jump to last post 1-50 of 70 discussions (513 posts)

Glenn Beck, Inciting Murder and Revolution

  1. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago
    1. Daniel Carter profile image91
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      He makes BIG money inciting fear, hate, and warmongering. The power of big money. He perpetuates the conservative Christian agenda of "love" this way, therefore, it's justified (they all think) because "God said so." Odd that so many conservative Christians who believe Mormons are a cult, will follow Glen Beck (who is a Mormon) over a cliff.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I wouldn't follow him over a cliff, and I do take into account that he's a Mormon.
        I've watched him for a while now. 
        He exposes the corruption in many groups, and has always cautioned people NOT to use physical violence, but to research and to exercise their civil rights and to speak out about issues that concern them.

        Are you perhaps just scared of him or anyone else who delves into the core of liberal corruption?

        1. Daniel Carter profile image91
          Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Liberal corruption is just as rampant as conservative corruption. Watergate comes to mind. Iran/Contra fiasco comes to mind. Both instigated by conservative Republicans. Lots of others. So exposing one is no good without also exposing the other. If Glenn were a true American, he would expose it all, not just liberal corruption.

          I don't think Glenn is scary. I think he's a problem child. While he may do some good in the world, the overall feeling that he leaves is that of fear. If you know the scriptures as you claim you do, Brenda, you know that fear is of the Devil. Love is of God. So who do you think he really works for? The vibe he gives is not about love.

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            He has pointed out numerous people on all sides and will readilly admit that they exist in all parties.

            They are called, Progressives.

            And the fact is the Left is more into, and pushes a more anti-American agenda, then the Right.

            But he has stated they are all there in all parties, even the independent party.

            Dan you need to understand he is not a Republican nor a Democrat. He is an independent, and has called people out on both sides of the Isle.

            But the Left is just so infiltrated it is not funny.

            Progressives, Dan... Progressives.

            Beck railed against Bush all the time on CNN.

            1. Daniel Carter profile image91
              Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I doubt that he's an Independent. He's on ultra conservative TV. How does that qualify him to be Independent? Yes, he may be exposing corruption here and there, but his premise is based on fear, and therefore reactionary, knee-jerk, anger and fear motivated actions, not on rational problem solving. His whole premise, as most of these types, is revolution.

          2. 61
            DarfurWarriorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Daniel
            "conservative corruption. Watergate comes to mind. Iran/Contra fiasco comes to mind. Both instigated by conservative Republicans. Lots of others. So exposing one is no good without also exposing the other. If Glenn were a true American, he would expose it all, not just liberal corruption"

            Do you actually read what you are writing? Based on your Avatar photo you would have had to be a baby at the time of these events. or at best a wet nosed kid. As someone who was an adult at this time(s), I can assure you, the reason you even know about them tells you that they were EXPOSED. Next time read what you write, before you post it. You make all of sound like shallow gene pool recipients.

      2. SuaveDoggie profile image60
        SuaveDoggieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        @Daniel Carter.

        Tell me, Daniel, what does Keith Obermann do to make his big money?  You know...the leftist flamethrower that incites fear, hate and class warfare mongering ( if that's a word). We've got them. You've got them.  In the end, neither adds much to a dialogue that moves beyond boorish name calling. Can we agree that America has some big problems that need to be addressed, or are we going to continue to fiddle while Rome burns?

        1. Daniel Carter profile image91
          Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          My whole point is that neither conservatives or liberals are free from having blood on their hands. If these TV puppets are going to expose corruption, then stop exposing only one side of it, and get all the facts out regardless of left or right, or political bent.

          Both sides are at fault. Glenn Beck is a prime example of "outing" corruption to save America, but is a hypocrite because he "protects" his own conservative agenda. Both sides are corrupt. How many times do you suppose one has to write/read that before they can actually SEE it?

          I'm neither conservative or liberal. I wasn't a Bush supporter or an Obama supporter. I think they are all serving themselves, their own greed for power, and much more. I'm just calling it as I see it.

      3. SinCityFinancier profile image60
        SinCityFinancierposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Jack Nicholson once said..."truth, you want the truth, you can't handle the truth!?"

      4. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        true. it brings him wealth and fame. he'll do whatever it takes, just like anyone using the media to spread fear and terror.  I'm just amazed at the amount of people who believe all of this fear mongering. turn it off. live life.  you'll be a happier human being.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          agreed.

    2. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And the New Black Panther Party is not? I seem to remember some statement about " Kill some Crackers ! "

      1. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ah - but does the Black Panther Party have a national TV show on a major cable news network where their views and conspiracy theories are seen by millions of Americans every night?

        1. tony0724 profile image60
          tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          People have the right to watch or not William. I am usually at work out here on the West Coast so I do not get to watch the show. And Daily Kos is kinda leftist anyway. I put the same credibility to them that I do the National Enquirer,Who actually got one right with John Edwards !

          1. William R. Wilson profile image60
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You didn't answer my question.

            1. tony0724 profile image60
              tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes I did I just did not give you the answer you wanted.

              1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No, you flat avoided the question I asked. 

                Glenn Beck has a TV show on Fox News, a radio program, and he's a best selling author. 

                Seen a book by the Black Panther Party on the shelves at WalMart lately?

                1. tony0724 profile image60
                  tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Here is my answer you cannot throw all of this on Becks lap. There is plenty of blame to go around on all sides including Brietbart who should have done his homework on Shirley Sherod. Jesse Jackson has a pretty stron following too. Think he does not keep the flames of racism alive ? And by the wat in case you are thinking about playing the I am a racist card. I am not white

                2. Reality Bytes profile image94
                  Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No but I have seen them outside of polling booths intimidating voters. You got any info on Glenn Beck doing that?

                  1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Not Glenn Beck, no.. but I can send you plenty of stories about right wingers going postal, and doing a lot more than just standing around in camo carrying a nightstick in one voting precinct in Philly.

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Them=2 black nutjobs.

        2. tobey100 profile image61
          tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Give it time.  I'm sure Obama can find a few billion laying around to sponsor the New Black Panther Party on MTV.  After all, we need balance.  How about lets forget the stories and see a few facts?  Funny how when the left doesn't agree it automatically becomes hate speech or the 'money'.  Beck was the first one to defend Shirly Sherrod or did ya'll miss that?  If ya want to talk about the money....John Kerry just bought a 70 foot sailboat and keeps it in Rhode Island so he won't have to pay Mass. taxes.  Or how about Rangle?  It's always the same tired four arguments...Race, Hate, big corporations or Bush.  Jez, find something new.

        3. 60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          so you think he should be censored? Is he provocative? YES! If you don't like it, tune him out....I do most of the time. I don't think you, me or anyone else should be deciding "who" gets a TV show...slipery slope.

          1. William R. Wilson profile image60
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            CJ - I don't think he should be censored - but I think all Americans should look very closely at who's paying his bills, and what their agenda is.

            My point is - the New Black Panther party is like three people.  They are meaningless.  Completely powerless. 

            Beck, on the other hand, even though he spews complete drivel, has millions of viewers and gets peachy book deals. 

            Why is this? 

            And before you say it's just because he's a good entertainer, consider this:  success in American media is closely tied to how much you invest in marketing and promotion.  This is why shit music sells millions of albums - because the record labels invest heavily in promoting those albums. 

            So - who's investing in Beck?

      2. Daniel Carter profile image91
        Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think the point here is that one is as bad as the other, not who gets the highest score.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          My point is that the system supports people like Glenn Beck while working against the New Black Panthers and other organizations like them.  Rich people work to protect their own interests, and when poor people try to speak up, or protect their rights, they are quickly labeled as dangerous terrorists.  Meanwhile Beck, Savage and the rest can promote outright lies and get book deals etc.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image59
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Why can't they promote outright lies?

            You did.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You keep using the word "lies" over and over without specifying the alleged lies.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Start at the beginning of the thread.

                Read it will set you free.

                I can't do your homework and Williams all today.

      3. Deni Edwards profile image90
        Deni Edwardsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The new Black Panther party of 2?

        1. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thats one more than the Glen Beck party

      4. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The New Black Panther Party is a small, insignificant group (under 100 according to one estimate)of black whackjobs. Huey Newton of the original Panthers has disassociated the Black Panthers from the New Black Panthers. The significance of the NBBP derives only from right wingers trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill case brought by a Bush ideolog in the Justice Department and dropped by the Obama Justice Department.

      5. bsscorpio8 profile image60
        bsscorpio8posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        HEY!!! There are U.S. Soldiers deployed in various global locations fighting for our right as U.S. citizens to be wrong... and HATE!!!!

    3. Onusonus profile image84
      Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Another lefty conspiracy to dammage the character of those who disagree with them. The only goal is to stifle our freedom of speach. Typical.

      1. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And not surprisingly a poor attempt.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

      2. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Never fear.  No matter what dear Mr. Beck says, y'all will continue to love him to pieces 'cause you just can't have too much Crazy. 

        We all mistakenly thought that you could.  Sometime ago, we were all sitting around in the Secret Liberal Meeting Place (that's where we plan out destroying America, burning churches, all that stuff) and some of us said that Beck was over the edge, too far gone even for y'all.

        Well, since then, he's gone over the edge, drilled straight through the Earth's mantle,  went right through the core and popped out the other side, where he promptly went over the edge again.  And y'all applauded.

        So now we know you really can't have too much Crazy.  See, we were wrong again.  That's probably cuz we're liberals.

        1. Onusonus profile image84
          Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You know what? I do see whatever point your trying to make is, it's clear as mud now! Maybe Glen Beck is a murderous revolutionary hell bent on destroying America. Let's all get together and hang him for treason!!!!!!!!
          YEE HAW!!!!!!!

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ???Another lefty conspiracy???

        What was the conspiracy?

        1. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure he is referencing the linked article.

          Do you start reading at the end of a book?

    4. SuaveDoggie profile image60
      SuaveDoggieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      @WrW  I disagree with your premises, but will defend your right to your opinion. Will you give others the same benefit? I am a political agnostic. I don't care for the commie leftists or the right wing zealots.

      Somewhere, there has got to be some middle ground, where we are all Americans, coming together to solve problems, rather than promulgating and spewing venom on those with whom you disagree.

      Your post and answers throughout this thread seem to indicate that you are unwilling to get past flame throwing rhetoric.  If I'm wrong, I apologize.  If I'm right, then your post adds nothing but hate to the dialogue...and that is sad.

      1. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        See my latest response to Jim Hunter. 

        And I'm sorry, but I haven't attacked anyone except Glenn Beck on this thread.

      2. TamCor profile image78
        TamCorposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        I agree with you 100%--I wish there were more like you around here... smile

    5. Sab Oh profile image62
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, that show must be more interesting than I had been lead to believe. Do you have a link to a vid of this person calling for murder? That sounds a little extreme.

    6. leeberttea profile image60
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So what your saying is, an extreme left blogger at the Daily Koss that never heard of the Tides foundation so therefore the connections to George Soros and the administration don't exist or don't matter. And because Beck reported on these connections, some mentally disturbed individual justified his shooting spree on some wild rambling thoughts and imagined fears resident in his own mind is the fault of Becks reporting?

      Really? Do you have any idea how foolish that sounds?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So, are you suggesting the shooter made up the connection to the Tide organization in his own mind?  That he didn't get his distorted views of the organization from Beck's statements? 

        I'm not sure of the motive of the shooter or where he got his ideas about Tide, are you?  But if it turns out he did listen to Beck's blather and believed his opinions, would that really make a difference to you about Beck's role as a spokesman for Foxheads?

      2. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It sounds much less foolish than the idea that Soros is pulling the strings of some shadowy conspiracy involving ACORN, Obama, Tides, blah blah blah.

        1. leeberttea profile image60
          leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well if you wish to ignore the fact that he's financing them, that's up to you. That's a choice YOU make but that doesn't change the FACTS.

          1. William R. Wilson profile image60
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Financing?  Ok, sure.  Masterminding some communist conspiracy, as Beck seems to belieive?  LOL!

            1. leeberttea profile image60
              leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Unfortunately Beck hasn't made that claim. He does note the connections of those organizations with progressive liberals that espouse anti-capitalist ideas. So it isn't a conspiracy but a group oi individuals working seprately to establish a societal order that they believe is what's best for everyone.

              Personaly, I rather decide for myself, wouldn't you?

              1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Obama was elected by a bigger majority of the American people than any president in recent history.  This is democracy, not a shadowy group of people trying to impose their vision on Americans.  In a democracy, society decides together what they want.  Only in a completely anarchist society would each individual decide what they want, and such a society would not last.  If you don't like democracy and want to try out the ultimate free market, I hear Somalia has open borders. 

                What Soros and others on the left are doing is no different than what the rich and powerful on the right have been doing for decades.  It's not a conspiracy, it's politics.

                1. leeberttea profile image60
                  leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes it's politics financed by Soros and other left wing radical organizations. All Beck is doing is revealing what those organizations espouse, their connections, and their funding so that voters can decide if that is waht they want to support. As you say, it's politics.

                  Not reporting these facts is the evil and the fact that only Fox news is doing that reporting is telling. All of the press should be reporting on these connections. Why should it not be talked about? Are you in favore of an uneducated public? Or are you like Bill Mahr and others on the left that think the American people are too stupid to know what's best for them?

                  All Beck is saying is, tell the truth and let the people decide. So what's wrong with that?

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Soros's influence is far preferable to that of the Wall Street banksters, Big Pharma, Big Oil, NRA and the Agri-Business lobbies. Not to mention the U.S. Freedom Foundation creation of former House majority leader Dick Armey who is one of the few people I would call more evil than Dick Cheney.

                  2. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    He picks and chooses his "truths" based on his political ideology.

                    As in his complete and total silence during the criminal Bush years.

                    Fox is the media arm for the right-wing.
                    Beck's "truths" are one-sided propaganda.

    7. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read.  Oh wait, it's the Daily Kos.  Nuff said.  Crazy people use any reason to justify their actions.  If it wasn't the reporting on Fox News, it would have been something else.  It's like all the stupidity over "violent" video games.  If you believed all the hype about those games, we'd be in a blood soaked revolution of crazy teens by now.  It's time we stopped the stupidity and started, I don't know, using reason to figure out what's going on and how to fix things instead of making idiot claims and backing it up with proof that you never quote.

      In the end the Left hates Beck because he uses their own words against them.  I have yet to see any evidence that Beck or Fox News is telling people to go out and shoot cops.  Unlike the Left who is sanctimonious in public, while privately they seem to engage in the very acts they accuse their opponents of:



      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587705,00.html

      Daniel, do you even bother to watch Beck?  Or do you just regurgitate the hate and fear of the Left?  I doubt you do otherwise you'd have heard this quote on his show:



      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590057,00.html

      But why care about the truth, when you can just make unfounded allegations and whip people up into hysteria.

      1. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this
        1. leeberttea profile image60
          leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So the Daily Kos wasn't bad enough as a source so you had to pull from Hufpo? That ain't any better!

          1. William R. Wilson profile image60
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Nice of you to check out the facts presented in the article before you dismissed the source.

            1. leeberttea profile image60
              leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The article claims that a madman that went on a shooting spree did so as a result of Glenn Beck. That can in no way be shown to be a fact.

        2. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So all you've done is cite another Lefty publication for the one you already noted. 

          Ron, that's using Beck's own words against him.  One of the things I find interesting about the quotes is how honest he is about his failures.  The Keith Ellison quote shows that.  What he wanted to ask is "are you working with our enemies?" even though he (Beck) knew he (Ellison) wasn't.  Many non-Islamic Americans are asking themselves the same question.  I ask that question myself, I know most Muslims are just as American as I am, but what you don't see from that community is a denunciation of suicide bombing and fundamentalist Islam.  What the Muslim community needs are more courageous men like Akbar Ahmed, men and women who won't be intimidated by threatened violence from their fellow believers.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_S._Ahmed

          I think my next book is going to be his Journey into Islam.  Sounds like a good place to get an idea of how Islam really is, from someone in the inside who is willing to talk about the good and the bad in his own religion.

          1. William R. Wilson profile image60
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



            Sure, dismiss the source.  That's a convenient way to avoid dealing with the facts.   

            I'll cut and paste some relevant info so you don't have to sully your web browser with too much liberal thought.



            1. leeberttea profile image60
              leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What's your point? He's right, the progressives are a danger to this country.

              1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                Gosh...  your masterful skills of argumentation suddenly convinced me.  Beck is right.... Where's my gun?

            2. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Will I don't really feel like rebutting all that, because it just turns into a "he said, she said" divorce like conversation.  I'm not really interested in having one of those again.  Your mindset seems to be one that ascribes all those crimes to someone like Beck, while ignoring Huffington, et al when they do the same.  The difference between Beck and Huffington is that Beck really does base his ideas on rationalism and Enlightenment thought.  When you get right down to brass tacks, it was the Enlightenment that advance humanity in a 5,000 year leap.  Personally I'd rather base my thought on Enlightenment principles than that of Progressivism.

              1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So you read Skousen?  Oh my.

                1. ledefensetech profile image80
                  ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Pretty good read.  It just goes to show what a joke post-secondary education has become in this nation over the last century.  I'll have to read up on Cicero, Blackstone and the Scholastics for sure.

          2. Ron Montgomery profile image59
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Very amusing.

            Now please apply the same defense to his other statements. You can start by pointing out the "honesty" of hoping another human being bursts into flames.

            1. leeberttea profile image60
              leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Again, what was the context in which that was said? Or are you also a believer in Sherroding the right?

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Please describe any context in which it is OK with you to disparage victims of natural disasters and acts of terrorism or to wish for the spontaneous combustion of a human being.  Mind you, this is only a tiny sample of his outrageous statements.

                Actually, please refrain from replying.  I don't want to spit any more coffee onto my laptop.

                1. leeberttea profile image60
                  leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, well I'm not going to do your research for you. You obviously don't watch the show and probably never have. Certainly you haven't watched any of the shows those quotes were taken from. I haven't seen all of his programs either nor do I listen to his radio program, but from what I have seen I can attest to the man's character. I challenge you to find the entire transcripts that those quotes were taken from and after reading them see if your opinion hasn't changed.

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Your assumptions are incorrect.  I listened to his radio show daily for it's first two years.  Although his statements were outrageous Ala Howard Stern, he was basically harmless in that he did not have legions of followers at the time who took him seriously.  His rants were at the time amusing - much like the posts of similarly harmless folks on Hubpages.

                    I have no interest in searching for transcripts (as if there is as you claim a proper context for disparaging 9-11 victims).  You may do so if you wish.  I look forward to your next effort at defending this pariah.

            2. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You've never gotten frustrated and said something stupid?  Should we refer to you as St. Ron now?  You might have a point the day Beck says something like "We need to kill some negro babies" or something equally racist.  Oh wait the Black Panthers already beat him to it.  Plus I doubt you'll ever see Beck standing in front of a polling station with a baton dressed in a vaguely military outfit.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't say you got frustrated and said something stupid.

                You certainly may refer to me as a saint though it would be odd to refer to an agnostic that way. wink

                1. ledefensetech profile image80
                  ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Why would it be strange to refer to an agnostic as a saint?  You obviously believe in a creative force for the universe (multiverse?).  Does that not mean that you believe the universe is set up according to certain rules?  Does that also mean you don't believe the universe is set up according to certain moral rules that govern human behavior?  Do you not live according to those rules?  If you do believe all that and live in accordance with those rules, would that not make you a saint?

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Agnostics believe in possibilities, not certainties.  Sainthood presumes the presence of a supreme being.

                    I'll accept the title though if it improves your day.  Agnostics are generally giving and tolerant in that way. smile

    8. John T. profile image61
      John T.posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know if this has been posted yet, but your reference to the Daily Kos article is not what it seems.  As it turns out Media Matters edited the audio! (who would have thought? isn't that what the left is accusing Breitbart of doing to Sherrod?).  Anyway take some time and educate yourself

      http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-ma … ted-audio/

      1. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Wait, what?  We are talking about two different incidents here.  Olbermann has nothing to do with what happened in California.

  2. Jim Hunter profile image59
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    An insane person doing insane things.

    That is weird.

  3. Jim Hunter profile image59
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    "I have found no other news outlet that has mentioned the Tides Foundation in any context, much less portraying it as a Destroyer of America."

