Apparently the #1 threat to America (as far as Beck & Norris are concerned) is poorly-paid immigrant workers screwing up their orders at the drive-thru. I guess you don't have much time to cook if you're busy publishing vapid, conservative screeds;
More like this
Jennifer Rohn describes a dirty secret of academia:
Martin Cothran has, he likes to remind people, written a book on logic, and teaches the subject at the high school level. Alas and alack, this stooge of the Disco. Inst.
tags: book review, economic insecurity,
What's the only way to cut Chuck Norris' balls off?
Kicking Glenn Beck in the chin.
Interesting. I don't get cable so I can't watch Beck's CNN show (not that I'm likely to anyway; talking-head shows bore me). What did he and Norris say that got you worked up, Brian? The majority of folks that I know aren't against immigration per se. They have enough sense to understand that immigration is necessary. They're only against illegal immigration, and only because of the economic, social, and legal problems that illegals cause.
Wolf; Did you watch the clip? I don't like Beck & Norris on a good day, and I just found it interesting that one of their biggest concerns involving illegal immigration is those people screwing up their orders at fast food joints.
I did hurl a bit of invective, it is true, but I am no so much "worked up" about it as taking their absurd premise even further. It's not the question of where they stand on illegal immigration; it's that they are basing their complaints on getting a filet-o-fish instead of a big mac one day.
Chuck Norris just hasn't been the same since the Octagon...I mean is he bored of roundhouse-kicking guys through walls and haulin' them in as a Texas Ranger.
On a serious note, if you were paid $6/hr would you give a crap if some hoity-toity customer in their gas guzzling Hummer didn't get what they ordered?...I don't think I would give a crap, did Chuck Norris even make a suggestion on how to solve this freedom-threatening problem??? No he didn't, just like he didn't give us a solution to national debt or illegal immigration...shame on CNN for hoisting has-been-martial-artists to political gurudom...for shame.
They are right. A few excerpts from my history books (from the Future!) to demonstrate:
6th January, 2009, 0800hours
A postman picks up some breakfast from a fast food drivethrough. In a hurry, he only notices the slack-jawed unamerican staff got his order wrong when he's some distance away from the drive through. He sighs and puts up with it, not realising this incident will pave the way to nuclear apocalypse.
31st March, 2010, 1523hours
The crisis is well past the point of any control. With naval forces across the world engaged in open warfare, intelligence pointing to a massive build up of enemy forces in central asia and the middle east and the public reeling from the shock and demanding immediate retaliation, the order is given. Early warning systems accross the globe pick up the massive US strategic launch and counter launches initiated.
1st April, 2089, Late morning.
Elder Ming shows some travelers from the wastelands the way to the ancient cursed site that legend says was once the great city of Wah-shing-tonne.
Do you see now what immigrants will be responsible for, in the Future!?
Brian,
Wolf; Did you watch the clip?
About ten seconds. That's all I needed to see. A video that includes:
a) a political caricature as its first frame;
b) a signature from a political satire magazine;
c) obvious edits and jumpcuts; and
d) an oleaginous talking-head interjecting its own commentary
does not exactly fill me with confidence as to its accuracy. If you have an original, uncut clip, I'll watch that. But not something butchered by somebody with an obvious axe to grind.
Wolf; Suit yourself. I never made any pretensions that this was a "fair and balanced analysis of political viewpoints." It was a bit of comedic political commentary on the web I found amusing, and even despite the edits I don't think that the edits do a disservice to the points Beck and Norris make.
It does seem strange to me, though, that you initially questioned why I got "riled up" without actually watching the included clip. If you're not going to bother to actually look at what I post, then what reason should I have to respond?
I thought you were reacting to having seen the actual show, or an uncut clip of the actual show, not this edited thing. I sometimes forget that not everybody is as suspicious as I am. I never trust edited clips. I've seen FAR too many examples of innocuous (or satirical, or otherwise not-meant-to-be-taken-literally) original statements being taken out of context and distorted to serve the editor's biases.