Actually reading bills poorly is what she does. She wrote the No Exit article that helped sink the Clinton health reform bill. In which she lied.
So this lying squak dusts herself off now, fifteen years later and does the exact same thing.
She’s a liar, incompetent or both. Believing her without checking the bill for yourself is the act of a fool.
Actually, I’d rather whomever is reading the bill, do so with such clarity that congress need not ever meet on the subject of that legislation again.
How often does congress get a law signed that they themselves have to go back and “fix” because they didn’t catch something the first time?
CEO’s PAY for this kind of disinterest with people losing their jobs. For some reason I find congress to be (for 4 years anyway) uncaring about losing their jobs.
Because it goes to eleven?
Whatever her degree is it has nothing to do with her sincerity or her purpose in spinning the words that way. Obama was a constitutional professor so I guess his interpretation trumps hers if that’s the relevant criteria.
You’re right I didn’t watch the whole clip but I will later. I watched the part where she fumbled to even find the section when challenged and where Stewart read it out loud to make it plain that her interpretation was incorrect. She’s wrong , she’s purposely spinning as she did before during the Clinton effort at health care reform and she recently resigned her position in order to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Too fucking late Betsy.
Do you know how anything works? No problem is ever solved completely and permanently.
“Now, I know that I sat on the board of a large corporation that is making mountains of money with the current system, but I’m really just an impartial concerned citizen making comments about a piece of legislation. My take on things has nothing to do with my former job. In fact, I resigned to be able to continue to campaign against this bill, on behalf of all the rich people who are milking the public for all they have. Since I resigned my position, there’s no way that these rich people could ever support me with money or paid TV appearances or anything, so you know that I’m completely impartial, and not trying to help my rich friends, former co-workers, or any of the other wealthy people who totally aren’t using me as a shill.”
Sounds believable to me. Now that that’s settled, I have to go find that guy with the bridges for sale. Gonna get me some bridges, ayup.
Well, maybe, but I think she got totally schooled by Big John, and they ran her off because she was an embarassment.
Glenn Beck is one of the biggest fucking idiots on television and that’s saying quite a bit. I would trust a time share salesman before I trusted Beck.
He’s basically a morning drive time radio jock who found his niche and discovered he could make a shitload of money pandering to the right wing.
But he…{sniff} …loves this country ,…{sob}…so much.
That should be “whoever”. It’s the subject of the subordinate clause, and hence the nominative case is required.
This may be one of the stupidest questions I have ever read. But seeing that it came from Glenn Beck, I guess it accurately targets his audience.
Despite being a former (very former, which is obvious by my posts) English major, pedantic posts like that would push me to supporting the other side, except I don’t know what you are talking about.
Which is especially sad, as I should’ve learned that in 7th grade*, if not before. I’ll blame the asshole who sat next to me who kept tattooing my thigh by stabbing it with a pencil. Not the most effective delivery system for carbon black–my longest-lasting tattoo was when I stabbed myself with a 00 Leroy pen while these only lasted years–but complaining to Sister would’ve given negative results.
And some people push for tax credits because they believe their kids will learn more from a parochial education. :rolleyes:
For the most part any question is reasonable and worth asking. This doesn’t mean of course that every question is free from false assumptions (the ‘why do you hate your wife fallacy’).
The only question that seems borderline hateful is the one about the ‘radical communist’ which wreaks a little of ad hominem and sensationalism.
Glenn Beck is an entertainer, not an educator or expert. Sometimes he asks important questions, and sometimes he reveals important and disturbing facts. Just as often he’s propagating alarmist lies and sensationalist fearmongering for ratings.
Certainly his perspective is colored by his personal politics, but that’s not always a bad thing. However a lot of his diatribe is alarmist and sensationalist - outrage for the sake of outrage and can be disingenuous.
Overall he’s asking important questions and shedding light on important things, but he’s also not rational, unbiased, purely motivated, or particularly great about checking his facts.
He’s worth listening to for issues one should investigate, but not worth counting on as a reliable source of facts about those issues.
I love this message board. Nowhere else will you see posts like these, more’s the pity!
Dropping back by I couldn’t help but notice that the OP asked us some questions but hasn’t bothered to return to answer ours.
Depends on how narrowly you define a “problem.” Disease is not a solved problem, but smallpox is.
Reading through this list of “questions” is a good reminder why even Glenn Beck admits that Glenn Beck is an idiot.
I beg to differ - that should read “far, far more often”. I’m sure he makes the odd valid point, but inflammatory rhetoric is his stock-in-trade.
Clearly for many people on this thread, that would only apply to politicians with an (R) after their names. Obviously, people with a (D) just magically know.
I wonder if you bothered to read any of the many posts about how congress people know the effects and details of bills they are voting on. Asking them to read the technical language is not only a waste of time, it would needlessly bog down the process.
Or do you only listen to arguments from people with (R) after their names? 