Wednesday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 12:06:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A decision is expected to be handed down today at 3 EST in the AZ SB 1070 case. I'll write it up when it comes down.

This is an Open Thread.

< The Missing Left Flank | Parts of AZ SB 1070 Enjoined >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Wednesday Morning Open Thread | 70 comments (70 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Administration had to let BP (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by KeysDan on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 03:02:52 PM EST

manage the spill (plug the hole, contain and clean-up) because BP would pay and the taxpayers would not pay anything (April 2010). BP (July 28, 2010) reported a $17 billion loss for the quarter, taking as a business charge, a "set aside" of $32 billion for costs related to the spill. Since companies are allowed to deduct up to 35 percent of losses from their taxes, BP will cut its taxes by $10 billion.

In effect, half of the $20 billion escrow account wrangled out of BP by the WH is coming from taxpayers, that is, when they actually put money into that escrow account. The $20 billion is to be paid in yearly installments with the first $5 billion due by the end of the year. The tax write-off for the "set aside" will be taken this year, apparently. Ken Feinberg, the claims czar, noted that he had no money yet in the escrow account to pay claims and he did not want to write rubber checks

Very odd post. (3.50 / 2) (#16)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 04:16:47 PM EST

In a very simplified nutshell, a business's "income" tax is a tax on a business's profits, and its profits are its revenues minus its expenses.

If business's expenses exceeded its revenues in a given year, ie, its profits are negative/the business lost money, the business, naturally, pays no income taxes in that year, and can apply those losses to subsequent, presumably profitable, years, thereby reducing its tax bill in those subsequent years.

Therefore, over the course of years/decades the business pays taxes on their actual net profits over those years.

If, say, over the course of 10 years a biz makes
$10 in 9 of those years (+$90) and loses $10 in one year (-$10) making the business's net income over those 10 years a total of $80 (90-10=80), they pay income tax, over the decade, on that $80.

Which makes sense, since they only made $80 over that decade.

Individuals can do similarly with their capital losses.

This is all verrry simplified, but it explains, essentially, what's going on.

If you think BP is wild-eyed with excitement, rubbing it's hands together with glee at being in a position where it's losing money and "gets" to pay less taxes, I think you are very much mistaken.

Parent

Not to speak for Dan... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by kdog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 05:13:53 PM EST

but isn't the point that they write off the whole loss when they're only on the hook for 5 billion this year.

It doesn't surprise me that such chicanery is legal.

Parent

It all evens out in the end kdog, (none / 0) (#22)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 05:19:42 PM EST

it all evens out in the end...

Parent

If by that.... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:43:26 AM EST

you mean we're all gonna die, then yeah, it all evens out:) Otherwise, sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Can I write off next years horse racing losses this year?

Parent

Can I ask how you are hurt (none / 0) (#35)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 10:12:15 AM EST

if BP takes the whole amount this year instead of over the course of a number of years?

Parent

No skin off my back... (none / 0) (#36)
by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 10:29:19 AM EST

unless the fed jacks the tobacco tax again to make up the difference.

Actually, thats no skin off my back either:)

You know me man...BP, Uncle Sam...pick your poison. And I generally support a good tax dodge to defund the beast.

It's just particularly unsavory this time with the mess this particular corp has made. You would think if there ever was one time to play it on the square, this is the time. I don't know, maybe on the square is a myth in an unsquare world.

Parent

Well, whether this, or anything, is (none / 0) (#43)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 11:05:55 AM EST

"on the square" or not is merely each individual person's opinion.

If the gvt came to you and said, "kdog, while we have no power to legally force you to do this, we ask that you, and you alone, commit to losing $X next year in gambling." then, imo, it would certainly be "on the square" for you to say "OK, I'll go along with your request, but, since we know, today, because I agree to your request, that I'm going to lose $X next year in gambling, I'd like to take those losses this year."

Parent

Problem with the analogy is... (none / 0) (#44)
by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16:10 AM EST

BP didn't lose a bet that only hurt BP's pocketbook, they damn near destroyed a critical American ecosystem.

If Uncle Sam has no legal right to force BP to clean up all of their mess...maybe thats our problem right there.

