Reply With Quote
I didn't hear the frog scream
he didn't throw a frog in there
When he's not going after ACORN, dudes killing frogs...
Guess he hasn't heard that the boiling frog trick is an urban legend...
Laying 2-1 odds that Beckkk offs himself on-air...
I didn't hear the frog scream
he didn't throw a frog in there
I think he bit the frogs head off...right before he rapes and kills a young girl in 1999....
He's licking Obama's ass that's for sure.
I don't know what the point of this thead is, but that was a dumbass demonstration by Beck.
Anything from Mediamatters is 'full context' news!!
I think it's that Dan has a man crush on Glenn Beck.
ON his radio show this morning, he said it was a plastic frog. The real unedited video, he says "don't worry about the frog because it is fake"
The MSM needs to do it's homework.
seriously dude. I know you've never been to the mm website or have ever seen thier rebuttals. They ALWAYS provide the entire context. Stop looking stupid and repeating something you know nothing about.
I hate frogs.
It was a really lame comic bit. This really deserved a thread?
i don't think beck ever deserves a thread.
No, it didn't. The real point of this thread was just to say "Beckkk".
Has mm ever done a rebuttal that concluded that Fox, Beck, Rush, Hannity, or any other republican were actually right about something?
I was duped.
Typical GOP trick
If they provide do entation as to what makes them correct, or in the case of the person they are rebutting is wrong, why would there be a rebuttal? I guess if you could provide an example of when they should have I would have to agree that they should publicly acknowledge they were wrong.
Here is something MM sent out via email today:
In a new study released yesterday, Media Matters for America methodically exposes how both Beck and Hannity have spent years obsessively attacking ACORN under the guise of exposing corruption at an organization that receives government funding. Consider the following staggering numbers:
On Beck's and Hannity's respective television programs combined, ACORN was mentioned 1,502 times between May 8, 2006, and September 18, 2009. More than 1,500 times. Remember that ACORN has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Not only that, but the organization has been awarded just $53 million in federal funding over the past 15 years -- an average of $3.5 million per year.
Compare that to the coverage Beck and Hannity gave to Jack Abramoff, former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), Blackwater, Halliburton, and Kellogg, Brown, and Root (KBR) -- stories of well-do ented political scandals and of corruption by companies that have received thousands of times more money from the government than ACORN has in the past 15 years. Abramoff and Ney were involved in influence peddling corruption that reached the highest levels of the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress. The aforementioned military contractors have all been involved in major controversies and scandals, some of which reportedly contributed to the deaths of U.S. troops, contractors, and Iraqi civilians alike. Combined, these contractors have been awarded at least $25 billion in contracts since 2001.
So how many times were these names mentioned on Beck's and Hannity's programs?
Abramoff and Ney: 62 times
Blackwater/Xe: four times
Halliburton/KBR: 43 times
In other words, Beck's and Hannity's programs combined were approximately 35 times more likely to discuss ACORN than any of the military contractors. They were also 24 times more likely to discuss ACORN than Abramoff and Ney.
Beck and Hannity have been willing to run with any story that accuses ACORN of corruption, even if the accusations remain unproven and the details were gathered using ethically and legally questionable tactics. But as we show in our study, these two hosts didn't lift a finger to report on the massive cases of corruption involving prominent military contractors and Republicans in Congress. This is agenda-driven journalism of the most transparent sort, and we need to continue to fight back by exposing their hypocrisy with hard facts.
That is pretty hypocritical if you ask me. I don't confuse Hannity and Beck with having an ounce intellectual integrity.
I guess I just don't understand what their purpose is. If Beck talks about topic A and topic B, do they review both and say Beck is right on A, but wrong on B? Or do they just target B and not worry about A? Also, is it only the red team pundits they follow, or do they do similar pieces on blue team pundits too?
Glen Beck is a moron first, commentator 2nd and journalist somewhere after boredom hits
Yup, they focus on things that are relatively minor in scope. Acorn really doesn't do anything to us. Bernie Madoff, well that's a different story. Billions vs millions. White collar crime pays
That I don't know. Regarding if they target blue team members, they do but it is only when they report misinformation on a blue teamer.. if that makes any sesne. So if your question is, do they only target hypocrisy on the right? I'd have to agree that is all they target however I don't wander to much to their site. I get periodic emails.
Thanks for the response. I was just curious.
I never really heard much about Glenn Beck before reading the hate sent at him by the ape frothing at the mouth obamunitsts on this thread , but now after seeing how he affects them I'm going to support him, just to watch the nuts bounce off the walls.
You're not angry enough.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
