seoul '88 made $300m.

Barcelona '92 made $5m.

Atlanta '96 made $10m.

Sydney '00 made $1.75 billion.

Athens '04 posted a loss (not sure how much).

Not sure on Beijing either.

So yeah, let's focus on an olympiad from 30+ years ago, and fuck up the name.

He's still a tool.

Don't bother arguing with Amused, when you introduce facts and logic, he shrivels up.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Perknose
There is no more complete idiot on the national stage than Glen Beck.

There is no more bloated hypocrite blowhard than Rush Limbaugh on our national stage.

There is no shallower, more ignorant and gibbering twerp than Sarah Palin on our national stage.

There was arguably no worse President, both personally and as president, than George Bush.

There was no more dark, ugly facist prick in recent memory in our government than Dick Cheney.

I'm sensing a pattern here.

Is the pattern that all of these people could make a better political argument than you without namecalling and insults? WHAT DO I WIN!?

for being wrong? Nothing?

You got a little something on your nose..

and you've got a little something in your eye...

/Matthew 7

:laugh:

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: First
I would say that the Libertarian party's candidates don't quite fit in well with much of those descriptions. Barr being a prime example based on his voting record (which he reversed mid-career). Beck does neither party (R or L) much good because he's a self-admitted clown, without realizing he's not actually doing anything worthwhile. The L platform on their own web site looks great, too bad none of their candidates have voting records that show or prove any of it since their birth as a party nearly 4 decades ago. Tough to break from the D and R mold I suppose, but that's what Americans want.

Beck is also just a corporate statist. Listen, anyone who tells you profits are universally good is basically just toting the Conservative line. There are some self-described Left-Libertarians that are strictly proponents of the individualistic free market. There are some that are mutualists. There are some that are Socialists. Generally, they have the same goal. Most laissez-faire Left Libertarians simply view the market as a means to reach a goal that some might describe as collective ownership and egalitarianism. They believe that through laissez-faire economics, those with capital lose all advantage and all prices basically fall to the marginal cost of production, thus destroying the profits we see today. These "original" Libertarians don't promote laissez-faire because they want to protect and see profit, they promote laissez-faire because they want liberty and equality (given that they are just two sides of the same coin). People like Beck and any other Libertarian that isn't anti-Corporate is really just promoting a country dominated by the state where cartels protect profit and corporate board rooms become the halls of government.

The closest Beck could get to Libertarianism at this point is proclaiming that while we dismantle government, we also dismantle corporations and destroy the wealth inequality that most laissez-fairists would claim is only the result of a hundred plus years of corporate statism. You can't ignore the fact that the wealthy have used their influence in government to become more wealthy (to the point of extremity) and then claim that the solution is simply to eliminate government. That ignores that huge inequality which was unjustly achieved and doesn't help those who currently own nothing.

Now, I don't particularly find the Left Libertarian laissez-faire argument to be all that convincing. I can respect their goals, I simply don't believe that laissez-faire economics will get them there. But I never confuse these true Libertarians with Glenn Beck or anyone running under the Libertarian ticket that is really only interested in protecting profits or doesn't understand that for laissez-faire to even have a shot you'll need to set the clock back several hundred years and destroy the massive corporations and wealth inequalities that currently exist.

 

[DealMonkey]

Is he going to issue a correction/retraction?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BoberFett

That is the goal. This forum is a political circle jerk where sex starved losers come to stroke each other while they visualize their politician of choice.

LOL WTF, project much??:shocked:

I'm just here for the occasional accidental tug from a confused partisan.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Amused
He mistook the 1976 Montreal Olympics for Vancouver.

If you look at the 76 Olympics, they were a financial disaster for Montreal.

So no, he wasn't making shit up. He just got the city name wrong.

The Olympics were a financial disaster for Montreal, as the city faced debts for 30 years after the Games had finished. The Quebec provincial government took over construction when it became evident in 1975 that work had fallen far behind schedule; work was still under way just weeks before the opening date, and the tower was not built. Mayor Jean Drapeau had confidently predicted in 1970 that "the Olympics can no more have a deficit than a man can have a baby", but the debt racked up to a billion dollars that the Quebec government mandated the city pay in full.

The Olympic Stadium, a daring design of French architect Roger Taillibert, remains a lasting monument to the huge deficit and as such is known as the Big Owe; it never had an effective retractable roof, and the tower was completed only after the Olympics. In December 2006 the stadium's costs were finally paid in full.[5] The total expenditure (including repairs, renovations, construction, interest, and inflation) amounted to C$1.61 billion. Today, despite its huge cost, the stadium is devoid of a major tenant, after the Montreal Expos moved in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Summer_Olympics

So, um, blog fail and thread fail.

Oh, actually, he mistook the Vancouver Olympics for McDonalds. And when he said a billion dollar loss, he meant a billion dollar profit. Yeah.

And why talk about the '76 olympics with a $1bn loss when he could have gone more recent and talked about the '84 LA olympics making a $250m profit?

Seoul '88 made $300m.

Barcelona '92 made $5m.

Atlanta '96 made $10m.

Sydney '00 made $1.75 billion.

Athens '04 posted a loss (not sure how much).

Not sure on Beijing either.

So yeah, let's focus on an olympiad from 30+ years ago, and fuck up the name.

He's still a tool.

Don't bother arguing with Amused, when you introduce facts and logic, he shrivels up.

