Barack Obama

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Glenn Beck doesn't do news. Although most of what he says seems to be accurate.

"Clearly, Glenn Beck is not your typical teleprompter-reading news host. Beck admitted to CBS anchor Katie Couric that he was not a journalist, yet he disseminates news, information and opinions to a large portion of the American populace. What is he, then, if not a journalist?

Beck seems to borrow heavily from a variety of trades, functioning as a quasi-comedian, actor, news host, journalist, radio disc jockey, entertainer, author and preacher, just to name a few. He can be as funny and entertaining as the Comedy Channel's satirical hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, but he also possesses the gravity and moral certitude of a religious pastor.

More so than most journalists and news hosts, Glenn Beck knows how to effectively sell the news to his audience. Moreover, he uses the medium of television to make the process of news-gathering simultaneously entertaining and easy for his viewers. Of course, any semblance of objectivity goes out the window when a provocative and emotive character like Beck takes such a primetime stage.

If Beck is any indication of the future of television news, given his show's popularity and high ratings, we will most likely see an upswing in the amount of emotion and entertainment infused in news production at the expense of careful, objective, balanced and thoughtful analysis among journalistic sources.

But do most viewers want thoughtful analysis? Or do they want to be entertained?"

The trouble is most viewers now don't know the difference between news and entertainment.

[randolph]

"I do not agree with him about Global Warming though. As I may have said before, global warming is not a political issue. It's science. Politicians and political talk show hosts from either side should not be talking about it. They should shut up and let actual climatologists talk about it."

Unfortunately, some morning we are going to wake up to climate change and wonder why we didn't try to do something about it.
We are in a canoe drifting down a river and the noise of the waterfall is getting louder and louder.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

"Clearly, Glenn Beck is not your typical teleprompter-reading news host. Beck admitted to CBS anchor Katie Couric that he was not a journalist, yet he disseminates news, information and opinions to a large portion of the American populace. What is he, then, if not a journalist?

He's a political commentator.

Originally Posted by randolph

Beck seems to borrow heavily from a variety of trades, functioning as a quasi-comedian, actor, news host, journalist, radio disc jockey, entertainer, author and preacher, just to name a few. He can be as funny and entertaining as the Comedy Channel's satirical hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, but he also possesses the gravity and moral certitude of a religious pastor.

A versatile political commentator.

Originally Posted by randolph

But do most viewers want thoughtful analysis? Or do they want to be entertained?"

I'll take some entertainment. When he goes off the deep end I laugh but I want to see more of his analysis. At times he presents a very thorough and scary picture of what's going on with the government. And I realize it takes time to gather this information, so I tolerate his occasional bouts of goofiness.

[randolph]

" By Kevin Drum | Tue October 27, 2009 12:03 PM PST

Andrew Sullivan thinks the "opt-out" public option is a piece of political genius. Imagine, he says, what happens next if it passes:

Well, there has to be a debate in every state in which Republicans, where they hold a majority or the governorship, will presumably decide to deny their own voters the option to get a cheaper health insurance plan. When others in other states can get such a plan, will there not be pressure on the GOP to help their own base? Won't Bill O'Reilly's gaffe - when he said what he believed rather than what Roger Ailes wants him to say - be salient? Won't many people - many Republican voters - actually ask: why can't I have what they're having?

....Imagine Republicans in state legislatures having to argue and posture against an affordable health insurance plan for the folks, as O'Reilly calls them, while evil liberals provide it elsewhere. Now, of course, if the public option is a disaster in some states, this argument could work in the long run. But in the short run? It's political nightmare for the right as it is currently constituted. In fact, I can see a public option becoming the equivalent of Medicare in the public psyche if it works as it should. Try running against Medicare.

I was mulling over the exact same scenario last night and couldn't quite make up my mind about how this would play out. In the end, though, I think Andrew's argument is pretty compelling. As Rich Lowry complained over at The Corner, "Does a state get to opt-out of the taxes too?" That's technically a moot point if the public option is truly self-funding, but in the reality of the political world it's powerful whether it makes sense or not. It's like Republican governors turning down stimulus money: it sounds good on the stump, but who's going to do it in the real world? It's crazy if you're paying for it anyway.

So yes, this could be a huge winner. If it passes, then for the next four years Republican state legislators all over the country will be teaming up with the universally loathed insurance industry to try and deny their citizens access to a program that, to most of them, sounds like a pretty good deal. I don't know if Harry Reid was deviously thinking exactly that thought when he decided on this, but I'll bet someone was. It's hard to think of something that could force the GOP to make itself even more unpopular than it already is, but this might be it."

It won't be the first time Republicans have shot themselves in the foot.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well, there has to be a debate in every state in which Republicans, where they hold a majority or the governorship, will presumably decide to deny their own voters the option to get a cheaper health insurance plan.

If the debate is about a cheaper health care system that provides at least the same coverage that the majority of the population receives now, then sure, there's no debate. But Kevin Drum forgot to mention the little detail that it will cost more for worse health care.

[The Conquistador]

I can see a tax hike if the "public option" healthcare goes through. How else will they appropriate people's money to pay for the crap?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If the debate is about a cheaper health care system that provides at least the same coverage that the majority of the population receives now, then sure, there's no debate. But Kevin Drum forgot to mention the little detail that it will cost more for worse health care.

Cost more for whom? right now we pay through the nose for healthcare and one of the reasons is that hospitals have to provide healthcare for people who dont pay at emergency centers. The cost is applied to the payers. The system is broken and will get worse without revision.
The other aspect is that the conservative leadership doesn't give a shit about healthcare they are using the issue to try to weaken Obama's popularity by endless distortions and outright lies. Fuck the poor, fuck the underprivileged, only the people with good paying jobs deserve to have their healthcare paid by their employers.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Cost more for whom? right now we pay through the nose for healthcare and one of the reasons is that hospitals have to provide healthcare for people who dont pay at emergency centers. The cost is applied to the payers. The system is broken and will get worse without revision.
The other aspect is that the conservative leadership doesn't give a shit about healthcare they are using the issue to try to weaken Obama's popularity by endless distortions and outright lies. Fuck the poor, fuck the underprivileged, only the people with good paying jobs deserve to have their healthcare paid by their employers.

Ha ha ha! The Government is one giant clusterfuck. Look at the DMV, Postal Service, Medicare, Social Security and numerous other programs/Gov. run institutions and ask yourself if they will do any better with healthcare. And give a clear, concise reason as to why and not the usual "Cuz the Obamessiah sez so" reason.

Then ask yourself where in the heck will they get the money to pay for all of it.

Why do people from Canada and other countries come here to get treated if they have Gov. sponsored healthcare in their own homelands that is "accessible" and "affordable"?

What is to stop them from denying you coverage?

Where else will you go if you get denied?

Are you willing to give up your healthcare for a lower standard?




A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on Paul's support

Villainy wears many masks; but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

[randolph]

I suggest you find a nice cute young California tranny and let her release your frustrations.
California is heaven on earth compared to the rest of the earth where its either too hot or too cold or too wet or too dry or the government is even more fucked up than California's.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

He's a political commentator.


A versatile political commentator.

I'll take some entertainment. When he goes off the deep end I laugh but I want to see more of his analysis. At times he presents a very thorough and scary picture of what's going on with the government. And I realize it takes time to gather this information, so I tolerate his occasional bouts of goofiness.

Ahh yes, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin, ect, ect. What ever happened to the likes of Eric Sevareid and Edward R. Murrow?