?

Log in

No account? Create an account
For Conservative and Moderate Pagans
Glenn Beck Boycott? 
20th-Aug-2009 12:38 am

I was at my job today sorting out customer complaints and something caught my eye.  2 people called in today stating that they wanted our company to stop running ads during Glenn Beck's show.  That he is a racist.  That he and all of FOX NEWS is sending our country into a Nazi hell.  Normally that stuff just makes me laugh; the way I see it, how did they customer know he was a racist bigot unless they watched his show?  But it was weird to me that 2 people called in, one after another.  So, I found out a bit of information about it:

www.youtube.com/watch 

www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/18/glenn-beck-boycott-censorship-or-good-citizenship/

The first link was the actual video referenced in the boycott.  The second one is a link to explain the controversy and the boycott.
I don't know if I agree with Glenn Beck i general, as I don't have cable tv so I don't watch FOX news unless I am over my parents house (forced viewing).  What bothers me is that Al Franken can publish a book about "Lying Liars" and Keith Olbermann can spew leftist hatred all he wants and nobody boycotts them.  Ever.  Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist and supposedly, 20 sponsers stop running their ads on his shows.  So, when did freedom of speech become a freedom for only the left wing?  This makes me so mad.  The worst part is, trying to explain this to anyone else (but on here) and people at my job thought I was a racist myself. 

Did anyone else hear about this so-called controversy?  The only thing it did was boost Glen Becks ratings, and the sponsers who said they pulled out actually never played ads there to begin with.  It just gets me so mad that people forget freedom of speech is a right for ALL..... 
Comments 
(Deleted comment)
21st-Aug-2009 01:00 am (UTC)
I think the abrasiveness is part of his "schtick". Many people seem to like it. 2.2 million, at least.

I certainly do not listen to MSNBC crap about how Obama is the second coming so who knows? Maybe I will watch him.
20th-Aug-2009 05:31 pm (UTC)
I watch Glenn Beck regularly and yes he is abrasive. So what? It's his style, and the last time I checked, it's still a free country (for a little while longer, anyway).

He makes a lot of sense, especially if you watch him regularly, and not just take one of his over-the-top tirades out of context. He's actually a Libertarian and is just as hard on the Right as he is on the Left. He was very down on Bush, especially over the bail-outs last fall. He said it was a bad idea than and he's still saying it is a bad idea now.

Now that the Left is in charge, they are in his sights. And they're coming after him in a conserted way with this boycott.

Just as they're going after Mackey of Whole Foods (one of their own who has dared to speak up with a constructive critique of Obamacare) with a boycott. I plan to shop at Whole Foods today.

We're in danger of slipping from an insipient nanny state into full-blown socialism, where any opposition is squashed.

I agree with weirdsister: we need to wake the hell up!

21st-Aug-2009 02:05 am (UTC)
Yeah I am really confused about the whole "Whole Foods" boycott thing. For goodness sakes they are the perfect picture (ok as close as possble for a business) of corporate responsibility. Their employees get paid well and they even started creating socially responsible clothing.

I really had to laugh today. My coworker was trying to tell me that the economic recovery has really taken root and that the economists are shocked at how much our economy is bouncing back. But he also watches MSNBC, and worships Obama so he thinks we should have health care like Britain.

Not that I did not see the evidence that the economy has been steadily rising since Mid-July, but I also saw the statistics on our jobless rates. So, no I don't think we should break out the champagne bottles. I am starting to think it is all to show how much Obama is a savior. *Groan*
24th-Aug-2009 02:33 am (UTC)
What makes me sad are people who are clueless as to what the First Amendment guarantees.
To wit:The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing the freedom of speech, infringing the freedom of the press, limiting the right to peaceably assemble, or limiting the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Soooo.. last time I checked, the United States Congress wasn't passing any laws prohibiting Glenn Beck from calling anyone anything.

I did not vote for Obama and believe me I certainly do not worship him, but I find Glen Beck, his show, and his comments incendiary and distasteful in the extreme.

And since you seem to want to equate Keith Olbermann's commentary with Beck's witless rants, perhaps you should link an example. Perhaps I missed something ( I don't watch MSNBC too often), but it is possible that I missed the time Olbermann called Bush or Cheney or Mcain a racist. That would be helpful.
24th-Aug-2009 03:43 am (UTC)
I did not say anyone in congress was doing anything against Glenn Beck. I was referring to this: http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/

Nowadays, people want to remove other people from radio /tv/ internet just because they do not agree with what they say, and try to hide it under a banner of "people causing a violent reaction". If someone watches something and they commit murder, we do not blame the video for the person's murder. Each person has their own will.

"I did not vote for Obama and believe me I certainly do not worship him, but I find Glen Beck, his show, and his comments incendiary and distasteful in the extreme."

I would not know. As I stated in my post, I NEVER WATCHED HIM.

"And since you seem to want to equate Keith Olbermann's commentary with Beck's witless rants, perhaps you should link an example."

I cannot compare Olbermann to Glenn Beck. I NEVER WATCHED HIM (Beck). And what I have watched of Olbermann, which was also forced viewing at my job, made me want to leave the room.

"Perhaps I missed something ( I don't watch MSNBC too often), but it is possible that I missed the time Olbermann called Bush or Cheney or Mcain a racist. That would be helpful."

I never said "Olbermann" called anyone a racist. I would never say that since I don't have cable tv to begin with (as stated in my post) and cannot watch every minute of Olbermann on the air to show this. But, since you asked for a clip of him spewing leftist hatred, here goes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyrm4iQehu0

Keith Olberman is calling on a ban of Fox News. A BAN. They are convinced that Fox News, with its reporting, got George Tiller killed. Well, until the day they prove Bill O'Reilly (FYI I don't watch him either) send an actual sublinimal message in his show saying, "KILL GEORGE TILLER", then no, a news network cannot kill a man.

As I stated on my Facebook that week: Simoriah believes that freedom of speech should always be a right. Even if you don't agree with the pinhead who said it. Anyone who acts on those words blindly should be "shot and neutered".

Come to think of it, I wonder if Keith Olbermann aired that clip during sweeps.....
24th-Aug-2009 02:11 pm (UTC)
"So, when did freedom of speech become a freedom for only the left wing?"

Sorry-thought you were referring to the actual First amendment right to free speech. In the case that you are not, then I don't really understand what you are referring to there.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that calling the POTUS a racist with a deep seated hatred of white people, is the same as calling for a ban on Fox News? Really?

Freedom of speech can be a right, but with it comes a responsibility.
25th-Aug-2009 12:18 am (UTC)
Sorry-thought you were referring to the actual First amendment right to free speech. In the case that you are not, then I don't really understand what you are referring to there.

I was. But you had stated that Congress was trying to stop Glenn Beck and I never said anything about the sort.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that calling the POTUS a racist with a deep seated hatred of white people, is the same as calling for a ban on Fox News? Really?

I think that calling for a ban on Fox News was worse. The difference? While Glenn Beck merely gave his opinion, Olbermann not only tried to say FOX News, a newschannel, was responsible for someone's murder, he was trying to get people to ACT on his opinion. A call to action is worse than simply stating someone's opinion.

Freedom of speech can be a right, but with it comes a responsibility.

Responsibility of WHAT? Changing the channel, maybe. Besides, I have dealt with 8 years of having people insult our president in every way, including how he " doesn't care about black people". (Kanye West)how he is "a moron," (Martin Sheen) and a MONKEY (Erin Burnett of CNBC). Let's not forget how the country collectively LAUGHED at the shoe throwing incident. This coming from someone who voted for Gore in 2000 and Ralph Nader for 2004. Bush was not my favorite guy but he was my president and I respected him as such.

Or it it only ok to insult Bush and not Obama? Again with the double standards.
25th-Aug-2009 01:01 am (UTC)
Hmm interesting how you twisted that. I didn't say that congress was trying to do any such thing. I simply posted what the First amendment covers to show you that your comments aren't pertinent to the discussion. There is nothing in the First amendment that guarantees anyone the right to blather on endlessly, be it BillO, Beck or KO. If indeed you were referring to the First amendment, perhaps you should first read it so you understand what the guarantees are in it.

