BuzzFeed’s Top Ten Reasons Not to Advertise with Glenn Beck

25 08 2009

After Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist, 36 companies have pulled their advertisements from his program. UPS has even gone as far as to pull advertising on all Fox networks.

Looking over these highlights, you have to wonder why they didn’t get out sooner.

Personally I like number seven. How about you?

Advertisements

Actions

Information

15 responses

26 08 2009
lori

#7 is a classic, but so is #1. The son of a white woman, raised by white grandparents, hates white people. lol….

26 08 2009
JJ

Yeah, I read that one as another Hitler comparison (Jewish mother and he hated Jews. . .)

26 08 2009
COD

Clearly UPS is part of the black / jewish / liberal conspiracy to take down the only news network speaking the truth.

26 08 2009
JJ

I tuned in yesterday (radio) and he was ominously saying he only had a couple of weeks more to speak the truth, but others would continue the cause — and he compared himself to GANDHI, and said he had “won” the same way.

Not for the first time either.

p.s. Anybody wanna guess which extremely anti-government, pro-prayer pol just staked out this extremely pro-government, prayer-won’t-do-the-trick position?

“. . . we know what these people are capable of. That’s why they have to be tied down by restrictions explicitly in law.”

26 08 2009
JJ

Thinking Parents thinking about Beck and the town hall terrorists can relate to this dad of a toddler, I’ll bet:

The Tyranny of the Tantrum

26 08 2009
JJ

UPDATE: Limbaugh Congratulates Himself on Predicting Kennedy Death

Newsweek in March, David Frum on Rush Limbaugh (who almost unbelievably had something pretty cynical and demagogic to say about the brain-cancer-ridden Ted Kennedy:

I’m a pretty conservative guy. On most issues, I doubt Limbaugh and I even disagree very much. But the issues on which we do disagree are maybe the most important to the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party: Should conservatives be trying to provoke or persuade? To narrow our coalition or enlarge it? To enflame or govern? And finally (and above all): to profit—or to serve?

Frum answers his own questions of course:

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word—we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. . .

See also Is Tokyo Rush Incredibly Cartoonish on Purpose?

Scott Somerville’s FB page pointed me to this this morning even as all the flags are being lowered to half-mast (wow, talk about bad taste in timing) so I hesitate to give it a “hat tip” or “cock of the snook” — he was PRAISING the Limbaugh comments as prescient, perfect prediction, interpreting them as some sort of sophisticated political prophecy rather than as the mean-spirited snarl they in context so clearly were being peddled as.

29 08 2009
sandysays1

The first amendment allows you to express your opinion here, which you have and are certainly entitled to. However, do you think it should be denied to others?

29 08 2009
JJ

No.
Do you think incitement to violence should be added to constitutional case law as permissible under that amendment?

29 08 2009
sandysays1

Answered as a true extremist

29 08 2009
JJ

Argued as true projection

29 08 2009
JJ

Where one chooses to see extremism is instructive imo, for example how about in this true story?:

WASHINGTON — The national Republican Party has mailed a fundraising appeal suggesting Democrats might use an overhaul of the health care system to deny medical treatment to Republicans.

A questionnaire accompanying the appeal says the government could check voting registration records, “prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system.”

It asks, “Does this possibility concern you?”

Katie Wright, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the question was “inartfully worded.”

But she said people should worry because government officials would have access to personal financial and medical data.

“The RNC doesn’t try to scare people,” said Wright. “We’re just trying to get the facts out on health care. And that’s what we do every day.”

Jon Vogel, executive director of the Democratic House campaign organization, called the GOP letter “shameless fear-mongering.” . . .

The allegation is the latest instance in which some critics of the health care effort have made inflammatory unfounded claims – such as conservatives who claimed the legislation would create “death panels” that they said could lead to euthanizing elderly people.

(That’s a rhetorical question btw. Readers can answer it privately to themselves, for themselves, and help determine America’s future accordingly.)

29 08 2009
Nance Confer

Maybe “Sandy” and her dog would be more comfortable over at the DefendGlenn site discussed here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/29/774111/-Expos:-The-Man-Behind-The-Defend-Glenn-Beck-Web-Site

Nance

29 08 2009
JJ

OH! I get it now, Nance, thanks. So that is Sandy the dog from Little Orphan Annie. My power of story failed me this time, totally missed that. . .

29 08 2009
JJ

Kreep, really Nance? The Glenn Defender’s actual name is KREEP??

1 09 2009
JJ

More for sandysays1 on “free” speech:

Ignorant Speech INciting Violence is Hardly “Free”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: