This is Huge! The Blaze TV and CRTV have merged!

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 week, 4 days ago to News
53 comments | Share | Flag

Glenn and Mark Levin and a whole bunch of big names all in one place...this is the largest merger in internet TV news and Entertainment programing...all for $9.00 a month. CRTV/Levin alone was 30.00 a month...now it's all rolled into one platform, one place for an unbeatable price!

The left will definitely see this as a threat!
SOURCE URL: https://www.blazetv.com/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  mshupe 1 week, 4 days ago
    I know very little, but I suspect Beck had no choice but to cut his losses and this was the best and only option.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 week, 4 days ago
      He was taken in by a CEO he hired early on while he did his thing. The past few years, he has managed to make things right, got great advertising, expanded membership and changes where needed; turning those early losses into gains.
      The Mercury brand is doing very well...stories of his early demise have been greatly exaggerated...and more of a wish per say, by his nemesis.

      We need numbers, size and truth to battle the left...that's how he beat sorass early on and survived. The merger will make them both unbeatable with truth and reason as their weapon.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  mshupe 1 week, 4 days ago
        Thanks, I was vaguely aware that he had to oust his management team, restructure, recapitalize with his own money, but that was a few years ago. Glad to hear he was able to turn it around.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 week, 4 days ago
          That victory is ours, for now we have a good source for truth, accurate history and what better constitutionalist than Mark Levin.

          Personally, viewing the alternative media for 10 years now, This is an unbeatable combination.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  mshupe 1 week, 4 days ago
            I'm not a big fan of Beck's religiosity, but a huge fan of Levin's intellect and sharp tongue.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 week, 4 days ago
              I like levin also. Becks religiosity doesn't bother me, I like how Beck gets to the bottom of things, he's got great people around him and shares a Lot of history none of us ever learned.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
                It seems most of the conservatives, like O'Reilly, Beck, Levin, Shapiro, etc. mix religion in with their conservatism. Saying that the basis of their arguments rests on some book that has been handed down by a mythical "person" who is all powerful but we cant see or touch- really weakens their arguments. Plus the fact there are hundreds of religions and gods out there, making their selection of the "right" god very tenuous and hard to believe.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  1 week, 4 days ago
                  They may speak or reference in a bicameral mystical way but it was the big picture morality, behavior and responsibility that are the key take a ways...most people don't get that and think it's all about a guy in the sky when it's simply the consequences of our biology and the laws of existence that bring us to these moral conclusions.
                  Yes, it's a shame it is still spoken in a bicameral tongue.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
                    I like Ben Shapiro's reliance on facts, but then he goes to a mystical basis when it comes to the nature of man. Too bad really. And he thinks HIS god is the real one. May the real god please stand up !
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  1 week, 4 days ago
                      Sadly mankind still humanizes something bigger than himself to account to, when it's just the ways of existence, consequences of our own making and failing to see the big picture.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
                        I have thought that on a desert island, man is in tune with nature, OR he dies (prematurely at least).
                        Once you add humans to the mix AND you want peace and cooperation, about the only way I have ever seen is to adopt objectivist views on the nature of human beings. Its not that hard really. Socialism is much harder to figure out, and it doesnt even work.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  1 week, 4 days ago
                          The basic nature of man, (human beings-emphasis on 'Being'), is good. It is the nature of Humanoids-(not being, not conscious, no conscience) that is inherently evil.
                          This is where things get mucked up...Human Beings follow their nature based in their biology at the cellular level...Rand talks about that.
                          You've seen me reference this as: Rational 'Celf' interest.

                          Jordan Peterson talks about that too from a biological/Psychological perspective.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
                            That is not what "Rand talks about". There are no unconscious "humanoids" and man is neither good nor evil by "nature". The nature of human life is the standard of the good. Humans do not "follow their nature based in their biology at the cellular level"; we make choices with our minds or default on the necessity to think and choose in order to live.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  1 week, 4 days ago
                              Again, missing the big picture. Only Conscious Humans can use their minds. Those not conscious, those psychopathic/Schizophrenic cannot use their minds...they operate only with the left side of their brain-[Humanoids].

                              And, I may be explaining it differently but Rand Did reference mans nature, self interest is built in to the cells in our bodies, DNA and biological function...otherwise we could not reason nor think!

