Lets conduct an experiment here in the sand box

"he can only apear smart"

Here's some constructive criticism. If you're going to attack someone's intelligence, at least try to spell properly. It's appear not apear.

I've been listening to Glenn for several years. He's extremely smart. Do you actually think you're smarter that him? Seriously? He's got his own publishing company. He's a pioneer in taking his show to the internet. He's written several best selling books. He's staged several hugely successful rallies in DC and Israel.

Glenn isn't everyone's cup of tea. He's emotional and certainly highly opinionated, but he is not dumb. Originally Posted by joe bloe

LOL, when I'm on my phone...I tend to not hit all the correct letters or capitalize letters...as I did with Keith Oberman.
Now let's get into reading comprehension.

What I said was that he appears smart if you do not know the subject matter. Is he good about spinning things and firing up a crowd of folks that do not know the subject matter? Yes. Could he hold his own in an academia setting? No. Nor could I but I do know that he is full of shit. That is what I am smart at. Knowing when people are talking out their ass. Glenn Beck is an expert at that. I do not begrudge him for a dime he has made. He is smart in that regard. But he is not smart in political facts. If you were a tad smarter, you would have understood my point. Or maybe I was not smart in making it. Either way GB sucks.

Just so you'll APEAR smart, joe, I'll make the corrections to your post here so you can change them before anyone else catches them.


"Smarter than him" should be "smarter than he" (is).

"Internet" is not spelled "internet".

Try a little more lenient approach next time. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses.

Glenn Beck may be of slightly above average intelligence but I doubt it. In addition, he has no filter between his brain and his mouth. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Glenn Beck was a shock Jock down here in Houston. Not much has changed in his approach to broadcasting. He is full of shit but he knows how to make money. He was not well liked because of his lying ways, which caught up to him, both here and even on Fox News. He was basically fired. Pretty damn hard to get fired from Fox but ole Glenn sure did. Now some that can not read between the lines will say it was a parting of the ways but that was because he would have been fired had they not ''parted''.

Actually no he was not fired. I wish you'd look this stuff up before posting opinion on that. I don't have the energy to talk beck with lefties. That was not the point of the exercise.

Opinion shows are based on SOMETHING. I just want to know who the left would have me hear that makes their case the best.

Just so you'll APEAR smart, joe, I'll make the corrections to your post here so you can change them before anyone else catches them.


"Smarter than him" should be "smarter than he" (is).

"Internet" is not spelled "internet".

Try a little more lenient approach next time. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses.

Glenn Beck may be of slightly above average intelligence but I doubt it. In addition, he has no filter between his brain and his mouth. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

I was mostly pointing out the irony of criticizing someone's intelligence while at the same time writing apears smart instead of appears. It's precisely the principle behind the old adage of people who live in glass houses not throwing stones that is my reason for pointing out the error in spelling. My grammar and spelling are far from perfect; your's may well be better. You may be right about "smarter than he" not "smarter than him". But my usage may be correct depending on who's opinion you consider to be authoritative. Apparently it all depends on whether or not you consider "than" to be a preposition.

Taken from Grammarphobia.com:

As I told a reader once before on the blog: “Some usage gurus, including William Safire, accept ‘than’ as a preposition, and claim the object pronoun (‘me,’ ‘him,’ ‘us,’ and so on) afterward is just fine. Certainly common usage is on their side.”

As far as capitalizing internet; that also appears to be debatable. The excerpt below is taken from Wikipedia.com.

Examples of media publications and news outlets that capitalize the term include The New York Times, the Associated Press, Time, and The Times of India. In addition, many peer-reviewed journals and professional publications such as Communications of the ACM capitalize "Internet", and this style guideline is also specified by the American Psychological Association in its electronic media spelling guide.
More recently, a significant number of publications have switched to not capitalizing the noun internet. Among them are The Economist, the Financial Times, The Times, the Guardian, the Observer[8] and the Sydney Morning Herald. As of 2011, most publications using "internet" appear to be located outside of North America, but the gap is closing. Wired News, an American news source, adopted the lower-case spelling in 2004.[9] Around April 2010, CNN shifted its house style to adopt the lowercase spelling.
As Internet connectivity has expanded, it has started to be seen as a service similar to television, radio, and telephone, and the word has come to be used in this way (e.g. "I have the internet at home" and "I saw it on (the) internet"). For this type of use, English spelling and grammar do not prescribe whether the article or capitalization are to be used, which explains the inconsistency that exists in practice.[citation

sorry, but I like Bill Maher, Dennis Miller, Jon Stewart, Lewis Black, etc.... the theme here being the irony and hypocritical nature of BOTH parties and politicians in general

Joe you can't explain stuff to Stevie. The rest of us got the irony.

Joe you can't explain stuff to Stevie. The rest of us got the irony. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

You're probably right, but hope springs eternal.

As my part in this experiment I have been listening to Ed shultz and alex bennitt.

I like both of them for the most part.

I gotta say guys... based SOLELY on what they SAY, I'd side with them. If I didn't know all the nitty gritty guts of what the right has said, I'd be a full blown democrat. Of course I want everyone to have access to affordable healthcare. I don't know anyone who wouldn't want the very old, the sick and the young to have good access... People my age should also have access, but I have no idea how to fix the problem here. I get the concept of this only working with everyone pitching in.

Please keep in mind I've been listening to the guts of the bill for the last 2 years. The increase of the size and scope of government is unacceptable. You never get back a freedom once it's given to the government. I'm against this bill because of all the shit they aren't broadcasting, not the idea of healthcare for everyone.

I think the Right wants all the same things as the blue left, we just don't agree on how to make it happen. The few good things about this bill do not outweigh all the bad. If you only listen to the Left, you really have no idea why the Right is so adamant about this bills removal.

Listening to these guys I'd even be HAPPY to pay for the insurance. Man ignorance is bliss. I think if everyone actually learned how much power this would give the government you'd agree it's a bad bill. The concept is not bad, but what they put in it that's hiding behind the good is bad.

The democrats won't always be in power. Do you really want the republicans having the kind of power this gives them? Republicans suck as badly, if not more so than democrats when it comes to power.