Uncyclopedia:VFH/A Message From Glenn Beck

Article: A Message From Glenn Beck	Score: 7.5
Nominated by:	—Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:44, 15 September 2011
For: 10.5	Nom+For. An interesting take on American society. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:44, 15 September 2011 For. I saw this last week. The Man on many different levels (and I don't mean Beck). Nice work. Aleister 17:45 15-9-'11 For. The beginning is absolutely hilarious, the rest of it has good moments. Great piece! Mattsnow 17:48, September 15, 2011 (UTC) For. Really well done! Seriosuly ShabiDOO 17:26, September 17, 2011 (UTC) Whore: If you don't know who Beck is, you really should. A broadcasting phenomenon in the states. The man has quite the collection of Nazi memorabilia, comes up with the most obscene metaphors, cries on camera for effect and has the infamous chalkboard to somehow tie together his convoluted conspiratorial rants. Rupert sure knows who he is, he lined his pockets with this spuriously nationalistic schtick.-- 05:05, September 22, 2011 (UTC) For. 110.172.23.207 11:37, September 25, 2011 (UTC) For. Hardly needs to be made into a big rant on what humor is or isn't, but a well-done, multi-faceted article. -RA HB 21:10, September 25, 2011 (UTC) Burninate! I actually knew someone who was so obsessed with this asshat that his wife divorced him. -- Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. Rap sheet. [[::File:Sexy_twilight.jpeg\|His shameless obsession.]] 17:48 September 27, 2011 (UTC) For. Obviously. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 12:57, September 30, 2011 (UTC) For. My kind of article. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinA Y B CUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 21:27, Friday 30 September 2011 - For. F☭R. 13:57, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
Against: 3	Against. I personally don't like it, ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 22:09, September 16, 2011 (UTC) What he said, pretty much. Also, is the title supposed to be doing that? 1 2 3 4 ~ 22:00, 17 September 2011 Depends on what you mean by "that". —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:23, 17 September 2011 Being partly bunched up funnily and partly massively spread out, with a giant image off the side, mainly. It looks decidedly bad; was there something else in mind? 1 2 3 4 ~ 02:48, 18 September 2011 That sounds like what's intended to show up. Maybe look into the history and compare it with what DrStrange had constructed originally. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:58, 18 September 2011 DrStrange didn't have the first bit bunched up and then the next bit far off from it. But it still looked bad. Just not as. 1 2 3 4 ~ 03:04, 18 September 2011 Weak-- 10:07, September 18, 2011 (UTC) Superpolitical satire ain't my hat. Also, the title thing does look funny. Maybe it can be all image'd up? TKFU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U CK 01:06, September 25, 2011 (UTC) You mean the text isn't in the right place or does the whole thing look off to you? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:09, 25 September 2011 I think this new header is the change he's referring to. Looks much better. Still won't change the "personal" against votes though. -- 16:05, September 26, 2011 (UTC) That image is bound to be too big for people who have medium sized screens, though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:44, 26 September 2011 Just changed the px to 800-- 17:04, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Comments	Comment: I knew that this one might be a tough sell for the following reasons. It's a metaphor linking the elimination of welfare/entitlement programs to abortion. That makes it political. The beauty of that metaphor is the multiple levels of irony involved. Just like Gay Jesus, I knew that people with sensitivities to the issues would have a problem with it - I expected that. What amazes me is how people with objections don't simply come out and say what the problem is. I'll accept that. Nobody has to say anything but the vague, spurious critique for the appearance of being objective is pretty weak. When I vote Against., I'll tell you exactly why. I rarely vote against anything because I have an eclectic sense of humor and I'm not going to play spoiler every time an article doesn't make me roll with laughter. Hell, we constantly feature stuff that makes me roll my eyes and say "whatever". If I don't fancy an article and I see a way in which it could be improved, I do so in the comments section - hence an abstain. Humor that offends nobody is usually crap - a personal viewpoint that always makes it difficult for me to write things on the universal side like "Suddenly, Racoons". I do admire people who can accomplish that - just not my bag.-- 10:07, September 18, 2011 (UTC) Seems the problem with being political is you alienate 50% of your audience before they give you a chance but I don't think this is the problem here. Incidently, I didn't vote on it due to the fact I don't know who Glenn Beck because of geopolitical differences and therefore it didn't make much sense. There's a possibility a few other users don't know him either. Granted, all countries have the good ol' conservative/liberal battle going on, it's just manifested in different topics at different times. Dont be angry about it. Have an emoticon :) I understand and I wish to continue. . 10:53, September 18, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, that was the other caveat. Glenn Beck is notorious in the states while we have a sizable percentage of people here that aren't. It's kind of like when I watched Monty Python as a kid and having the Reginald Maudling jokes go right over my head. I'm still happy with the piece though. Great for getting either laughs or puzzled head scratching on Facebook.-- 13:18, September 18, 2011 (UTC) Astain. I don't even know who Glenn Beck is and therefore don't really get it Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 16:02, October 6, 2011 (UTC)