Comment: What a bleeding idiot! in Video: Glenn Beck on NIH Studying Health Effects of Gun Ownership on Opposing Views

This content is inappropriate

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:

(Video) Glenn Beck on NIH Studying Health Effects of Gun Ownership

By DustinsGunBlog

You are seeing 5 Comments. See all 8 Comments on this Video.

Regarding Video

Glenn Beck on NIH Studying Health Effects of Gun Ownership

What a bleeding idiot!

If this clown's goal is to paint gun rights in the worst possible light, he did a wonderful job.

It's amazing how many people have fallen for the whole "con vs. lib" thing. The media isn't liberal or conservative, it's corporate. It's in corporate America's interest to see citizens disarmed. It makes us a lot easier marks for the massive frauds perpetuated against us.

The goofiest part is the hammering away at the silly notion that gun rights is a conservative issue. Throughout history, real liberals bear arms. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et al, were some of the most hardcore liberals who have ever lived. Beck is a poseur and a fraud.

- Don Earl October 21, 2009 10:06PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- The media certainly can be liberal.
  
  Look at MSNBC if you need an example. They spent 8 years bashing bush , but can't find fault with anything that Obama does. They also perpetrated a nice little hack job with the guy at the Arizona gun rally and talking about the racist overtones that were "obvious," while blatantly hiding the fact that the man was black.
  
  If you don't think the media can be biased in a liberal or conservative way, might I suggest that you help Beck get his head out of the sand? That is, once you pull yours out?
  
  - LagerHead October 22, 2009 9:45AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - It's a hoax
    
    I quit watching TV over 30 years ago. I'll repeat, the media isn't conservative or liberal, it's corporate. You figure NBC is liberal? NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the biggest defense contractors on the face of the planet, and a massive beneficiary of the Bush wars and deficit defense spending. NBC alone has a lock on over 35% of the US media.
    
    Think about it for a moment. Why is it that what you perceive as a "liberal" point of view is so offensive to you? Is it perhaps the way it's presented? If someone really wanted you to share their views, wouldn't they present their views to you in such a way as to make it at least somewhat tolerable? Would they shout absurdities in your face, or calmly try to argue their strongest points in a reasonable manner?
    
    I'll give you a mild example from your own comments. You appear to believe Obama is black. Where did you hear that? The media perhaps? He's not black. He's half black and half white. He may be America's first mulatto president, but to date, America has never had a black president.
    
    While you may find it hard to believe in a society where the vast majority of the population has been dumbed down by watching television , the clip attached to this thread is the first time I've ever seen Beck. I know of him from various written articles I run across occasionally, but I've never watched him. I've posted my views on the Second Amendment in enough places on OV to where you can see where I stand if you care to look. In a nutshell, my position is "shall not be infringed" means exactly what says. I found the so called "conservative" view expressed by Beck to be so fantastically offensive and disgusting that my first impression was one of being embarassed to be a supporter of the Second Amendment. My second and more objective impression is that was the intended effect.
    
    It's not me who has his head in the sand, my friend. Unlike most of the dumbed down population, I recognize the less obvious forms that truly sophisticated propaganda takes.
    
    If you want to get a little bit of a feel for what I'm talking about, this is about as good a place to start as any:
    
    http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main
    
    When in doubt, follow the money and ask the question, "Who benefits from this?".
    
    - Don Earl October 22, 2009 5:42PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - You Both Make a Valid Argument.
      
      We shouldn't take Olbermann or Beck seriously as they both exist to be polar opposites. If arms of the media swing in opposite directions they will certainly gather followers and promote divisive situations among us.
      
      I do listen to the media but the only side I'll ever really take to heart are those who produce non-biased or independent studies - fair statistics and good journalism . John Stossel does investigative reporting and a damn find job of it. Lou Dobbs might have his opinions as well but he at least gives both sides a fair say. Debate is healthy but picking a side so firmly that it blinds you is usually not.
      
      I don't mind Moderates as long as they can detail the ways in which they are moderate and the issues which they feel need moderation.
      
      Still, I should always take an elected politician's actions more seriously than a journalist's words.
      
      - m46607 October 22, 2009 11:31PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Take sides?
        
        Ah, but that's more of the core propaganda. If someone can't stand Beck, or that doped up fool with boils on his butt, they must be liberals. Right?
        
        From a small cross section of Dobbs quotes I've seen, he's as big a fool as the rest of them. None of these clowns are objective, fair or balanced. In fact, balanced is the last thing they are fact wise, and mental wise, they're anything but. They're red faced raving lunatics whose sole purpose is to have half the population fighting the other half, while the chosen elite rob us blind during the distraction.
        
        Personally, I hate Democrats as much as I do Republicans. For those of us who own horses, it strikes me as ludicrous that anyone would prefer one gang of horse theives over the other. Do a little online research on the various fringe parties, such as the greens, socialists, libertarians, constitutional party, etc.. Although goofy in places (a lot of places in some cases) all of them have a platform. When you get done with that, check out the offical sites for the Ds & Rs. As incredible as it may seem to those who think one side is liberal and the other conservative, neither party has a platform. Zip, zero, nadda. They stand for absolutely nothing. Look at their voting records. On nonsense throw away issues, you may see some polarization. When it comes to spending several trillion dollars to bail out their rich investor buddies who made bad bets, or to invade some pissant little country with lots of heroin or oil , they're in lock step with each other.
        
        IMO, what this country needs is a viable third party that actually represents those who vote for them, as in mainstream America.
        
        - Don Earl October 23, 2009 4:24AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.