Town halls gone wild

[Oddball]

Boy...If that's satire it's hilarious, if serious its tragicomic.

An interesting comment. Simply dismiss an opposing viewpoint without providing any basis for said dismissal.

Besides, my point in this post was that if people are going to resort to ridiculous hyperbole, like comparing someone to Stalin, than I can certainly respond in kind.

To deconstruct your ridiculously simple minded world view is hardly worth the effort, though Toro did take a small stab at it.

Just keep the naïve comedy coming.

 

[Liability]

msg#354 - Proud Canadians protesting to government officials the endless government interference regarding their vital personal liberty interests:

"Should I bend over a bit further, Master?"


we voice our concerns like adults....not like little children screaming and stamping their feet in a Walmart for an action figure.

No. You "voice" your protests ineffectually, submitting at every turn to government paternalism and horrifying inefficiencies.

No self respecting people would or should tolerate that medical "system" inflicted on Canadians by their own government.

But you dopey Canucks just submit more and more meekly. "Yes, sir, Master Government Official, sir! I will indeed accept a further reeming up my colon, sir. Thank you sir! Eh!"

 

[Coyote]

Liar liar pants on fire....Politifacts "Truthomete" on health reform claims: PolitiFact | Statements on Health

Interesting site looks at the facts behind the claims....oh...such lies.

The health care reform plan would set limits similar to the "socialized" system in Britain, where people are allowed to die if their treatment would cost more than $22,000.

Truthometer: false -- there is no proposal to put a price on life

President Barack Obama suggested on national TV that the Democratic health care bill "will have government decide" that a healthy, 100-year-old woman in need of a pacemaker "should take a pain pill" instead.
Truthometer: false -- twisting Obama's words[/URL

"All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free-health-care-illegal-immigrants-health-bill/"]no free healthcare for illegal immigrants in the bill

In the health care bill, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- you get to pick your plan - Health Choices Commissioner does not decide your health benefits

The health care reform bill "would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner."
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- no the government isn't going to kill granny

The health care reform bill -- on Page 16 -- outlaws private insurance.
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- Private health insurance not banned on page 16 of the House bill


Ineresting (non-partisan) site....for those interested, the many deceits of the democrats are also exposed, as are the truths on both sides.

I guess you set store in politifact, no? Why?

You guys are really funny.

I'm beginning to think that any source that doesn't uniformly support your ideology will be labeled "biased" and "partisan" yes?

Take for example Factcheck.org - a pretty well regarded site. Until - oh my gosh - Obama got some funding in the past for some project. Now we all "know" it's biased toward Obama. Yet...so funny...the Annenbergs have a history of donating to conservative candidates and causes - if there were any bias it should be conservative.

Or...maybe...a site can be non partisian in it's analyses regardless of sponsors?

So how about Politifact? What makes it partisan or non partisan?

According to this guy (a blogger): The Truth About Politifact.com « Pond’rings it is clearly partisan in favor of the liberals because it has some big name liberal sponsors and according to the author blasts the republicans more than the democrats. But does it? Of course he doesn't allow comments (closed) so it can't be refuted. Ironically, Politifact now has an Obamameter tracking Obama's promises and his keeping or, more critically - failure to keep them. How partisan...some liberals are griping because there wasn't a Bushometer!

For one thing - sponsorship alone does not necessarily make a site "tainted" though it can raise red flags for the critical- what's more important is it's handling of facts.

Politifact's method is to be skeptical and verify everything from original sources. Their site outlines their methods and how they arrive at their conclusions and it is a Pulitzer-winning site, a not insubstantial mark of quality and integrity in journalism. At the very least - if you disagree, you can go back through their links to original sources and figure it out for yourself.

According to this article: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/09/02/Opinion/The_truth_is_PolitiFa.shtml:eusa_hand:

We are independent, both of corporate chains and of political affiliations. Our corporate sibling - Congressional Quarterly - has an unmatched reputation for accurate, nonpartisan journalism about politics and policy. PolitiFact's team includes the research and reporting departments of both publications.

...which if true would negate what the blogger said....

