The Glenn Beck Thread....

[technoextreme]

The man did a really nice piece on FEMA camps with a journalist from Popular Mechanics. So he is insane but not that insane.

 

[TraneWreck]

As I said, the GOP leadership and that of the Conservative movement seems to be as confused by what hit them in November as the French Generals were in 1940.

Is your avatar photo Jeremy Brett as Sherlock? If so, I love those productions.

Looks like a still from The Final Solution.

 

[dudalb]

Right on both counts.

 

[Bob Klase]

And what, pray tell, would be evidence of that? Glass-Steagall, a protection put in place by Roosevelt (the second half of Glass-Seagall was passed under the Roosevelt administration, the first part was Hoover's) in response to the '29 crash and subsequent depression, was abolished in 1999. It was meant to control speculation in the wake of all the commercial bank failures. The 1999 act that replaced it, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, allowed commercial banks to engage in insurance activities and otherwise consolidate financial functions that were kept separate since 1933.

So you point to an act that was passed with Clinton in office (which is two presidents and 10 years after Reagan was president) as evidence that it's all Reagan's fault?

If you examine the specifics of every aspect of this current crisis, the source is a move away from the regulations and controls placed on the financial system by Roosevelt. If we had continued his policies, this would not have happened.

Perhaps. Perhaps if Reagan had been elected president for life this would not have happened (after all, he had 8 years to get something like Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed and he didn't). I just find it difficult to figure out how absolve Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 so you can blame it all on Reagan and start with a law passed in 1999 as evidence of that.

 

[themusicteacher]

So you point to an act that was passed with Clinton in office (which is two presidents and 10 years after Reagan was president) as evidence that it's all Reagan's fault?




Perhaps. Perhaps if Reagan had been elected president for life this would not have happened (after all, he had 8 years to get something like Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed and he didn't). I just find it difficult to figure out how absolve Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 so you can blame it all on Reagan and start with a law passed in 1999 as evidence of that.

Reagan was the starting point of deregulation, ammoral capitalism and non-wartime outlandish government spending, particularly on defense. Every president after has followed in those footsteps because, short-term, the policies worked to bring jobs to people. However, long-term those policies have proved unsustainable and downright stupid.

 

[TraneWreck]

So you point to an act that was passed with Clinton in office (which is two presidents and 10 years after Reagan was president) as evidence that it's all Reagan's fault?




Perhaps. Perhaps if Reagan had been elected president for life this would not have happened (after all, he had 8 years to get something like Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed and he didn't). I just find it difficult to figure out how absolve Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 so you can blame it all on Reagan and start with a law passed in 1999 as evidence of that.

First of all, I was pointing out that the moves away from FDR, regardless of who was responsible, caused the crisis. This contradicts the claim that somehow this economic crisis has shown Roosevelt's policies to be failures, it shows the opposite.

Secondly, Reagan was actively hostile to those regulations and oversights. I just gave one example. 41 and 42 continued in this vein, but it was Bush 43 that really burned down the structure. I don't belive I blamed Reagan, I merely pointed out that he started the ball rolling.

If you'll notice, I never mentioned Reagan's name in the post you replied to. You seem to be a little sensitive about old Ronny...

 

[Bob Klase]

Reagan was the starting point of deregulation, ammoral capitalism and non-wartime outlandish government spending, particularly on defense. Every president after has followed in those footsteps because, short-term, the policies worked to bring jobs to people. However, long-term those policies have proved unsustainable and downright stupid.

Short term the policies worked to fix Carter's problems, end the cold war and a few other positive effects. Those policies were right for Reagan's time. In many individual instances deregulation worked very well (perhaps you would prefer that AT&T still have a monopoly on telephone service).

In the 20 years since Reagan they went too far with many policies. Taxes are a good idea, they pay for things we need. Not such a good idea if we make the tax rate 99% on every dollar earned and waste half of that. Social security is a good idea. Not so good if it grows into a major driving force behind the federal budget and is practically immune from changes until it's close to bankrupting the country.

 

[Bob Klase]

I don't belive I blamed Reagan, I merely pointed out that he started the ball rolling.

Perhaps I misunderstood. Generally giving someone credit for initiating something you don't like is considered the same as assigning blame.

You seem to be a little sensitive about old Ronny...

No more than you.

 

[themusicteacher]

The deification of any president is probably out of line in any era. We may look back on our "founding fathers" with a great deal of romanticism and wonder but in their own time they held unpopular opinions, made mistakes and were, above all, human. Unfortunately, it's the misty-eyed romanticizations (a la Glenn Beck) of these figures and their times that gets people all frothy-mouthed and acting like a schoolboy in heat. The REAL life and times of these people are not as wonderful as many make them out to be. St Ronny had as many shortcomings as FDR or Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln or any other prez.

People who want some sort of "return to better times" (such as those who long for the "moral superiority" - and rampant racism, massive debts, existence of even more awful diseases, etc - of the 1950's) are simply engaging in a masturbatory exercise about a time that never really existed. Beck is a prime example of this, thinking that America was at some point perfect, that everyone was happy and better off and that we should strive to get back to that mythical Valhalla. Only, he thinks that armed revolution or willful subversion of our democracy is appropriate since there is a government in office he doesn't like.