I have no desire to tax away all their profit...I need oil as much as the next guy. It's this sense of BP already weaseling and positioning to pawn off their responsibilty...save the "industry standard" accounting chicanery for when it's business as usual.

Parent

It's your sense, not "the" sense, (none / 0) (#45)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 11:21:56 AM EST

and you are entitled to it.

Parent

As are we all... (none / 0) (#46)
by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 11:29:46 AM EST

Now to something important...got a second chance to see The Feat and I'm not blowing this one...tomorrow night with New Riders of the Purple Sage. All applicable taxes prepaid:)

Parent

Right on! (none / 0) (#47)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37:21 AM EST

The Feat show we saw was great, would have loved to see NRPS as well.

Just picked up some musicians earplugs as the Mrs. SUO and I like to get right up close and personal to the stage. My ears were ringing pretty good the day after the show...

Parent

Good to hear... (none / 0) (#49)
by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 11:48:06 AM EST

I likes it loud enough to cause an arrhythmia.

Parent

saw (none / 0) (#50)
by CST on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 11:53:37 AM EST

Nas and Damien Marley last night. If you get the chance (I think they are going to ny next) I highly recommend it. Best show I've seen in a really long time. Seems like something that might be up your alley. The combo worked really well. They even mixed in some Bob.

Parent

Nice. (none / 0) (#51)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 11:58:06 AM EST

Parent

: 'twas (none / 0) (#52)
by CST on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:34:44 PM EST

I will now probably go out and buy their new joint album. It won't be as good as the show, but it should be good nonetheless. I've always thought Damien was the best of the Marley offsipring - musically.
You should have seen his dreads. They were longer than me and I'm not exactly short. I don't know how he does it, when my hair gets too long it starts to get really heavy and causes headaches. But he was throwing it around like it was nothing.

Parent

Saw some youtube clips... (none / 0) (#54)
by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:02:19 PM EST

of their Bonnaroo set...looked and sounded sick, and they had a sweltering daytime set.

Just checked and their playing Saturday in Crooklyn...gonna have to try and find a way. Thanks for the heads up!

Parent

good luck (none / 0) (#55)
by CST on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:06:57 PM EST

one word of advice - don't show up early - they won't.

They came on 1.5 hours late. But they still played the whole set, as it ended 1.5 hours late. Bit late for a wed night.

Oh well, it was worth it, I'll sleep when I'm dead :)

Parent

That's the spirit! (none / 0) (#57)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:12:39 PM EST

We might see Dave Mason Sun nite.

Parent

Always a good show.... (none / 0) (#59)
by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:23:44 PM EST

when Mr. Mason takes the stage...call the babysitter and do it man!

Parent

: I want to, but we're coming back from camping (none / 0) (#61)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:28:00 PM EST

over the weekend and who knows if we'll be able to make it.

Parent

On stoner time... (none / 0) (#58)
by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:19:38 PM EST

I'd bet..."one more spliff before we go on!"

Those late and all nighters get harder every year...I hear ya:) And always worth it...Zevon knew what he was singing about.

Parent

I still mourn the loss (none / 0) (#48)
by jondee on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 11:41:54 AM EST

of Lowell on occasion, after all these years.

"Im devoted for sure, but my days are a blur, and my nights turn into my mornings..I've been out here so long I'm dreamin' up songs..I'm temporarily qualmless and sinking.."

One of a kind, as they say

Parent

If (none / 0) (#40)
by CoralGables on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 10:54:01 AM EST

you have a contract already determining the amount you will hand over to the track in guaranteed losses on the ponies for next year then very possibly yes.

Parent

: Wait (none / 0) (#41)
by CoralGables on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 11:02:29 AM EST

no...Losses can only be written off to counteract your winnings, so no matter what the contractual losses you guarantee you are still SOL when it comes to your lack of pony tax write off when passing the point of break even.
What would be a helluva a law to pass for you is to take the percentage of the gambling tax you pay with each bet and have it deducted off your city and state income tax in NY. Now there's a tax break worth arguing before a judge for you.

