Glenn Beck you lying sack of S%$*

I preordered his newest book 2 weeks ago......" today only "...." 1/2 off "....at BN.com, ad $3.99 shipping.

I just came home from the bookstore where I saw th book for sale on the shelf for, you guessed it.....$7.99

The book is " Original Arguement " and is meant to be a modern day language/situation interpetation of The Federalist Papers. I was going to read it and look for " interpetations " or mistakes and lies. I have read the original Madison/Hamilton/Jay version.

Beck...when the book arrives I will refuse shipment and get my $$$ back. It's not the money, it's the principle.

 

First, in order for your rant to make any sense, you need to tell us what the 1/2 off price was.
Second, just what does Beck have to do with this. All you are ranting about is what BN is doing with THEIR prices. Unless Beck owns them, Beck has absolutely nothing to do with this.

 

Beck stated that the $7.99 price was half off. It is for sale everywhere for from $6.96 to $7.99......Beck knows enough about selling books to know the game.

 

The Federalist Papers were merely the foundation for a centralized government. The expansion of America must allow such ideals to be tweaked and refined. So what good does any interpretation from an ex-junkie morning zoo DJ do any anyone? Its like the UK adhering only to the strictest sense of the Magna Carta. And its core government being interpreted by some Piccadilly barker. Look at it this way; it cost you less then 15 bucks to learn a lesson on integrity, and who has it.

 

Glenn Who?

 

Glenn Olbermann, I think. Used to be on the Disney channel or something. Can't remember.

 

I bet Beck's exit from FNC is making Tommyboy very happy. I wonder if they really do plan to put that truther clown Napolitano with no forehead in his time slot?

 

Not really. I deleted Fox long ago with all the other useless home shopping channels. I say let the whackos and goobers have their lemming channel and their cult leaders. Keeps them out of the mainstream and away from normal society.

 

[video]http://youtu.be/CiGNdZxTrKc[/video]

 

I frequent this local Mexican food chain restaurant and I know many of the employees after years of going there. I used to walk in and see Fox on their two ceiling mounted TVs and one day I asked if it was the corporation's decision to always have Fox on. The guy told me that he hated Fox but that it just happened to be on that channel. Now every time I go in, he points to the TV and says "Look, Not Fox". His English is not so good but we have an agreement. You can make a difference if you speak up. I've only had one guy get snippy with me and I told him that I bet his boss wouldn't be too pleased if he knew that this guy was watching TV. I never had a problem with him again. He was eventually fired is my guess.

 

Coincidentally, I was going to start a thread on this very subject.
Recently our local Y rec'd criticizm for not having FOX News on one of the multiple channel selections that are available. They put it up to a vote of the membership (asked to pick the 1 channel they would like to see at the Y) & FOX rec'd nearly 90% of the votes. Then I started noticing other businesses...my dentist had FOX on in the waiting area, our employee break room, several local restaurants, etc. I couldn't believe the number of businesses that had their channels set to FOX.

 

Just sayin'...

UMD Report: Regular Viewers of Fox News More Likely To Be Misinformed
December 17, 2010 10:04 am ET by Simon Maloy

Back in 2003, the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes conducted a survey on public knowledge of terrorism and the then-recently launched Iraq war. The report found that "[t]hose who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions" about these issues of grave national importance. And the difference was stark: According to the report, Fox News viewers were "three times more likely than the next nearest network" to hold inaccurate views of 9-11, WMDs in Iraq, and international support for the war.

Last week, the Program on International Policy Attitudes released another, wider-ranging report on "Misinformation and the 2010 Election," which examined the accuracy of news consumers' views on tax policy, government bailouts, the economy, climate science, and President Obama's background. The findings were in line with the 2003 survey -- Fox News viewers were "significantly more likely" to be misinformed:

In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.

There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue.

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
the economy is getting worse (26 points)
most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

It's a disturbing trend. The growth in Fox News' popularity has coincided with rising distrust of the rest of the media, which the right tends to dismiss as "liberal" and view with reflexive suspicion. That, coupled with Fox's commitment to producing distorted, right-wing journalism, has essentially created a competing media culture in which counter-factual information with palate-pleasing right-wing spin is considered "the news." What the UMD studies show is the necessary result of a news organization putting ideology over accuracy. It's not news, and it's not healthy for a functioning democracy.

 

C'mon. Did the meal taste better with a different channel on? I'm glad you were ok with the clothes the guy was wearing. Who goes to a resturant where there is a TV on? Is conversation with the party you are with that dull? Ummm. Never mind. A sports bar, I could see. But a resturant? And the volume was on?

 

Sounds like headline stuff out there in Bumpkin Gulch.

 

And let me guess. Soros paid for the poll. Those questions are just a bit biased, are they not? Oh, and thank God, for the "rising distrust of the rest of the media".

 

You do realize that every time you post, you add credence to this report.

 

It's more of a fast food chain than a sit down kind of place. TVs don't even have the sound turned up.

 

Funny- when one doesn't buy into the lib talking points they are somehow "misinformed".

 

No, what is sad is that those buying into the misinformation are being shown proof that they are doing so by a credible source and yet adhere to the source of the misinformation anyway compounding their own stupidity.

 

You're talking about MSNBC here?