 

[TraneWreck]

Perhaps I misunderstood. Generally giving someone credit for initiating something you don't like is considered the same as assigning blame.

I blame him to the extent that his fiscal policies began the trend away from regulation and oversight that led to the free-wheeling, insane financial action that caused the current crisis. We can have that discussion if you disagree, but I was merely providing a defense of FDR, not an attack on any politican in particular. Although you will notice that I chose a bill passed under Clinton's watch as evidence, so how you concluded that I was after Reagan, specifically, is beyond me.

 

[Bob Klase]

I blame him to the extent that his fiscal policies began the trend away from regulation and oversight that led to the free-wheeling, insane financial action that caused the current crisis.

You know how pendulum's work. There's a good chance that it's only a matter of time (maybe 30-40) years until the trends that Obama seems to be starting will go too far someone can point back and lay the blame on him for the runaway inflation of 2039. At that point he'll be no more to blame than Reagan is today.

We can have that discussion if you disagree, but I was merely providing a defense of FDR, not an attack on any politican in particular.

I don't disagree that Reagan started policies that were taken too far (or carried too long) and resulted in the current mess. I just disagreed with what appeared (to me) to be you crediting Reagan with causing the current mess. Fiscal policies will never be static- things that are a good idea under some circumstances will later create problems. That's not always the fault of the person who started them.

I do think that many of Reagan's policies did what they should have done in the 1980's. Some of them should have been halted or modified later in the 90's and 00's.

 

[XXX]

I challenged everyone making this claim to find examples of Olbermann going off the rail like Beck and O'Reilly do on a regular basis.

The point of a discussion forum is that other people bring their view points to the table. I cannot be expected to know everything about all subjects, so if you have examples of bad behavior on the part of Olbermann, link them up. We can compare them, it will be informative.

But what doesn't count is an unsubstantiated equivalence supported with nothing more than, "Come on, I mean, Come on, seriously." Merely criticizing what Olbermann's interested in isn't sufficient. Someone could spend an hour debunking false claims of stamp collectors, and while boring, the product could still be well supported and rational.

You need to find examples of Olbermann behaving insanely like Beck or 9-11 truthers, if you can, great, we can move forward, if not, your mealy-mouthed complaints will continue to fall on deaf ears.

Actually TraneWreck, I was asking if YOU had ever looked into Olberman's claims yourself. And you've pretty much answered that question with your response, which looks like a no. You can have the last little quip here, but honestly my interest in a "discussion" with you in this matter now is pretty much zero, since I know exactly how/where it would go.

 

[Brainster]

Beck and Savage may be douchebags but Coulter is one of the most truly evil spirited people on the planet. She gets the special but well deserved distinction of being one of those "ladies" (if Skeletor the Anorexic can be called such) who receives the c-word that rhymes with bundt nomenclature. I don't pull that one out for just anyone so she must be an absolute horror of a human being.

I am pleased to hear that only Ann Coulter can make you engage in such misogynistic commentary.

 

[shadron]

Perhaps if Reagan had been elected president for life this would not have happened (after all, he had 8 years to get something like Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed and he didn't).

A quick glance at history shows that Reagan's second term was not nearly as well received as his first. Included in the second term was the war on drugs, bombing Libya, Iran Contra, HIV/AIDS denial, four surgeries for cancer, hearing problems and prostate problems (got it right this time!). One must also add the end of the cold war here; one cannot gainsay that. He was announced that he was afflicted with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, so he might have made one additional term. There is conjectured, however, that symptoms from the Alzheimers may have been detectable before he left the presidency; it's very hard to discern early Alzheimer's from simple aging effects.

And, yes, I do know you were using "president for life" as a figure of speech, not as a real possibility. But, do watch out for what you wish for.

 

[TraneWreck]

Actually TraneWreck, I was asking if YOU had ever looked into Olberman's claims yourself. And you've pretty much answered that question with your response, which looks like a no. You can have the last little quip here, but honestly my interest in a "discussion" with you in this matter now is pretty much zero, since I know exactly how/where it would go.

That's just bizarre. Of course I've looked into some of his claims, he seems to be generally factually quite accurate. Sometimes he's guilty of blowing things out of proportion, but that's different than outright lying, an activity perfected by his right wind "counterparts."

But you are obviously talking out of your ass here. You have any specific claim in mind? Or are you asking me to vouch for every word Olbermann has ever spoken? You made the claim that he is somehow like Beck and O'Reilly, so it is incumbent on you to offer evidence. I made claims about the two afore mentioned knuckleheads and supported it with evidence. I'm happy to bring you more.

You are making an astonishingly pathetic argument.

 

[Bob Klase]

And, yes, I do know you were using "president for life" as a figure of speech, not as a real possibility. But, do watch out for what you wish for.

I wasn't saying it was something I wished for. Just that the progression of his policies wouldn't necessarily have been the same as it was under Bush, Clinton & Bush. But we'll never know.