More irony - Fairness and Accuracy in Media (a right leaning site) while critical of Politifact's targets still calls them "neutral".


Maybe, instead of just being yet another ideologue sitting back and ridiculing a source, you can actually address the material presented? Are the facts wrong? Can you provide original source material to show that they are wrong?

What would YOU consider a non-partisan site?

 

[DiveCon]

Liar liar pants on fire....Politifacts "Truthomete" on health reform claims: PolitiFact | Statements on Health

Interesting site looks at the facts behind the claims....oh...such lies.

The health care reform plan would set limits similar to the "socialized" system in Britain, where people are allowed to die if their treatment would cost more than $22,000.

Truthometer: false -- there is no proposal to put a price on life

President Barack Obama suggested on national TV that the Democratic health care bill "will have government decide" that a healthy, 100-year-old woman in need of a pacemaker "should take a pain pill" instead.
Truthometer: false -- twisting Obama's words[/URL

"All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free-health-care-illegal-immigrants-health-bill/"]no free healthcare for illegal immigrants in the bill

In the health care bill, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- you get to pick your plan - Health Choices Commissioner does not decide your health benefits

The health care reform bill "would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner."
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- no the government isn't going to kill granny

The health care reform bill -- on Page 16 -- outlaws private insurance.
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- Private health insurance not banned on page 16 of the House bill


Ineresting (non-partisan) site....for those interested, the many deceits of the democrats are also exposed, as are the truths on both sides.

I guess you set store in politifact, no? Why?

You guys are really funny.

I'm beginning to think that any source that doesn't uniformly support your ideology will be labeled "biased" and "partisan" yes?

Take for example Factcheck.org - a pretty well regarded site. Until - oh my gosh - Obama got some funding in the past for some project. Now we all "know" it's biased toward Obama. Yet...so funny...the Annenbergs have a history of donating to conservative candidates and causes - if there were any bias it should be conservative.

Or...maybe...a site can be non partisian in it's analyses regardless of sponsors?

So how about Politifact? What makes it partisan or non partisan?

According to this guy (a blogger): The Truth About Politifact.com « Pond’rings it is clearly partisan in favor of the liberals because it has some big name liberal sponsors and according to the author blasts the republicans more than the democrats. But does it? Of course he doesn't allow comments (closed) so it can't be refuted. Ironically, Politifact now has an Obamameter tracking Obama's promises and his keeping or, more critically - failure to keep them. How partisan...some liberals are griping because there wasn't a Bushometer!

For one thing - sponsorship alone does not necessarily make a site "tainted" though it can raise red flags for the critical- what's more important is it's handling of facts.

Politifact's method is to be skeptical and verify everything from original sources. Their site outlines their methods and how they arrive at their conclusions and it is a Pulitzer-winning site, a not insubstantial mark of quality and integrity in journalism. At the very least - if you disagree, you can go back through their links to original sources and figure it out for yourself.

According to this article: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/09/02/Opinion/The_truth_is_PolitiFa.shtml:eusa_hand:

We are independent, both of corporate chains and of political affiliations. Our corporate sibling - Congressional Quarterly - has an unmatched reputation for accurate, nonpartisan journalism about politics and policy. PolitiFact's team includes the research and reporting departments of both publications.

...which if true would negate what the blogger said....


Maybe, instead of just being yet another ideologue sitting back and ridiculing a source, you can actually address the material presented? Are the facts wrong? Can you provide original source material to show that they are wrong?

What would YOU consider a non-partisan site?

i dont have a problem with factcheck
but pravda west is not credible
basically, a lot of what was listed in that link contained a TON of bias

 

[Coyote]

i dont have a problem with factcheck
but pravda west is not credible
basically, a lot of what was listed in that link contained a TON of bias

In what way? For example - the particular statements I listed - how were they false?

 

[DiveCon]

i dont have a problem with factcheck
but pravda west is not credible
basically, a lot of what was listed in that link contained a TON of bias

In what way? For example - the particular statements I listed - how were they false?

case in point, they claimed beck lied about the CARS website, he didnt
everything he reported about it was 100% accurate
the website even pulled the thing down
and acknowledged they did have it that way

 

[Vast LWC]

Palin also cited the recent floor speech of conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann

LOL, Michele Bachman. Now there's one crazy-assed hyper-partisan.

If it were up to her, American would be split up between Corporations and the Church.

The Senate would be known as the "Boardroom" and the House would become the "Congregation".

Sort of a Theocracy/Corporate Oligachy.

 

[Vast LWC]

everything he reported about it was 100% accurate

Actually, no, it wasn't.

There was a badly worded Terms of Service agreement that made it seem like that was the case, but there was never an ability for the Government to "take over your computer" through the cars.com site.

Here is an better explanation from a techie website:

Cars.gov Terms of Service: What Glenn Beck Gets Right and Wrong
Commentary by Hugh D'Andrade
There's an entertaining clip from Glenn Beck's Fox News program making the rounds on the Internet lately, featuring this language from the Terms of Service for the "Cash for Clunkers" program:

This application provides access to the [Department of Transportation] DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed... to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.

While this language was accessible only by registered dealers, and not the public (and has apparently now been removed), it nevertheless is a shocking example of the kind of problems that can come with click-through agreements written by faceless lawyers and basically imposed on the rest of us. No one should ever try to force you to "agree" that accessing a government website turns your computer into a government computer or gives up your privacy rights in the other contents of your computer.

This hopefully careless language demonstrates the concerns that EFF has long raised about the creeping reduction in user privacy and rights online that we see through various means, including terms of service, cookies and even the “phone home” nature of some of our devices like the Amazon Kindle. This sort of contracting away of our privacy and rights is bad enough when companies do it — it should be off limits for government.

Unfortunately, the commentary of Fox anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle was also wrong about the scope of the privacy issues:

They are jumping right inside you, seizing all of your personal and private information, and absolutely legal, Glenn, they can do it... They can continue to track you, basically forever, once they've tapped into your system, the government of course has, like, malware systems, and tracking cookies, and they can tap in any time they want.

Clicking "continue" on a poorly worded Terms of Service on a government site will not give the government the ability to "tap into your system... any time they want." The seizure of the personal and private information stored on your computer through a one-sided click-through terms of service is not “conscionable” as lawyers say, and would not be enforceable even if the cars.gov website was capable of doing it, which we seriously doubt. Moreover, the law has long forbidden the government from requiring you to give up unrelated constitutional rights (here the 4th Amendment right to be free from search and seizure) as a condition of receiving discretionary government benefits like participation in the Cars for Clunkers program.

The problems with overreaching terms of service are real, and EFF has been working hard to combat them, especially when your privacy is at stake. Companies and government departments repeatedly sow the seeds of confusion, concern and outrage when they sneak catch-all terms into the small print. Our ToSBack site tracks these agreements and allows the public to find out what they say and track their changes over time. But terms of service agreements don’t go as far as allowing the government ongoing, free range into your personal computer with a single mouse click. At least not yet.

I myself am a network engineer, and I could explain to you in-depth why the above is true, but it would take way too long, and frankly is not worth it for me to win an argument on a posting board.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"While this language was accessible only by registered dealers, and not the public (and has apparently now been removed), it nevertheless is a shocking example of the kind of problems that can come with click-through agreements written by faceless lawyers and basically imposed on the rest of us. No one should ever try to force you to "agree" that accessing a government website turns your computer into a government computer or gives up your privacy rights in the other contents of your computer.

This hopefully careless language..."

This hopefully careless language is EXACTLY why the Government has no fucking business getting in between me and my doctors

 

[Annie]

Liar liar pants on fire....Politifacts "Truthomete" on health reform claims: PolitiFact | Statements on Health

Interesting site looks at the facts behind the claims....oh...such lies.

The health care reform plan would set limits similar to the "socialized" system in Britain, where people are allowed to die if their treatment would cost more than $22,000.

Truthometer: false -- there is no proposal to put a price on life

President Barack Obama suggested on national TV that the Democratic health care bill "will have government decide" that a healthy, 100-year-old woman in need of a pacemaker "should take a pain pill" instead.
Truthometer: false -- twisting Obama's words[/URL

"All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free-health-care-illegal-immigrants-health-bill/"]no free healthcare for illegal immigrants in the bill

In the health care bill, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- you get to pick your plan - Health Choices Commissioner does not decide your health benefits

The health care reform bill "would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner."
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- no the government isn't going to kill granny

The health care reform bill -- on Page 16 -- outlaws private insurance.
Truthometer: liar liar pants on fire! -- Private health insurance not banned on page 16 of the House bill


Ineresting (non-partisan) site....for those interested, the many deceits of the democrats are also exposed, as are the truths on both sides.

I guess you set store in politifact, no? Why?

You guys are really funny.

I'm beginning to think that any source that doesn't uniformly support your ideology will be labeled "biased" and "partisan" yes?

Take for example Factcheck.org - a pretty well regarded site. Until - oh my gosh - Obama got some funding in the past for some project. Now we all "know" it's biased toward Obama. Yet...so funny...the Annenbergs have a history of donating to conservative candidates and causes - if there were any bias it should be conservative.

Or...maybe...a site can be non partisian in it's analyses regardless of sponsors?

So how about Politifact? What makes it partisan or non partisan?

According to this guy (a blogger): The Truth About Politifact.com « Pond’rings it is clearly partisan in favor of the liberals because it has some big name liberal sponsors and according to the author blasts the republicans more than the democrats. But does it? Of course he doesn't allow comments (closed) so it can't be refuted. Ironically, Politifact now has an Obamameter tracking Obama's promises and his keeping or, more critically - failure to keep them. How partisan...some liberals are griping because there wasn't a Bushometer!

For one thing - sponsorship alone does not necessarily make a site "tainted" though it can raise red flags for the critical- what's more important is it's handling of facts.

Politifact's method is to be skeptical and verify everything from original sources. Their site outlines their methods and how they arrive at their conclusions and it is a Pulitzer-winning site, a not insubstantial mark of quality and integrity in journalism. At the very least - if you disagree, you can go back through their links to original sources and figure it out for yourself.

According to this article: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/09/02/Opinion/The_truth_is_PolitiFa.shtml:eusa_hand:

We are independent, both of corporate chains and of political affiliations. Our corporate sibling - Congressional Quarterly - has an unmatched reputation for accurate, nonpartisan journalism about politics and policy. PolitiFact's team includes the research and reporting departments of both publications.

...which if true would negate what the blogger said....

More irony - Fairness and Accuracy in Media (a right leaning site) while critical of Politifact's targets still calls them "neutral".


Maybe, instead of just being yet another ideologue sitting back and ridiculing a source, you can actually address the material presented? Are the facts wrong? Can you provide original source material to show that they are wrong?

What would YOU consider a non-partisan site?

I didn't voice an opinion one way or another. You had posted multiple links to that site. I asked why you seem to set such store in it. You respond with more links regarding that site, as well as others. So, how do you see it? What do you consider non-partisan?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Whatever, dive.

no, not what ever
it sure seemed like everyone was in agreement
and tell us, do you REALLY want Obamacare to pass without even being read?

This isn't about discussion... this is about DISRUPTION....

ROFLMNAO...

Oh how many times have I heard Leftists complaining that the relentless pursuit of the truth is "DISRUPTIVE" to their relentless desire to DECEIVE.

This word is misused by these idiots ANYWHERE a person rejects the 'spin' which the left is spewing and holds their ideological feet to the rhetorical fire until THEY ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!

Go to ANY Leftist forum... and they will slap the "D" word on ya in a NY second IF you intentions are to actually debate an issue and in so doing reject their deceptions as being potentially applicable as such.

Again kids, Conservatism is Americanism... and Americanism does not encroach upon Leftism... As Americanism provides for FREEDOM!

Thus Leftism is the aggressor, chronically encroaching upon Americansim. This simply means that Americans believe that they have no right to exercise our rights to the detriment of another's rights... while Leftists believe to their collective core, that THEY ARE PERFECTLY ENTITLED; THUS THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO USURP THE RIGHTS OF ANYONE WHO THEY "FEEL" NEEDS THEIR RIGHTS USURPED!

Now all that means that at ANY POINT of contention, where a Compromised is required... the PROGRESS of the respective, oppossing idealogies IS ALWAYS GOING TO FALL TO THE LEFT. Ergo, the Leftist ideology has continuously crept over Americanism... and it's done so through these inspid logical fallacies wherein the language is misused and abused to undermine the means of their opposition to contest them; Holding the Left accountable to reason... is DISPRUPTIVE; Not allowing the Leftist to side step the question... IS DISRUPTIVE! Rejecting responses which are FACTUALLY INCORRECT: IS DISRUPTIVE!

And at NO TIME, does the Left accept ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR LIES AND DECEPTIONS, WHICH REASON REQUIRES IS ACTUALLY DISRUPTIVE TO A VIABLE and SUSTAINABLE CULTURE.

They're liars... they suffer from sub-par intellects and they're guided by nothing less than pure evil... they believe to their hollow cores that they have a RIGHT to usurp your rights and it's no more complex than that...

It's the duty of every American to oppose these people at every point; and to reject the principless idiocy of Leftism at EVERY level and on every facet...

The fact is that had we listend to Joe McCarthy 70 years ago... we wouldn't be ass deep in National Debt and we wouldn't have a Marxist Muslim in the White House... at a time when the US is struggling through a Leftist caused recession and at war with a fair percentage of Islam... A religion which refers to the US as "The Great Satan" because of the Debauchery and Decadence unapologetically promoted BY the LEFT.

So, as it always does... where one takes the time to examine a leftist assertion; the odds are that the Left is guilty of PRECISELY that which they erroneously lament.

 

[goldcatt]

Oh how many times have I heard Leftists complaining that the relentless pursuit of the truth is "DISRUPTIVE" to their relentless desire to DECEIVE.

BOTH sides have those who would quash transparency and debate rather than have their propaganda exposed for what it is. Or do you forget the former Administration's stonewalling already? It's a universal mark of the extremist regardless of ideology. So therefore I say, pot...meet kettle.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

LOL, Michele Bachman. Now there's one crazy-assed hyper-partisan.

ROFLMNAO... SWEET MOTHER! Now THAT is some SERIOUSLY "SWEET IRONY!" right there...

LOL...
.
.
.
.
.
.
Leftists...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

everything he reported about it was 100% accurate

Actually, no, it wasn't.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! Now this is precious... Notice above how the idiot seems like she about to demonstrate that Beck was wrong... She has EMPHATICALLY ASSERTED that beck was WRONG!

There was a badly worded Terms of Service agreement that made it seem like that was the case, but there was never an ability for the Government to "take over your computer" through the cars.com site.

Oooooooooops... And in the WINK of a message board EYE! PRESTO! A juicy rationalization which actually demostrates that Beck was precisely RIGHT; which is to say Beck was CORRECT!

Of course beck never said that the government could control any computers through the site... he said the 'badly worded Terms of Service... OKA: THE CONTRACT... provided the government with the RIGHT to ACCESS those databases without further need of request...

That Beck made it known is what they call DISTRUPTION! And its the SAME KIND OF DISRUPTION that those Americans exercising their rights at the town-hall meetings are doing.

It's called DILIGENCE AGAINST A REPRESSIVE IDEOLOGY... an ideology which is busy gathering the LEGAL RIGHTS TO USURP YOUR UNALIEANBLE RIGHTS... and kids... "that just ain't fair... THEY BELIEVE TO THEIR HOLLOW CORE THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO USURP YOUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS... because they do not recognize your unalienable rights.

Ya see... Rights are whatever the government SAYS your rights are... and they're in charge of the government now... so you should just shut the fuck up about it. THEY WON! Get over IT!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh how many times have I heard Leftists complaining that the relentless pursuit of the truth is "DISRUPTIVE" to their relentless desire to DECEIVE.

BOTH sides have those who would quash transparency and debate rather than have their propaganda exposed for what it is. Or do you forget the former Administration's stonewalling already? It's a universal mark of the extremist regardless of ideology. So therefore I say, pot...meet kettle.

Nope... Not true...

You're confusing Party with ideology. That there exist fascists in the Republican party does nothing to indict the Americans in the GOP.

There is nothing extreme about defending one's rights... PERIOD. The ideological left is about USURPING RIGHTS... not defending them.

You have NO RIGHT to the product of another's labor... PERIOD. And that one principle is the full measure of the ideological left. The Left stands FOR everything America stands against... and contesting their tyranny is the sacred duty of every free sovereign; American or not.

 

[goldcatt]

Oh how many times have I heard Leftists complaining that the relentless pursuit of the truth is "DISRUPTIVE" to their relentless desire to DECEIVE.

BOTH sides have those who would quash transparency and debate rather than have their propaganda exposed for what it is. Or do you forget the former Administration's stonewalling already? It's a universal mark of the extremist regardless of ideology. So therefore I say, pot...meet kettle.

Nope... Not true...

You're confusing Party with ideology. That there exist fascists in the Republican party does nothing to indict the Americans in the GOP.

There is nothing extreme about defending one's rights... PERIOD. The ideological left is about USURPING RIGHTS... not defending them.

You have NO RIGHT to the product of another's labor... PERIOD. And that one principle is the full measure of the ideological left. The Left stands FOR everything America stands against... and contesting their tyranny is the sacred duty of every free sovereign; American or not.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the post to which you replied. What is your point?

 

[del]

BOTH sides have those who would quash transparency and debate rather than have their propaganda exposed for what it is. Or do you forget the former Administration's stonewalling already? It's a universal mark of the extremist regardless of ideology. So therefore I say, pot...meet kettle.

Nope... Not true...

You're confusing Party with ideology. That there exist fascists in the Republican party does nothing to indict the Americans in the GOP.

There is nothing extreme about defending one's rights... PERIOD. The ideological left is about USURPING RIGHTS... not defending them.

You have NO RIGHT to the product of another's labor... PERIOD. And that one principle is the full measure of the ideological left. The Left stands FOR everything America stands against... and contesting their tyranny is the sacred duty of every free sovereign; American or not.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the post to which you replied. What is your point?

PI has no point, like mt everest, he's simply there.

 

[goldcatt]

Nope... Not true...

You're confusing Party with ideology. That there exist fascists in the Republican party does nothing to indict the Americans in the GOP.

There is nothing extreme about defending one's rights... PERIOD. The ideological left is about USURPING RIGHTS... not defending them.

You have NO RIGHT to the product of another's labor... PERIOD. And that one principle is the full measure of the ideological left. The Left stands FOR everything America stands against... and contesting their tyranny is the sacred duty of every free sovereign; American or not.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the post to which you replied. What is your point?

PI has no point, like mt everest, he's simply there.

 

[Vast LWC]

Of course beck never said that the government could control any computers through the site... he said the 'badly worded Terms of Service... OKA: THE CONTRACT

You're right, his co-host said the government is, and he agreed:

(she) says: "...Jumping inside and seizing all of your personal and private information, and it's absolutely legal Glenn."

At which point Glenn agreed:

"Yeah, and not just that, but in a million years I would not click continue..."

The other person continues:

"because, guess what, once they've tapped into your system, the government will continue to track you, through malware programs and tracking cookies"

SHe then switches to an extremely sarcastic tone of voice, putting her finger beside her nose and says "look I'm not suggesting that the government would engage in any kind of "nefarious acitivites"", clearly implying that they obviously are.

To which Glenn sarcastically replies "No, NEVER!"

Here's the video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWs12ccbOiE"]Glenn Beck on YouTube[/ame]

Man, YouTube rocks.

 

[Vast LWC]

This hopefully careless language is EXACTLY why the Government has no fucking business getting in between me and my doctors

Because private industry NEVER makes mistakes like this, do they?

There aren't all kinds of lawsuits every day against various coporations for errors they made, are there?