                              This is my Work, I've studied these things for more than 10 years.
                              I am Not going to have this argument again.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by lrshultis 1 week, 3 days ago
                                "...self interest is built in to the cells in our bodies, DNA and biological function...otherwise we could not reason nor think!"
                                Carl, cells are not conscious and so cannot
                                have an interest, let alone a self interest. Perhaps you believe Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", which is a metaphor reified into a fantasy world.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by  $  1 week, 3 days ago
                                  Cells do not need to be conscious to function in their own interest. Every cell is functionally responsible for it's own survival. DNA in the cell provides all the instructions it needs to do so. Every living organism is structured that way.

                                  So, with a body built with celfish cells, the body and brain of the whole would function celfishly and just like the individual cells, once it's needs are met, the value/resources are passed on.

                                  A conscious human body in good mental health would act similarly if not propagandized or coerced into doing differently.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • lrshultis replied 1 week, 3 days ago
                              • Posted by ewv 1 week, 3 days ago
                                There are no "unconscious" humans and no one "operates only with the left side of their brain". "Studying" this nonsense for "more than 10 years" does not make it anything but the nonsense you started with. It has nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

                                "Human Beings" do not "follow their nature based in their biology at the cellular level." Proper choices are not automatic. Being born with the capacity for rational thought does not determine the degree to which it is used or the standards adopted for making choices. Morality is about formulating principles and acting on them, based on the standard for making choices in accordance with requirements for life -- not self interest "built into the cells in our bodies". Your assertions have nothing to do with Ayn Rand and show no understanding of her ideas.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  mshupe 1 week, 4 days ago
                Yes, his historical perspective is great, and he brings compelling guests to his show. One I recall is Burgess Owens who was promoting his book at the time. I had not heard of Black Wall Street until then, and I'm going to be writing about it soon.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
      O'Reilly probably makes too much money to join this group, but it would be nice.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  mshupe 1 week, 4 days ago
        He makes too much money? Good for him, but I've got no use for his populist, sanctimonious rants.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
          He is a straight shooter, which is nice. His religious stuff is annoying and useless, and I ignore all of that. He was the best FOX had to offer, but he got on the wrong side of the whole woman movement, and they had to get rid of him.

          Fox now is pretty much useless. I watch Levin, who is a good interviewer and has interesting guests, but I have to subtract out his useless religious crap. At least when he is interviewing, he shuts up and just tries to get the guests to talk.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jdg 1 week, 3 days ago
            Straight shooter my foot. Like most lefties, O'Reilly claims to be tolerant and objective, but just put someone he disagrees with -- say a pro-gunner -- on his show and O'Reilly will talk over him and shout him down. O'Reilly taught grade school and conducts himself as if he still does.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 week, 3 days ago
              I should have been more concise in my comment. By “straight shooter”, I actually meant he says what he is really thinking, as opposed to carefully crafting his words to deceive. I did not mean that he is accepting of anything everyone says, but that he tells you where HE IS AT.
              I would have said Maxine waters is a straight shooter in the same way- one knows where she is at because she just says it plainly. I disagree with 99% of what she says, but at least she tells me straight up

              Examples of persons who are not straight shooters are Obama, Pelosi, bush#2, Schumer, and Hillary. One has to disregard what they say and reformulate it based on what they do in order to determine what they were actually thunking
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  mshupe 1 week, 4 days ago
            I guess I automatically zone out on any religious references by Levin and don't recall it happening much. His guests are usually stellar, and he listens, a great change of pace from so much else on Fox.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
              Levin is a joy to watch when he interviews. The purpose of the interview is to "interview" and bring out what the guest has to say. Levin's podcasts are less refreshing, but he does have a lot of good to say.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
    MSM is dead, hopefully forever. I have stopped watching even FOX, with their eye candy bimbos and pandering to liberals.

    Hannity probably makes too much money from FOX to move over to a platform like this. Tucker Carlson is way too intellectually compromised for me, and why they have Juan Williams as the token black escapes me. Judge Jeanine is ok actually. Bill O'Reilly was their best commentator, but he is now more interesting than ever on his own youtube channel.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 1 week, 3 days ago in reply to this comment.
    Sure a lot of stolen concepts there. "Their own interest" and "responsible" are concepts which presuppose a self which presuppose consciousness. Please define your "celfish". Seems to have no roots in any contemporary language.
    Since cellular level activity is not conscious activity, it acts regardless of consciousness. There is some evidence that a conscious awareness is preceded by the physical - chemical processes which begin an awareness in the subconscious brain. The physical body acts purely physically, i.e., structurally - chemically. Even acts might be too much of a stretch. It just is a chemical system made of proteins with structures for intakes and outlets for chemicals such as hormones, enzymes , and nutrients. There is no acting for survival, it just survives or not depending upon its environment and whether it has enough structure and needed energy producing substances from its environment to decrease its entropy to be a living thing.
    A conscious person need not be propagandized or coerced to live contrary to his body's needs. It seems quite easy for a person to convince himself to act contrary to his body's needs. The body may even do so should it be unwell or get the wrong nutrients or environment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 week, 3 days ago
      A cells own interest is a metaphor for it capacity/ function, to survive and adapt when needed and No concepts were stolen, just common language and metaphoric references to aid understanding.

      All life is "Aware" of it's environment but NOT aware that it is aware.
      The traditional definition of "Consciousness" is: aware of one's own awareness.

      A better definition is Self Introspection...and there is nothing in the human head that has been identified to do that. [observe, inspect nor control one's own behavior, thoughts, desires or temptations beyond it's instinctive
      survival needs]
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 2 days, 1 hour ago
        Since you seem to see metaphor as somehow (at least I see that in you) objectively important, here is an article you might like,"Reification as the Birth of Metaphor", about meaning and understanding from the viewpoints of the Objectivists (meaning those who have a concept of objective reality) and those who believe that consciousness creates reality.

        http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/tdb/fu...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 day, 16 hours ago
          Interesting how objectivist see meaning. It is pretty clear that one could not derive meaning, (and one need not necessarily do so), unless one Understands. Once one understands, one can relate to that understanding via a metaphor and that metaphor can help someone else understand.
          (We speak of concepts, functions or how things work here or why say, A+B = C.

          Now the meaning of words, terms or philosophical concepts have to be specific in order to derive understanding in it's context.

          Metaphors enhance meaning and understanding. Everyone seems to respond to different metaphors based upon our different experiences and level of compartmentalized information. (specific neurons in the brain)

          I am only half way through the pdf, amongst many distractions tonight but one error I spotted underscores the problem. My correction will be bracketed.

          "To know is to represent accurately in one's head, [mind] what is outside [inside] the mind, [head]

          Understanding can only occur in the mind, then and only then can a specific neuron be created in the brain that represents that understanding.
          Let's take 2 neurons in the brain, one A and one B, but the answer to a problem is AB...that information is not represented, only through mistake, experimentation or learning can one know and hopefully understand AB, once known and or understood can a neuron AB be constructed representing the answer.

          Demonstrated in the brief to my recollection, I knew the formula and could use it successfully "but I really didn't know what was going on".
          That demonstrates compartmentalized information. His understanding came upon an insight...which could only occur in the mind.
          (Nothing in the head has been found that can do that)

          I may, after finishing, offer more.

          Notice: written while tired and distracted, (may scrap and rewrite)...good night.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 day, 23 hours ago
          Julian Jaynes seemed to think so too, historically between the Iliad and the Odyssey as an observation that conscious introspection and unicameralism had occurred during that time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 1 week, 3 days ago
    I appreciate hearing about it and will certainly follow it -- though I suspect I'll still be able to do it for free through podcasts (I'm already subscribed to Bongino, Beck, and Shapiro).

    But I also follow several personalities who are on podcasts but will probably never be on cable. Lauren Southern, Sargon of Akkad, Scott Adams, and libertarian Tom Woods are in that category.

    I'm surprised I'm not seeing any posts here about the yellow-vest protesters in France. They are right to protest but they have very wrong ideas about who is to blame and what to do about their problems -- delusions eerily similar to some people in Nuremberg 95 years ago.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  1 week, 4 days ago
    They are still working on the 'all in one format' thing...will probably take a few weeks but you can click the link, click shows and see the talent...eventually you will get the time and program slots mapped out.
    Glenn's (the blaze) is up to date and CRTV's shows are Nov, 30th.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo