Glenn Beck Bawling Like a Baby

[The_Noble_Cause]

People on the left are starting to try to tear him down because of his soaring popularity since moving to Fox News. He's expected it and can handle it ... so can his fans. Bring it on!

Actually, lampooners on the left, namely Stewart and Colbert, couldn’t give a damn less about Beck’s ratings.
A grown man having a nervous breakdown on-air is the write-itself material every comic dreams of.

[Barb]

People on the left are starting to try to tear him down because of his soaring popularity since moving to Fox News. He's expected it and can handle it ... so can his fans. Bring it on!

Actually, lampooners on the left, namely Stewart and Colbert, couldn’t care less about Beck’s ratings.
A grown man having a nervous breakdown on-air is the write-itself material every comic dreams of.

Which is tied to his growing popularity. Glenn has been crying like this for years.... they didn't start mocking him for it until now. Glenn is overly emotional, but what you don't know or see is that he works himself to the point of exhaustion which doesn't help in that area.

I hope he works on maintaining his composure because it makes me uncomfortable too and is an easy target for his critics.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Which is tied to his growing popularity. Glenn has been crying like this for years.... they didn't start mocking him for it until now.

On the radio, that is very true, but it was very rare on CNN - quite possibly because it was taped and not aired live..
Starting with his very first broadcast on FOX, however, Glenn has been cracking up. Alot.
If he carried on like this on CNN, there is no doubt the late night kings would have drawn a satirical bead on him long ago.

I hope he works on maintaining his composure because it makes me uncomfortable too and is an easy target for his critics.

Fair enough.

[The_Noble_Cause]

...but at least hes not a jerk like oberman on msnbc.

You're right.
He's far worse.
Beck's defense of Walmart's right to sue a mentally damaged woman who just lost her son in Iraq is easily one of the all-time lows in right wing nuttery - and that's saying something.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... /198/8199/

[Barb]

...but at least hes not a jerk like oberman on msnbc.

You're right.
He's far worse.
Beck's defense of Walmart's right to sue a mentally damaged woman who just lost her son in Iraq is easily one of the all-time lows in right wing nuttery - and that's saying something.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... /198/8199/

She lost her son AFTER all of this had transpired. Did you even read the entire thing?

Do you know even their attorney said "We don't believe that they have a right, that the Shank family has a right to this money." We're not saying that Wal-Mart has a responsibility to pay us or to let us have this money. We just think it would be, you know, good of them. We think we deserve it more than them. Even their attorney says they don't have a right to this money.

[The_Noble_Cause]

She lost her son AFTER all of this had transpired. Did you even read the entire thing?

The case was still in litigation after she lost her son.
And putting that tragedy aside, there is no reason why Walmart should be suing to recoup petty medical expenses from an injured employee, who, for all intents and purposes, remains a vegetable.
I guess this is compassionate conservatism in action, eh Barb?

[Barb]

She lost her son AFTER all of this had transpired. Did you even read the entire thing?

The case was still in litigation after she lost her son.
And putting that tragedy aside, there is no reason why Walmart should be suing to recoup petty medical expenses from an injured employer, who, for all intents and purposes, remains a borderline vegetable.
Ghoulish.

You may find it distasteful or heartless, but Wal Mart is a business, not a charity. Their own attorney said they weren't entitled to the money, so your opinion is based on emotion, not merit.

I work for a big corporation and I see what I think are heartless maneuvers all the time. I understand the necessity, though. My company is profitable, I'm still employed, and as of now, we don't need any bail out money from the government and our CEO doesn't need to worry about being fired by the POTUS.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You may find it distasteful or heartless, but Wal Mart is a business, not a charity.

Businesses turn discretionary blind eyes to white collar abuses all the time.
This woman’s expenses were a flash in a pan to their bottom line.
Sam Walton's family alone has a combined worth of over 100 billion.
Thankfully, after the public outcry, Walmart dropped the case.

Their own attorney said they weren't entitled to the money, so your opinion is based on emotion, not merit.

My opinion is founded on the milk of basic human decency, and the facts.
Aside from Glenn Beck's second hand account of what the lawyer said, his quote isn't verifiable anywhere.

I work for a big corporation and I see what I think are heartless maneuvers all the time. I understand the necessity, though. My company is profitable, I'm still employed, and as of now, we don't need any bail out money from the government and our CEO doesn't need to worry about being fired by the POTUS.

Vote Republican - The party of suing people on life support.

Sounds like a surefire strategy to victory in 2012, Barb.
Run with it.

[Barb]

You may find it distasteful or heartless, but Wal Mart is a business, not a charity.

Businesses turn discretionary blind eyes to white collar abuses all the time.
This woman’s expenses were a flash in a pan to their bottom line.
Sam Walton's family alone has a combined worth of over 100 billion.
Thankfully, after the public outcry, Walmart dropped the case.

Their own attorney said they weren't entitled to the money, so your opinion is based on emotion, not merit.

My opinion is founded on the milk of basic human decency, and the facts.
Aside from Glenn Beck's second hand account of what the lawyer said, his quote isn't verifiable anywhere.

I work for a big corporation and I see what I think are heartless maneuvers all the time. I understand the necessity, though. My company is profitable, I'm still employed, and as of now, we don't need any bail out money from the government and our CEO doesn't need to worry about being fired by the POTUS.

Vote Republican - The party of suing people on life support.

Sounds like a surefire strategy to success in 2012, Barb.
Roll with it

That was pretty weak, TNC. That's exactly where Glenn is coming from on what is wrong with America. People think they are entitled to something they haven't earned just because they have a sad sob story. I don't buy into that. How can you make Glenn the bad guy in this scenario when their own attorney said they were not entitled to that money? Geez.

[The_Noble_Cause]

That was pretty weak, TNC. That's exactly where Glenn is coming from on what is wrong with America. People think they are entitled to something they haven't earned just because they have a sad sob story. I don't buy into that.

Huh?
We live in a country where the majority of people get healthcare thru their employer.
Of course, the woman was entitled to whatever her plan covered.
That doesn't give the richest company in America the right to go ahead and nickel and dime the woman's accident settlement - money of which will be needed to care for her for the rest of her life.

How can you make Glenn the bad guy in this scenario when their own attorney said they were not entitled to that money? Geez.

Prove it.
That attorney's quote isn't verifiable anywhere outside of Beck's own testimony, and it wouldn't be the first time he fabricated a quote.

[Barb]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/wal-mart-s ... 3609990001

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit."We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.



Walmart ultimately ended up allowing them to keep the money, but they didn't have to. The woman wasn't injured on the job, her medical bills were taken care of by the company, and that was all that was owed to her. The rest was charity. Period.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Walmart ultimately ended up allowing them to keep the money, but they didn't have to.

Walmart also didn't "have to" sue the brain damaged woman.
The contract reserved the right of the employer to do that (it's called 'subrogation'), but, as confirmed by CNN, they didn't have to.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cd.01.html

The woman wasn't injured on the job, her medical bills were taken care of by the company, and that was all that was owed to her. The rest was charity. Period.

What "rest" are you talking about?
Walmart went after HER pain & suffering settlement from the trucking company.
Pretty telling that you would take the side of a faceless multinational giant and not your fellow citizen lying somewhere in a hospice.

[Barb]

Walmart ultimately ended up allowing them to keep the money, but they didn't have to.

Walmart also didn't "have to" sue the brain damaged woman.
The contract reserved the right of the employer to do that (it's called 'subrogation'), but, as confirmed by CNN, they didn't have to.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cd.01.html

The woman wasn't injured on the job, her medical bills were taken care of by the company, and that was all that was owed to her. The rest was charity. Period.

What "rest" are you talking about?
Walmart went after HER pain & suffering settlement from the trucking company.
Pretty telling that you take the side of a faceless multinational giant and not your fellow citizen lying somewhere in a hospice.

No, they didn't have to, but they had the RIGHT TO. They ended up letting her keep the money - that is the "rest" that is charity.

Good thing this woman worked for big bad Walmart, huh? Imagine if she worked at some rinky dinky chain without the big bucks. She probably wouldn't have had insurance at all.

Do you know how many people Walmart employs? Do you have any idea what the cost is to them to provide health insurance for all of these people? The reason that clause is in the employee contract is because it allows them to keep costs to employees DOWN. You act like business should be a charity for the employees. The mentality here is that Walmart owes this woman this extra cash just because they can afford it. Just like the wealthy ought to pay exorbitant taxes because "they can afford it". I would never in my life expect a hand out for something I am not entitled to just because I have the temerity to decide someone else can afford it so they need to give it to me. That is pathetic.

[The_Noble_Cause]

No, they didn't have to, but they had the RIGHT TO. They ended up letting her keep the money - that is the "rest" that is charity.

Great.
So they enforced a fine print legal technicality to shakedown a few shekels from Terry Schiavo’s twin sister.
I guess Sam Walton can now finally afford that second gold plated Louie XIV office toilet he’s been lusting after.
You guys are so out of touch it's unreal.

Good thing this woman worked for big bad Walmart, huh? Imagine if she worked at some rinky dinky chain without the big bucks. She probably wouldn't have had insurance at all.

She DID work at a rinky-dinky chain.
That’s why they sicked their pack of corporate attorneys on her measily diapers and medicine trustfund.

Do you know how many people Walmart employs? Do you have any idea what the cost is to them to provide health insurance for all of these people?

Walmart doesn't provide healthcare to 'all these people'.
In fact, they costs taxpayers' millions each year by driving their workers (mostly part-time) onto the public dole.
This, in addition to the company’s already dodgy record of pocketing local sales taxes and holding-out on property taxes.
As a point of fact, thanks to Wmart suing this woman, her husband had to divorce her so she could qualify for more public aid.
Once again, effectively driving an employee onto the public's dime.

The reason that clause is the employee contact is because it allows them to keep costs to employees DOWN.

This is not a broken limb.
This a permanent brain condition requring around-the-clock care.
In other words, she will not be stocking cheap chinese crap at WallyWorld anytime soon.
All this, it goes without saying, costs $$$.
After legal fees and adding ramps to the house, the family is already just barely scraping by.

You act like business should be a charity for the employees.

No, I don't think healthcare should be coupled with employment at all.

The mentality here is that Walmart owes this woman this extra cash just because they can afford it.

"Extra" is a misnomer.
Health insurance is supposed to cover medical expenses.
Wmart then chose to go after the brain damaged woman's accident settlement years later.
Demanding not only reimbursement of the woman's medical costs, but of their own legal fess, too!

I would never in my life expect a hand out for something I am not entitled to just because I have the temerity to decide someone else can afford it so they need to give it to me. That is pathetic.

Employer based healthcare is not a handout.
She paid the premiums.

[Barb]

TNC, we're not going to agree on this, so I won't argue any further. I'm just trying to take the emotion out of it and go with the facts. A woman who is an employee of WalMart had an accident completely unrelated to WalMart, had all of her medical expenses paid by her employer, then won a lawsuit from the party that actually injured her. She signed a contract that specifically says the Company can take back any money paid out for her medical expenses if she wins a lawsuit. WalMart shouldn't have waited for 3 years to pursue it, and that was their mistake.

[The_Noble_Cause]

TNC, we're not going to agree on this, so I won't argue any further. I'm just trying to take the emotion out of it and go with the facts. A woman who is an employee of WalMart had an accident completely unrelated to WalMart, had all of her medical expenses paid by her employer, then won a lawsuit from the party that actually injured her. She signed a contract that specifically says the Company can take back any money paid out for her medical expenses if she wins a lawsuit. WalMart shouldn't have waited for 3 years to pursue it, and that was their mistake.

*CAN* is the operative word.
IMO they shouldn't have done it.

[Tito]

Timeout. Glenn Beck had harsh words for the Bush administration. Beck was the ONLY one on TV who was sounding the alarm about the economy and growth of government well before it went in the tank. I would not group Beck with Limbaugh at all.

I would.
Hardly a dime's worth of difference.
Pro-Iraq, pro-torture, pro-Haliburton, pro-(re)electing Bush, Beck only started tearing him down when the writing was on the wall.
Same deal with the Savage weiner.

Michael Savage has ripped George Bush from day one.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Michael Savage has ripped George Bush from day one.

Lie.
Savage's brand of anarchist paranoid theatre may leave no public official unscathed, but he was still a cheerleader.
And now that Obama is in office he's back to his same old one-note routine.
Beck, on the other hand, is slowly turning into Alex Jones.
I will admit his coverage of Obama's stimulus approach has been more fair than usual.

[Barb]

TNC, we're not going to agree on this, so I won't argue any further. I'm just trying to take the emotion out of it and go with the facts. A woman who is an employee of WalMart had an accident completely unrelated to WalMart, had all of her medical expenses paid by her employer, then won a lawsuit from the party that actually injured her. She signed a contract that specifically says the Company can take back any money paid out for her medical expenses if she wins a lawsuit. WalMart shouldn't have waited for 3 years to pursue it, and that was their mistake.

*CAN* is the operative word.
IMO they shouldn't have done it.

Her attorney should have went after more money from the people who actually injured her. They probably just didn't have the big bucks like WalMart though.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Her attorney should have went after more money from the people who actually injured her. They probably just didn't have the big bucks like WalMart though.

Barb, I don't know what topsy-turvy thru-the-looking glass prism you view the world from, but it is the brain damaged victim, not Walmart, that is the victim here.
As a general principle, is it really too much to ask that ur health insurance provider doesn't turn around and sue you after being steamrolled by a semi?

[Barb]

Her attorney should have went after more money from the people who actually injured her. They probably just didn't have the big bucks like WalMart though.

Barb, I don't know what topsy-turvy thru-the-looking glass prism you view the world from, but it is the brain damaged victim, not Walmart, that is the victim here.
As a general principle, is it really too much to ask that a health insurance policy doesn't turn around and sue you after being steamrolled by a semi?

You act like she is the only employee WalMart has. If you do for one, you do for everyone and that can add up. Those costs ultimately are rolled onto the customers and employees through higher priced goods or higher insurance premiums for employees.

WalMart is not the victim, but they are the ones being attacked here. It is not their responsibility or fault that this woman was hurt, yet everyone looks to them because they are the ones with the deep pockets. Again, it comes down to this entitlement mentality that has taken over America.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You act like she is the only employee WalMart has. If you do for one, you do for everyone and that can add up. Those costs ultimately are rolled onto the customers and employees through higher priced goods or higher insurance premiums for employees.

That's insurance company spin.
They have whole departments devoted to wriggling their way out of claims.
If they want to find a way to cut costs, they should start with their own backyard

WalMart is not the victim, but they are the ones being attacked here. It is not their responsibility or fault that this woman was hurt, yet everyone looks to them because they are the ones with the deep pockets. Again, it comes down to this entitlement mentality that has taken over America.

But it IS the health insurer's responsibility.
That's what the woman was paying for.
If they sue inury victims to get their money back, that's not insurance.
That's a loan.

[Barb]

You act like she is the only employee WalMart has. If you do for one, you do for everyone and that can add up. Those costs ultimately are rolled onto the customers and employees through higher priced goods or higher insurance premiums for employees.

That's insurance company spin.
They have whole departments devoted to wriggling their way out of claims.
If they want to find a way to cut costs, they should start with their own backyard

WalMart is not the victim, but they are the ones being attacked here. It is not their responsibility or fault that this woman was hurt, yet everyone looks to them because they are the ones with the deep pockets. Again, it comes down to this entitlement mentality that has taken over America.

But it IS the health insurer's responsibility.
That's what the woman was paying for.
If they sue inury victims to get their money back, that's not insurance.
That's a loan.

In case you missed it, WalMart's insurance did pay all of her medical expenses and if she hadn't won a lawsuit for her injuries, none of this would have happened. They met their obligation period.

They don't owe her anymore than that but she got it anyway, so not sure why you're still arguing. This was her employment contract. They didn't read it. Again, imagine how screwed she would have been if she had no job or worked for a lesser company.

[Tito]

Thanks for being open-minded and noticing.

Being a moderate, I try not to be closed-minded. I'm open to whoever has the best plan for our country, regardless what party they are involved with. Tell me something - which party is more open-minded when it comes to addressing the issues below that are facing our nation?:

The Economy
Iraq War
Torture
Corporate Greed
Policing The World
Abortion Rights
Gay Rights

I usually side with the party that is the least invasive to personal rights, and the GOP likes to invade people's lives too much from telling them what their sexual preferences should be to trying to police countries that do not want us to do so. In addition, the GOP likes to allow greedy corporations to operate with very little government regulations, and the fact is that the greedy corporate leaders fail without tight governmental restrictions. The GOP addresses this by pushing for even less regulations on businesses. That's why they got voted out of power, and that is why Glenn Beck is crying... he's just blaming his tears on the wrong President.

I just cannot get over him crying and sniffling like a whiney little spoiled kid who got his toys taken away. Talk about a sore loser! It's so immature that it is pure comedy.

First, both parties suck. As far as the economy both parties are to blame. I'm on Ron Paul's side on this one as far as the solution goes. Iraq War, I think both parties have drawn the line in the sand (with few exceptions). Repbulicans for it and democrats (for it before they were) against it. Torture, that may go to the republicans. McCain and Paul were against it and the other nominees for it. I guess that shows open-mindness. Corporate greed, gimme a break both parties are corrupt and beholdened to Wall Street and have fill their pockets. Policing the world, not sure what you mean. Before Bush, it was the democrats that wanted to do that, now unfortunately it's the Republicans. Abortion rights, I would say the Republicans are more open minded on this. They have most of the pro life vote but there are a lot of pro abortion in the party as well. With the very, very few exceptions, the democrat party in only pro abortion. Gay "rights" depends. The republicans have libertarian people who don't care what people do but don't think they deserve special rights. There are conservative who are totally against gays and they are liberal republicans who believe they deserve special rights. I personally don't care what people do (in their homes and to an extent publicly), however I don't believe in special rights and gay marriage. Democrats are more into the special rights group. I'd give the edge to the republicans on this one too.

Getting back on point, as far as Glenn Beck goes, I know see where these recent hostilites are coming from. Last night I was flipping through channels and I saw Keith Olbermann basically stating word for word your criticism of Beck. I was wondering why everyone recently has gone after Beck, now I see where it comes from. If you're really concerned about the influence on someone has on America, worry about Olbermann. I couldn't believe the inflammatory stuff he was saying on an unrelated topic last night.

[Tito]

Michael Savage has ripped George Bush from day one.

Lie.
Savage's brand of anarchist paranoid theatre may leave no public official unscathed, but he was still a cheerleader.
And now that Obama is in office he's back to his same old one-note routine.
Beck, on the other hand, is slowly turning into Alex Jones.
I will admit his coverage of Obama's stimulus approach has been more fair than usual.

Bullshit. I used to listen to Savage all the time and he was up Bush's ass the whole time. I did turn it off for awhile during the 04 election, when he wanted Bush to win, but he qualified it. He thought Kerry would be worse. It was about the biggest non-endorsement one can get. He isn't/wasn't a fan of McCain as well.

[The_Noble_Cause]

In case you missed it, WalMart's insurance did pay all of her medical expenses and if she hadn't won a lawsuit for her injuries, none of this would have happened. They met their obligation period.

And then sued to take away the very funds needed to give her a basic standard of care.
Resultantly, driving the woman onto Medicaid.
In other words, transferring the bill to the taxpayer.

This was her employment contract. They didn't read it.

And, by law, they didn't have to enforce it.

[Tito]

You may find it distasteful or heartless, but Wal Mart is a business, not a charity.

Businesses turn discretionary blind eyes to white collar abuses all the time.
This woman’s expenses were a flash in a pan to their bottom line.
Sam Walton's family alone has a combined worth of over 100 billion.
Thankfully, after the public outcry, Walmart dropped the case.

Their own attorney said they weren't entitled to the money, so your opinion is based on emotion, not merit.

My opinion is founded on the milk of basic human decency, and the facts.
Aside from Glenn Beck's second hand account of what the lawyer said, his quote isn't verifiable anywhere.

I work for a big corporation and I see what I think are heartless maneuvers all the time. I understand the necessity, though. My company is profitable, I'm still employed, and as of now, we don't need any bail out money from the government and our CEO doesn't need to worry about being fired by the POTUS.

Vote Republican - The party of suing people on life support.

Sounds like a surefire strategy to victory in 2012, Barb.
Run with it.

Vote Democrat - The party of killing people on life support.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Bullshit. I used to listen to Savage all the time and he was up Bush's ass the whole time. I did turn it off for awhile during the 04 election, when he wanted Bush to win, but he qualified it. He thought Kerry would be worse. It was about the biggest non-endorsement one can get. He isn't/wasn't a fan of McCain as well.

And he endorsed McCain, as well.
As for Bush, he only ever took him to task over immigration.
Iraq, on the rare times it was mentioned, was only nibbled at the margins.
Last night he launched a simultaneous broadside against "Obama the communist" and Rupert Murdoch's Fox News.
It is precisely this flighty nature that has led many, including the National Review, to declare his persona strictly a midway comedy freakshow.
Even Barb sees thru it.
If you choose to look to him as a wellspring of independent political thought, go ahead.

[Tito]

Bullshit. I used to listen to Savage all the time and he was up Bush's ass the whole time. I did turn it off for awhile during the 04 election, when he wanted Bush to win, but he qualified it. He thought Kerry would be worse. It was about the biggest non-endorsement one can get. He isn't/wasn't a fan of McCain as well.

And he endorsed McCain, as well.
As for Bush, he only ever took him to task over immigration.
Iraq, on the rare times it was mentioned, was only nibbled at the margins.
Last night he launched a simultaneous broadside against "Obama the communist" and Rupert Murdoch's Fox News.
It is precisely this flighty nature that has led many, including the National Review, to declare his persona strictly a midway comedy freakshow.
Even Barb sees thru it.
If you choose to look to him as a wellspring of independent political thought, go ahead.

He took him on immigration, trade, spending, and other domestic policy. The only thing he agreed with Bush on (which i disagree with) is Iraq. He has constantly ripped Fox News as well in particular the O'Reily.

Fuck the National Review.

I rarely listen to him now.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Vote Democrat - The party of killing people on life support.

The Democratic party did nothing of the sort.
They upheld the rule of law in regards to Terri Schiavo.
As it turned out, despite Bill Frists' senate floor diagnosis, the woman had been both blind and braindead for sometime.
Unsurprisingly, a leaked memo proved the GOP was milking the topic to play their evangelical base as suckers.