Parent
: Lemme guess... (none / 0) (#42)
by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 11:03:05 AM EST

then on Jan. 2nd I can revise the contract to bring my expected loss down, then revice it back up for Tax Year 2011, rinse and repeat to stay one step ahead.
Then apologize during my confirmation hearings for Treasury Secretary for the oversight, it's just that darn tax code is so darn confusing:)

Parent

An odd response. (none / 0) (#25)
by KeysDan on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 06:28:38 PM EST

Parent

Not if you understand how taxes work. (none / 0) (#27)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 06:41:17 PM EST

Whether BP expenses the entire cleanup cost in one year or they do it over the course of a number of years, it still has the same total effect on the taxes they pay.

Parent

: It is an interpretation (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by KeysDan on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 06:51:24 PM EST

that will work for BP. My comment was a correct one, they will be taking a business expense of $10 Billion this year. True they are entitled to it, but that was not the point. Sorry if I have little sympathy for BP and its stockholders being so strapped, but do not look to me to help organize a tag day for them.

Parent

Unaware (none / 0) (#21)
by waldenpond on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 05:16:36 PM EST

Of course taxpayers were unaware they were going to get stuck with the bill.

Taxpayers need to be reassured though.... the federal penalties BP will be required to pay are not tax deductible that's why the involved Dems are pushing for the flow estimates so they can hit BP with the penalties.

Parent

: No. As of today, anyway, (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 05:23:25 PM EST

BP is paying for the spill, not taxpayers.
Or, to be more specific, BP and its stockholders (who have so far paid about $0.50 for every dollar of stock they own) are paying for it...

Parent

Unreal... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 03:26:57 PM EST

thanks for the update K.D...where there is a will to dodge responsibility, there are infinite loopholes...at least for an outfit like BP.

Parent

The point is the same (none / 0) (#17)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 04:20:47 PM EST

but isn't the 35% deduction a deduction from their taxable income, not their taxes owed?

How much of its taxes does BP pay in the US anyway, as a British owned company? Since Exxon-Mobil paid exactly 0 federal income tax last year and Chevron only 200 million, I'd be surprised if BP pays much at all anyway.

Parent

Exxon-Mobil (none / 0) (#18)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 04:55:57 PM EST

It is incorrect to say that ExxonMobil did not pay any U.S. income tax in 2009. In fact, we expect a significant U.S. federal income tax liability for 2009, although our tax return will not be filed until later this year.
Our tax installments overpaid our 2008 U.S. federal income taxes and we used that excess in part to pay our 2009 estimated taxes.
The amount stated in our 10-K filing with the SEC, which Chris [Christopher Helman, who originally reported on this story for Forbes] told me he based his story on, includes expenses or credits recorded during 2009, and can represent items from previous years or expectations for subsequent years. It is not our actual tax bill.

In a subsequent phone conversation, Jeffers told Mother Jones he "really had to dig in with our tax guys just to really explain what was going on here."
He stressed that "the activity in that report"--referring to the 10-K, an annual summary of company activity that must be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission--"does not represent our tax bill," which has not been settled, since the company has not yet filed its 2009 IRS return.
He added that, just as an individual might see a refund or not have to pay additional income taxes when they file, the firm could conceivably show a surplus or a zero on the "total income tax [due]" line.
When an individual [pays no tax with their anuual tax return or] gets a refund from the IRS, that doesn't mean she got off scot-free: It means she overpaid her taxes throughout the year.
Jeffers said the same principle operates for ExxonMobil.

Parent

Actually, I should have just quoted (none / 0) (#19)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 05:07:40 PM EST

the bottom line:

When an individual [pays no tax with their annual tax return, or] gets a refund from the IRS, that doesn't mean she got off scot-free: It means she overpaid her taxes throughout the year.
Jeffers said the same principle operates for ExxonMobil.

As my english-major brother always says: "BLOT - Bottom Line On Top."

Parent

Thanks for the education (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 07:00:32 PM EST

That makes sense. That Forbe's article's point was that they do pay taxes, but not to the US. They shop for the most favorable nation in which to declare their income.

Parent

Well, they also do a lot of business in those (2.00 / 1) (#32)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 07:11:41 PM EST

other nations and the profits from that business should probably be taxed in those other nations where its earned.

Also, like many taxes, the higher they are the more tax avoidance that occurs. Witness kdog's NYC/state tax-avoiding cigarette purchases. US corp tax rates are pretty high, compared to many other places in the world...

Parent

: Minor difference... (none / 0) (#34)
by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:50:20 AM EST

I'm breaking the law with my tobacco tax dodging, as far as I know the corporate home-base nation tax shuffle is totally legal...and the accounting tricks.

Parent

It's down (none / 0) (#1)
by rdandrea on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 12:21:10 PM EST

n/t

Great to see... (none / 0) (#2)
by kdog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:01:30 PM EST

the old Silverdome being put to good use by it's new Canadian owners...they've leased it out for a big reefer convention over Halloween.

Naturally the Pontiac PD are "concerned"...lol. But you can suck it Pontiac PD, it ain't the state's property no more! Party on Pontiac!

Nope (none / 0) (#10)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 02:56:01 PM EST

It's about medical marijuana and it is still illegal to smoke it even on private property. So they can exhibit, but no onec
can smoke it.

Parent

: Of course... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 03:07:52 PM EST

no one will be getting their smoke/vapor/brownie on at "The First International Cannabis Convention"...no one would even dream of it. That would be illegal. No one would even dream of jaywalking on the way to the convention either:)

Parent

Ruh-Roh... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:07:28 PM EST

wait till MADD gets a load of this one outta N. Tonawanda NY.

I wish we all could be city councilwoman's daughters...

an-tis-uh-pay-shun . . . . . (none / 0) (#4)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:25:12 PM EST

Sucker Punch

Im all girlie about this one. I may even plan a little overnighter to chicago for an IMAX experience.

I forgot how funny this movie was (none / 0) (#5)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:31:36 PM EST

WHITNAIL & I, from '87 I believe, with an outstanding and deranged young Richard E. Grant, produced by the late great George Harrison's Handmade Films. If you can get your hands on it, or see it, do.

And the memoir blog is still relatively fresh, should put up another post late this week or next.

Happy humpday, y'all.

Elton John and AZ (none / 0) (#6)
by Manuel on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:53:52 PM EST

So Elton John performs at Rush Limbaugh's wedding and then slams the AZ music boycott. What's up with that?

Rush's may make jokes (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by jondee on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 02:04:51 PM EST

about the women at Coretta Scott King's funeral getting picked up and giving birth nine months later, but his money is green. Just look at the line up of people who performed at that crooked, war profiteering, defective body armor contractor's Bat Mitzvah party a few years back..

Parent

: Does Elton John need the money? (none / 0) (#14)
by Manuel on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 03:23:31 PM EST

Reportedly it was 1M.

Parent

Considering what RL's reported positions (none / 0) (#8)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 02:33:39 PM EST

are on homosexuality and AIDS, etc., it would seem both showed a surprising lack of principles.

fwiw, apparently, all proceeds from these private Sir Elton gigs go to his AIDS Foundation, and RL paid him a cool $1,000,000...

Parent

: lack of principles (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 02:58:13 PM EST

is putting it mildly IMO.
it really showed what hypocrites the both are.

Parent

Elton does have a point... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 02:48:57 PM EST

when he says he still plays gigs in Cali, where he as a gay man is less than equal. So he is consistently anti-boycott. And saying it punishes people in AZ who are against the law is a valid point too.

But I still disagree with him...the people of AZ are ultimately responsible for the law, maybe if no decent acts played there it would motivate them to get off their bum to get rid of the law.
Maybe if all my favorite bands boycotted NYC over stop-n-frisk or harboring Wall St. crooks, I'd get off my arse to do something about those issues.

I just

Parent

: And, hell, Elton lives in GEORGIA (none / 0) (#26)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 06:30:46 PM EST

Atlanta, granted, but still...it is Dixie.

Parent

And some good news from the gulf: (none / 0) (#24)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 05:29:25 PM EST

Observers in the Gulf noted that the oil from the Macondo well appears to be vanishing from the surface of the water faster than expected.
The Gulf is filled with oil-eating bacteria as a result of thousands of natural oil seeps, The New York Times reported.
"Oil has a finite life span at the surface," John Amos, president of environmental advocacy group SkyTruth, told the Times.
"At this point, that oil slick is really starting to dissipate pretty rapidly."

Well, the dispersants (none / 0) (#29)
by KeysDan on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 06:55:26 PM EST

did what they were supposed to do, emulsify the oil and send it to the bottom, and not to be seen on beaches or the water surface. Now we only have to check a little on what is going on, including what happens when you pump a million gallons of Corexit into the sea, and tons of drilling mud.

Parent

: Exactly (none / 0) (#31)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 07:01:20 PM EST

I'd rather have it at the surface where it looks uglier, but can be skimmed.

Parent

this is pretty funny (none / 0) (#37)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 10:31:19 AM EST

Best-seller: Even Hawaii birth won't make Obama legitimate

"The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists,"

(catchy title huh. you would almost think they have an agenda)

I really cant sum it up better than nojo at stinque:

The only way for Baby Barack to have been born in Kenya, we determined -- based on WND's own evidence -- was for Mom to have jumped the Mombassa redeye Friday night to meet the Monday filing deadline.
Well, okay, fine. WND will grant the point. But only so, like a magician releasing a bird from the other egg, they can amaze you with their latest feat: It doesn't matter.
Because even if Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, he's still not a natural-born citizen!
Whoa! Bet you didn't see that coming!

---snip

See? See?!!! Barack Obama may be a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment, but he's not a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution itself! He could have been born in Seattle, or Wasilla, or Boring, Oregon, and it wouldn't have made any difference! Usurper! Usurrrperrr!!!
Alas, journalistic integrity requires us to point out what appears to be a gaping loophole in WND's argument: If we're to follow the Founders' intentions to the letter, Barack Obama is still three-fifths President. And that's more than enough to overrule the two-fifths that isn't.

In related moonbatty-ness... (none / 0) (#38)
by kdog on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 10:39:25 AM EST

caught a lil Glenn Beck after work yesterday...he was on one of his extensive quoting of Weather Underground manifestos and trying to link them with Obama, as if he is somekind of sleeper member of the Underground or something equally ridiculous.

Needless to say, Beck reinforced to me that the Weather Underground was really onto something back in the day, and that the Obama admin. has nothing in common with the Weather Underground...not a damn thing.

Parent

if (none / 0) (#39)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 10:42:42 AM EST

only

Parent

as I posted yesterday (none / 0) (#53)
by NYShooter on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:48:58 PM EST

I was "forced" to watch Beck (for the first time ever) for about 15 mins and saw the episode you mention. I know this is America, free speech, 1'st amendment, blah, blah, but......just sayin.

Parent

Beck has become the Fred Phelps (none / 0) (#56)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:11:02 PM EST

of broadcasting. I say give him a two hour show. he is an idiot. everyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size knows this.

his ravings are good for us.

Parent

Someone once told me (none / 0) (#60)
by Raskolnikov on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:23:58 PM EST

to always keep in mind that because the average IQ is 100, that means half the country has a double digit IQ. Beck may make us feel better about ourselves, but a lot of people out there believe him unfortunately.

Parent

that doesnt scare me. (none / 0) (#62)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:32:40 PM EST

those people have always been around. now they have a place to congregate. fine. with beck and RonaldReagan.com (to bypass the liberal conspiracy) it all just makes these morons easier to identify.

they believe the last thing they heard. they have always been around.

Parent

Like you, I wasn't born yesterday (none / 0) (#63)
by NYShooter on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 09:55:51 PM EST

and, yes, wackos have been around forever. But, everything is relative. Teetotalers believe "drugs are drugs." Yet we know that Crack and marijuana don't belong in the same sentence. "Murder is murder" may make one feel holier than thou but a C-store robbery gone a-rye is exponentially different from mass/serial murder/genocide.

Not much scares me, capt but this guy knows exactly what he's doing, and knows exactly the results he wants to attain.

Breibart is a political agent and provocateur, just a scummy sleazebag scrounging for some bucks. If someone gets hurt by letting their imaginations run astray after watching/listening to something he said/did, well it happens. But it isn't his motive.

Beck is a psychopath, and he knows what he's doing. He looked into the camera (the words may not be verbatim, but the meaning is) and told his sick audience, Obama is in the White House right know. Then he showed pictures on his ever present easel board of 8 or 9 hip-hop looking Gangsta types who are with Obama right now, plotting and scheming your murder, your wife's, daughters........

People are going to be hurt, maybe many people, because of this guy. Fear and politics will hamstring those charged with the responsibility of protecting society from potential disasters.

I, sure as He$$ don't have an answer, but "those people have always been around" doesn't fit this guy.

Parent

I just disagree (none / 0) (#64)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 07:43:38 AM EST

is he dangerous. sure. is it possible some nutbar will use what he says as an excuse. sure.
but if a nutbar wants an excuse he will find one. Beck is no different from the red scare radio personalities or insane radio preachers of the past and probably doesnt have any bigger audience.

question. do you personally know anyone who takes him seriously? (if you do sorry). if anyone does take him seriously they are instantly dismissed as a moonbat by 90% of the population.

your reaction is just what he wants. personally I will not give it to him.

Parent

For sure (none / 0) (#65)
by NYShooter on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 09:28:55 AM EST

I hope your sanguine position proves to be the correct one.

It's usually quite easy to adjudicate "yes, no" "did he, or didn't he" types of questions. Beck`s potential for real damage, unfortunately, is similar to Alzheimer's disease; where certain diagnosis can only be confirmed by an autopsy....after the fact

As we "talk" today, we have only our respective opinions in support of our positions. If it was only Beck's delusional rants we had to worry about that could be dismissed with a "wait & see" position. But his show is losing money, with no indication that it will turn around. And, yet Aisles & Company pay him millions to continue spewing his bile. Now, there are many reasons why management would pay for a show even if it's a loser, but the Beck profile doesn't fit into any business paradigm that I'm aware of.

Except for one: ideology.

Aisles, Murdock, et al are going to push and promote this unstable creature until some, yet uncertain, goal is attained.

p.s.
LOL..."your reaction is just what he wants. personally I will not give it to him."....that was funny

Parent

Moonbat by 90% (none / 0) (#66)
by jondee on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 10:30:36 AM EST

of the population..I don't know about that. I'd like to think it was true.

Again, imo, the subtext of a lot of what Bush stood for through two terms - sanctioned by 50 mil + voters - wasn't all that different from the essential worldview Beck promotes. Beck just gussies it all up with lurid rhetoric and tent show fervor to insure that his target audience's chronic ADD doesn't get the best of them mid-program. Most of his listeners, and there are a lot of them, would probably respond to Beck's critics by saying something like "Sure, he hams it up and goes too far sometimes, but he's essentially right" (exactly what the Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity amen corner usually says)..

Content details aren't as essential a component of the appeal of people like Beck and the rest as people make it out to be; the real hook (in a complicated world) is the simplified black and white, good vs evil, love vs hate, "elites" vs the people framing - presented with maximum evangelical fervor and certitude (the other big hook)..more people than you think can't get enough of that kind of assurance.

The other big hook with Beck is that he constantly plays to the craving for an alternative narrative. Many people have a vague sense that they've been screwed and that the official mainstream narrative leaves out a lot of information that's threatening to the interests of power (so far, so good, imo), Beck serves up the (wrong or very incomplete) "missing pieces" for these folks. This aspect of the Beck-appeal is very underrated by way too many people.

Parent

sure (none / 0) (#67)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 10:41:34 AM EST

but those people are looking for validation for their hate fear and loathing. he gives it to them. without the highbrow sophistication of Limpbaugh or Hannity. which is perfect for them. I just cant get that worked up about it.

Parent

cant get worked up (none / 0) (#68)
by jondee on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 11:15:47 AM EST

which is exactly how they want you to respond! Congratulations. I only wish those of us who treasure this nation's proud legacy and refuse to stand by while her honor and maidenhead are besmirched and violated and her Judeo-Christian values dragged through the secularist slime of Chicago politics had that luxury.

Parent

: freedom (none / 0) (#70)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 11:46:33 AM EST

isnt free

Parent

How does that work exactly? (none / 0) (#69)
by jondee on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 11:43:04 AM EST

Does the Scaife or Heritage Foundation or whoever pre-order a million copies and it automatically becomes a runaway "best-seller", then listed on the NYT best-seller list?

Parent

Wednesday Morning Open Thread | 70 comments (70 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment