0 thoughts on “Must see video blasting Hannity, Coulter, Beck and Limbaugh”

  1. Fox IS the main stream media. Last I checked they are the single biggest news channel there is.

    Here’s my opinion of these people, since I’m sure you want to know.

    Rush Limbaugh is very intelligent, I just disagree with him, which is fine. Anne Coulter is extremely intelligent, but talks a bit too much about thing she knows little of. She was interviewed in Canada once and tried to tell one of our most respected journalists that Canada sent troops to Vietnam (the guy covered the Vietnam war). He told her she was wrong, and she told him he was wrong. She likes to shock people, and it works. I think it’s often an act.

    As for Sean Hannity – I don’t know what people see in him. I don’t find him insightful at all. And Glenn Beck – I don’t know what to say. If you think he is anything but a performance artist, you have your head where the sun don’t shine.

    Like

    1. Yes, I remember that Canadian interview. I laughed pretty hard. Canada sent no troops to Vietnam, some Canadians figured out a way to join the American military (dual citizens? I don’t know) and went over. There were a few of them.

      Like

      1. Yeah, we Canadians are great at patting ourselves on the back, looking down our noses at Americans and feeling smug by sending peace-keepers who can’t do anything to keep peace. The whole idea of a peace-keeper is a bit of a contradiction in terms – the reason they go to places like Bosnia is because there is no peace. How can they keep peace if it doesn’t exist?

        I think it’s great that we have 2000 troops in Afghanistan, some of them are my personal friends, however Canada has a long and sad history of underfunding it’s military (why bother spending $ on it when the Americans do it for us? Why not use that $ and spend it on voter-friendly opiates, like health care? So goes the thinking in the liberal land.) and sending the troops into areas under-equipped and poorly trained. Then the population freaks out when our troops start dying in disproportionately higher numbers than anyone else. It would be all so funny if people weren’t dying.

        Like

      2. Would the US protect any other country were it not in your national interest to do so?

        After all, it took Pearl Harbour to bring you into WW2; for two years you seemed quite content to watch Europe burn.

        And I have a list of countries, if you want them, that are waiting for your intervention on the same basis that you gave for intervening in Iraq. They just don’t have oil, or presidents who tried to kill your president’s daddy, so I assume they don’t count.

        I’m not discounting what good you have done, or dissing your soldiers, who are just doing their jobs. But don’t expect the rest of the world to fall over themselves praising you for protecting US interests, just because it may have the side effect of increasing security in their own countries.

        Like

      3. That first sentence is not entirely accurate, Boo. I think that you are aware that FDR was trying for a while to figure out a way to get the population involved. The US was still struggling with isolationalism, and FDR was very provocative towards Hitler in order to goad him into making acts of war. The US government was not content to watch Europe burn. They were using lend-lease as a way to bankroll the British war effort long before Pearl Harbor.

        I do respect the US for being the first country in the history of the world for not using their hegemony in pursuit of world empire.

        Like

      4. Why do you think it’s great that we have 2000 troops in Afghanistan? Many are my friends too. We’ve been there for years now, and the Taliban is still around, women still can’t drive, and their recent election looks like it was a big scam. I just can’t see them making much of a difference there. Countries need to revolt from within to make lasting change.

        I agree that our troops (Canadian) are underfunded, but in the same breath, it’s necessary to show the voters why we are participating in these wars before we demand that the military get more funding.

        Like

      5. Agreed re: internal revolution.

        Afghanistan has been a failed state for quite some time. It will likely take a generation for it to be in full control of it’s own borders and defeat the Taliban. I think it’s great that Canada is there for several reasons.

        For starters, it increases Canada’s participation in world events, giving us more diplomatic clout within NATO. Canada has been growing steadily weaker relative to it’s peers since 1918, and despite liberal theories to the contrary, war shows zero signs of leaving the human race.

        The use of our armed forces in Afghanistan will increase stability in the region if we are successful. It will turn a historically xenophobic country into a moderate ally and an agent of reform in one of the most strategic locations in the world.

        Further, it enhances our standing with the United States. As our two countries are the world’s largest trading partners our interests are inevitable linked to theirs. Open borders between the two states benefits every Canadian there is. It would be very beneficial for the other members of NATO to contribute to the Afghan war effort; as it is, they are merely displaying token interest in one of the most important conflicts since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

        Regarding internal revolution, I agree. The difficult thing about Afghanistan is their centuries-old culture of warlord rule that has existed to varying degrees since the departure of Ghengis Khan and his sons, and cannot be overcome in (likely) less than a generation. Yes, the vote was a sham perpetrated by the same warlords that ran the country before the Talibs came. Is it hopeless, then? Definitely not.