Hey, dumbasses, I wasn't defending Beck, or his claims. ONLY that there WAS a Canadian Olympics that lost a billion dollars and that ANY claim that he was "seeing into the future" of the Vancouver Olympics was fucking ignorant when he obviously meant the Montreal Olympics. I found it rather funny how the blogger and OP couldn't figure this out because they have no knowledge of history nor did they even check out to see if there was an Olympics that lost a city a billion dollars.

I couldn't give two shits if Chicago gets the Olympics or not. I have no horse in this race. Nor do I care if the President lobbies for them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused
Hey, dumbasses, I wasn't defending Beck, or his claims. ONLY that there WAS a Canadian Olympics that lost a billion dollars and that ANY claim that he was "seeing into the future" of the Vancouver Olympics was fucking ignorant when he obviously meant the Montreal Olympics. I found it rather funny how the blogger and OP couldn't figure this out because they have no knowledge of history nor did they even check out to see if there was an Olympics that lost a city a billion dollars.

I couldn't give two shits if Chicago gets the Olympics or not. I have no horse in this race. Nor do I care if the President lobbies for them.

You just thought you'd defend that douchebag Beck, got it.

 

[Pens1566]

Meh, thats a pretty generous leap you're making on behalf of someone known to spout ridiculously easy to disprove (ie pulled out of his ass because it suits his conspiracy theory du jour) statements.

Even IF making that leap, you're still using one example from 30+ years ago when more recent examples suggest otherwise. Then again, they don't fit in with his particular agenda so of course he can't use those.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
Hey, dumbasses, I wasn't defending Beck, or his claims. ONLY that there WAS a Canadian Olympics that lost a billion dollars and that ANY claim that he was "seeing into the future" of the Vancouver Olympics was fucking ignorant when he obviously meant the Montreal Olympics. I found it rather funny how the blogger and OP couldn't figure this out because they have no knowledge of history nor did they even check out to see if there was an Olympics that lost a city a billion dollars.

I couldn't give two shits if Chicago gets the Olympics or not. I have no horse in this race. Nor do I care if the President lobbies for them.

You just thought you'd defend that douchebag Beck, got it.

Ah, no. I don't even like the guy.

But if you'd like to project your partisan hysteria onto me, okie dokie.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
Hey, dumbasses, I wasn't defending Beck, or his claims. ONLY that there WAS a Canadian Olympics that lost a billion dollars and that ANY claim that he was "seeing into the future" of the Vancouver Olympics was fucking ignorant when he obviously meant the Montreal Olympics. I found it rather funny how the blogger and OP couldn't figure this out because they have no knowledge of history nor did they even check out to see if there was an Olympics that lost a city a billion dollars.

I couldn't give two shits if Chicago gets the Olympics or not. I have no horse in this race. Nor do I care if the President lobbies for them.

You just thought you'd defend that douchebag Beck, got it.

Ah, no. I don't even like the guy.

But if you'd like to project your partisan hysteria onto me, okie dokie.

Sorry, we are not Amused.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Meh, thats a pretty generous leap you're making on behalf of someone known to spout ridiculously easy to disprove (ie pulled out of his ass because it suits his conspiracy theory du jour) statements.

Even IF making that leap, you're still using one example from 30+ years ago when more recent examples suggest otherwise. Then again, they don't fit in with his particular agenda so of course he can't use those.

It's no leap. Not even a stretch. He simply got the name of a Canadian city wrong. There WAS a Canadian city that lost a billion on the Olympics, and that's what he was obviously refering to.

And it's not an example *I* am using, but he is using. I don't care either way. I don't live in Chicago.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
Hey, dumbasses, I wasn't defending Beck, or his claims. ONLY that there WAS a Canadian Olympics that lost a billion dollars and that ANY claim that he was "seeing into the future" of the Vancouver Olympics was fucking ignorant when he obviously meant the Montreal Olympics. I found it rather funny how the blogger and OP couldn't figure this out because they have no knowledge of history nor did they even check out to see if there was an Olympics that lost a city a billion dollars.

I couldn't give two shits if Chicago gets the Olympics or not. I have no horse in this race. Nor do I care if the President lobbies for them.

You just thought you'd defend that douchebag Beck, got it.

Ah, no. I don't even like the guy.

But if you'd like to project your partisan hysteria onto me, okie dokie.

Sorry, we are not Amused.

That's for damn sure.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
Hey, dumbasses, I wasn't defending Beck, or his claims. ONLY that there WAS a Canadian Olympics that lost a billion dollars and that ANY claim that he was "seeing into the future" of the Vancouver Olympics was fucking ignorant when he obviously meant the Montreal Olympics. I found it rather funny how the blogger and OP couldn't figure this out because they have no knowledge of history nor did they even check out to see if there was an Olympics that lost a city a billion dollars.

I couldn't give two shits if Chicago gets the Olympics or not. I have no horse in this race. Nor do I care if the President lobbies for them.

You just thought you'd defend that douchebag Beck, got it.

Ah, no. I don't even like the guy.

But if you'd like to project your partisan hysteria onto me, okie dokie.

Sorry, we are not Amused.

That's for damn sure.

I know, we can be reasoned with.

One things for sure, if I didn't like somebody like you claim not to like Beck I sure as hell wouldn't go to the lengths you went too to defend him...but that's just me.

 

[Fear No Evil]

One things for sure, if I didn't like somebody like you claim not to like Beck I sure as hell wouldn't go to the lengths you went too to defend him...but that's just me.

Some people stand on principle and are not just being partisan hacks, even if it means defending people they don't like. I know that concept is foreign to some around here.