Personal opinions are one thing. Inciting people night after night with terms like "baby killer", etc, is irresponsible.

Learn some history lessons and look at what happened in Rwanda in '93 and '94, because of a radio station who incited Hutus to cut down any Tutsi they happened to see with a machete. Just one example, but maybe the most comparable one right now.

What of the rule of three? What of the Hermetic Principles? The web of interdependence? Are those discarded as inconvenient? We are not islands, any more than our Pagan ancestors who depended on one and other for survival.
25th-Aug-2009 01:32 am (UTC)
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. Period. People have a freedom of whether or not they want to listen to it. Period. Thanks, and I did read the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it state we are forbidden to call the president a 'racist'.

"Inciting people night after night with terms like "baby killer", etc, is irresponsible."

First of all, this is another way of stating that most people are rash enough to just to kill someone because "Bill O'Reilly" called him a "Baby Killer". As much as I make fun of people, I do not believe most Americans are this stupid.

Second, as if FOX news is the only news organization to race-bate and report false news:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI
Turns out that some of the people protesting Obama with guns were not white.

If I have to say this again.....Glenn Beck did not tell people to do anything about Obama. He just shared his opinion. Totally different then telling people to kill anyone different than them with a machete. Stating an opinion is TOTALLY different than a serious call to action. And if you disagree with this, then please kill me now since I am sure I said, in public, that anyone who listens to Michael Bolton should shoot their ears off now, since they aren't doing them any good to begin with.

You will get me to agree with you when I see news of Glenn Beck starting a movement to "Impeach Obama". Until then, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. The end.

25th-Aug-2009 03:21 am (UTC)
Nowhere does it guarantee you that right either. Private parties and even corporations can censor anything anyone says at any time. The Bill of Rights is limited in the protections it provides. You can't just make it up as you go along.

So what if other news organizations do it? Still doesn't make it right.

Yep, he shared his opinion. And now other people get to share their opinions with his sponsors. Except it seems as though you'd rather they didn't?

25th-Aug-2009 05:26 am (UTC)
Nowhere does it guarantee you that right either. Private parties and even corporations can censor anything anyone says at any time. The Bill of Rights is limited in the protections it provides.

Well corporate censorship is a whole nother ballgame. One which we might actually pick the same team, so to speak.

You can't just make it up as you go along.

I'm not trying to. I am not saying that Glenn Beck's rights are being impeded - FOX news made sure of that for ratings sakes. What I am saying, is that the media (outside of FOX news) is covering this to a FAULT, over any of MSNBC's controversies (I am not going over any more of them, sorry).

So what if other news organizations do it? Still doesn't make it right.

I am not arguing that 2 wrongs make a right. Just seems a little unfair IMHO that Glenn Beck gets so much of a bad repuation for this. There seems to be so many people who HATE him, and FOX NEWS, in absencia (since ColorofChange hates it, so will I.)

Yep, he shared his opinion. And now other people get to share their opinions with his sponsors. And I plan on it too, by trying to NOT shop with any of the 40 companies that are not airing ads during his show.

Except it seems as though you'd rather they didn't?

Everyone can share their opinion, this is why America is so great. That's my whole point, really. And I am all welcome to any opinions, since I know I could be wrong. But it just seems ludicrous to me to boycott someone because of their opinions, not even a call to action. And it also seems so one-sided to me - there are no articles on YAHOO for a boycott on Sean Penn for loving Hugo Chavez.

Maybe I have it wrong. I admit I have a skewed version of the world, living in NJ and surrounding myself with ultra-left Pagans. There is NOTHING wrong with this but I admit this gives me a different perspective than say, a person living in Texas hiding in the broom closet.

Because from my POV FOX news seems like the underdogs for reporting anything other than a President Obama love-fest. Everyone I live/work with hates FOX news and worships Obama and anything else the news media says. While I am still very much a liberal on non-fiscal issues, I am sick of the love-fest. I saw someone make a comment, a comment btw I don't agree with entirely, and get hammered for it. All I'm saying is, everyone is entitled to their opinion. (did I SAY that enough already?).

27th-Aug-2009 01:17 pm (UTC)
Cautiously weighing in with my opinion here...

Pressuring advertisers into dropping a show because of its political content does not violate Constitutional protection of free speech or any law, but it's still a fairly repulsive thing. One very famous liberal stated "Monsieur L'Abbe, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Whatever happened to that?

Re Glen Beck, I've only heard his show a few times, and he seemed fairly moderate then. Perhaps his style has changed lately. Whichever the case may be, talk show personalities do have to be a bit provocative; this keeps things lively, as boring shows won't get much of an audience.

PS: the Texas scene isn't too much different :)
28th-Aug-2009 03:09 am (UTC)
Pressuring advertisers into dropping a show because of its political content does not violate Constitutional protection of free speech or any law, but it's still a fairly repulsive thing.

Might I reiterate, counterproductive? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/08/as-boycott-continues-glenn-becks-audience-swells.html

One very famous liberal stated "Monsieur L'Abbe, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Whatever happened to that?

I remember that quote, but I forgot who said it. I agree with it 100%.

Re Glen Beck, I've only heard his show a few times, and he seemed fairly moderate then. Perhaps his style has changed lately. Whichever the case may be, talk show personalities do have to be a bit provocative; this keeps things lively, as boring shows won't get much of an audience.

True. Controversy is probably what keeps "The View" alive.

PS: the Texas scene isn't too much different :)Dammit! Oh well this could be a good thing.

I knew that Austin was liberal, and Dallas was filled with liberals as well. Which is fine, I am hoping for some understanding as I was actually thinking of moving there and was afraid that a socially liberal Pagan might stand out. Not that I make it obvious in public or anything. (Thats fiscally conservative and socially liberal.)

28th-Aug-2009 04:25 pm (UTC)
The quote was from Voltaire. They don't make liberals like that any more :) IMO, liberalism took a dive off the deep end in the 1960s and to a large degree hasn't recovered.

You'd do OK in Texas. I, on the other hand, get pretty lonely sometimes. But things could be worse:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/desperately_seeking_conservati.html
29th-Aug-2009 05:02 am (UTC)
"IMO, liberalism took a dive off the deep end in the 1960s and to a large degree hasn't recovered."

Is that when liberalism turned into "gimme-ism"? In other words, the rich and powerful are evil and we NEED to "equalize income"?

I LOVE that American Thinker website. I can so relate since where I work is another "church" for Obama. At least in Texas, I have heard people are more libertarianm "do what you do and don't tread on me". Which is cool, since I am very much against preaching for anything...
31st-Aug-2009 02:32 am (UTC)
The 1960s featured the "war on poverty" which unfortunately had the effect of subsidizing illegitimate kids. (The more you subsidize something, the more of it you'll get. Sort of the opposite side of the coin to taxing something will reduce it.) I don't have anything against the moms or kids as such, but it set off some other social problems and perpetuated the poverty which it was supposed to eliminate. Or, if one wants to be cynical, one could say it was a matter of buying votes with taxpayer money.

As for "gimme-ism", I guess that goes all the way back to Karl Marx. I don't really think of him as a liberal, but the influence carried over to some degree. For the record, I think that a large middle class is a good thing and extremes of wealth are bad. Even so, I don't have anything against rich folks who go that way due to hard work and soaking them for being successful is unfair. But I have little liking for those who get rich through insider trading, influence peddling, and outright fraud.
31st-Aug-2009 05:48 am (UTC)
"The 1960s featured the "war on poverty" which unfortunately had the effect of subsidizing illegitimate kids."

I did hear about it. Apparently we had this surplus and we felt like helping out the poor. Which in and of itself isn't bad. But as they say, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish..."

But I have little liking for those who get rich through insider trading, influence peddling, and outright fraud.
My thoughts exactly. I cannot stand CEO's who get ridiculous salaries while layoffs are being done. At the same time, my dad is a hardworking fellow and while he is not rich, he certainly is not poor. He does not need to be soaked for working hard.

This page was loaded Jul 21st 2019, 7:41 pm GMT.