        General McChrystal has said it will take a year to determine the most probable outcome. The chances of success are proportionate to the level of security that we can provide the Afghan people. The level of security we can provide the Afghan people is dependant on NATO’s committment to the war. We are a part of NATO. Therefore I think it is great that we have 2000 troops there. I don’t think it’s great that this is the maximum force Canada can send overseas on an extended mission. I think that is pathetic.

        Like

      6. Very good points. You are far more knowledgeable on this subject than me, so thanks for the insight. I believe in our military, and I know they are terribly underfunded. Afghanistan in such a massive undertaking though, and the mindset of the population there may not be ready to change for some time.

        Like

  2. Ryan,

    OK, cool on you in how you spoke of Limbaugh. You’re perfectly free to disagree with reason and logic.

    I haven’t checked on whether or not Canada sent troops to Viet Nam. Have you? Or did you assume the Canadian was right and Coulter wrong. Never mind, it doesn’t really matter. Does Coulter, or the Canadian interviewer for that matter, have to be right 100% of the time on every detail concerning every issue on which she might cover? I think she gets it right far more often than not. From there it’s a matter of her opinions and the positions she takes.

    Frankly, though I think Hannity is on the right side of most issues, I agree he doesn’t add a whole lot and isn’t the best out there.

    Beck? Oh, he is indeed unique. Call him performance artist if you like. Indeed, he began as an entertainer of sorts, as did Rush, and they bring aspects of that to their shows. What’s wrong with that? Does news and opinion shows need to be droll? The real question is, what does he say and can he back it up? I think for the most part he does a great job of backing up what he says. And, like all the rest, including others not mentioned in Klavan’s piece, he begs the opposition to bring it, and they never do. They just content themselves with crapping on his style or personal life. And that only lends more credibility to him and what he says.

    Like

    1. There’s a strange part of me that respects Anne Coulter. I think she plays a bit of a devil’s advocate. The interview with the Canadian journalist was not well played on her part. Of course she does not need to be right all the time, but you don’t tell a seasoned journalist who was draft age at the time of the Vietnam war whether or not his country participated. Canada did not send troops to Vietnam, but some Canadians fought for the US on their own accord. (I’m Canadian, by the way, that’s why I saw the interview).

      Beck really concerns me. I honestly don’t have a problem with “commentary”, but millions of people watch his show instead of the news. I have a great aunt who lives in Manhattan. She’s in her 90s, and will probably live another 20 years, but she’s getting to the stage where her world is getting smaller, and there are fewer and fewer people she has contact with. After watching Glenn Beck for the past year, she is honestly convinced that Obama is going to send troops to her door to arrest her and bring her in to be euthanized. She thinks he is a Muslim terrorist who has joined forces with Russia to make the US a communist state, so white people can be exterminated. I’m not kidding. Not one bit of this is exaggerated. I think most of what he does is fear mongering for ratings, and it’s dishonest to disguise it as news.

      Like

      1. I guess journalism’s better off with Ann Coulter than without her, but in her quest to be provocative she steps over the line too many times.

        I’ve not seen much of Beck, but from what I have seen (probably not his finest moments, considering the sites I tend to hang out on), he should be in a place with lots of calming drugs and people in white coats.

        Like

      2. There’s nothing wrong with “mongering fear” if such is justified. Was Paul Revere less of a fear monger simply because the British invasion was more immediate? Beck “mongers”, if you want to call it that, because he has what he feels are legitimate fears. As I said, he invites, nay, begs to be set straight if he’s wrong. Why won’t anyone then set him straight? If your great aunt is typical (and I don’t think she is), don’t you think that those accused by Beck should do what they can to calm her and people like her? BUT THEY DON’T.

        Now, to go further, if you’re great aunt is misinterpreting what Beck is saying, I would think you might want to set her straight. Watch Beck for yourself and find a way to prove his assertions wrong, and/or show your aunt why she’s a bit off in what she thinks he’s saying.

        Like

  3. I have a confession to make. I like Cal Thomas.

    He’s a regular contributor on a Tuesday evening to the drive-time radio show I listen to on my way home from work.

    I don’t agree with everything he says, and I suspect he sometimes tones down the rhetoric for a European audience, but he always makes sense and presents his views in a way that makes you want to hear what he has to say.

    I can even forgive him for referring to “so-called Palestinians” last week. From anyone else that comment would have me causing a major traffic accident.

    Like

  4. I read Ann’s blog but don’t watch or listen to any of the rest. I just liked the video.

    Re. Ann — his bit on her was priceless. She has demonstrated very clearly with facts and logic why the Left promotes single motherhood and the devastating impacts it has. The carnage and pain from that line of thinking is incalculable.

    But the Left tries to dismiss her because she isn’t nice enough? Boo-hoo.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s