    I Googled Tides Foundation and found a lot of stuff on them.

    You shouldn't trust an author who lies outright in his article especially about something so easily disproved.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ok, then post the links you found:  which "news outlets" did you find which mention the Tides Foundation, specifically "portraying it as a Destroyer of America"?

      I am aware of one other so called news outlet that wants to destroy the Tides Foundation, and that would be Breitbart.

      And... had you heard of the Tides foundation before this?  If so, how did you hear about them?

      1. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        http://www.google.com/search?q=Tides+Fo … =firefox-a

        He said in his article he could find nothing about the Tides Foundation in "ANY" context.

        I first heard of the Tides Foundation when I read the article you provided.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          OK- the first three links are the Tides Foundation website and news articles about the gunman.  Can you google me some news articles about the Tides Foundation, from "news outlets", which were published prior to the shooting and which would have led the gunman to believe it was worth killing people worked there?

          1. Jim Hunter profile image59
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14166

            Are you opposed to scrolling down?

            The articles author appears to be quite inept about research.

            1. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Ok - so you assume the gunman read an article in 2004 in Front Page Magazine and that is what inspired him to single them out for his murderous rampage?

              1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Unlike you and the author of this crap article I don't assume anything.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Jim jim jim--- you're missing the real issue.

                  If Glenn Beck should be thrown in Jail for "inciting hatred", then EVERY RELIGIOUS LEADER IN HISTORY should be thrown in jail.

                  Even George Bush (which I agree) and the VAST majority of political leaders should be thrown in Jail.

                  The argument is COMPLETELY void of ANY real substance. It's just equating Beck with Murder in any attempt possible.

                  Don't bother arguing along the lines of "assuming" things, or "the quality of writing" or "whether or not Beck was the true passion for the crime" -- just cut right down to the bone, and realize that William is ACTUALLY asking government to REMOVE free speech from our government.

                  1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Tempting, but no. 




                    No.  I have not asked for anything.  I simply stated that Glenn Beck bears at least partial responsibility for what the gunman did.

      2. tony0724 profile image60
        tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Tides Foundation is just another one of George Soros propaganda machine.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And where did you learn this Tony?

          1. tony0724 profile image60
            tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            discoverthenetworks.org. But of course I will expect you to go about the business of trying to say why they should be discredited because they do not agree with your viewpoint.

            1. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              So Tony - do you think that maybe the right wing has some "networks" of their own?  Do you think that Glenn Beck is a rogue, exposing the truth no matter the cost to his own safety and pocketbook?  He gets his money from somewhere just like lefties. 

              The real question is, who is actually working on things that will be in your interest, and who is doing things only to enrich themselves?

              1. tony0724 profile image60
                tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You are right William FOX gives him a paycheck and he writes books. It's called Capitalism ! And of course the right has some of their own doing the same thing. Brietbart comes to mind.

                1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                  William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Tony - maybe we can continue this conversation later - get to work.  smile

                  But what's the difference between the Right engaging in capitalism, and the left doing the same thing?  The Tides Foundation is a Foundation.  It gives money to various organizations to do different kinds of work.  The Right has the exact same things going on.  Why is it somehow sedition when the left does it, but not the right?

  4. Jim Hunter profile image59
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    Am I to infer that you are trying to get people to commit violent acts against Glen Beck or fox news?

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      o.O

      1. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Is that an answer?

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh was that a question?  I thought it was a joke.

          1. cadence_ward profile image61
            cadence_wardposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I believe Jim Hunter's point is eluding you in it's simplistic perfection.

  5. Jim Hunter profile image59
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    Whatever point you are trying to make with this thread is now just ridiculous.

    The author lied.

    You are doing the same thing you accuse Glen Beck of doing.

    What are you hoping to gain?

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      LOL.  Ok.  Tell me again what I accused Beck of doing?  Inciting murder and revolution right?  Can you point to the place where I did that?

      1. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The title

        "Glenn Beck, Inciting Murder and Revolution"

        Your opening statement

        "Why does he hate America?"

        And your posting of the most easily dis-proven lies in the history of dis-proven lies.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Jim, you are reaching.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image59
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No, you are reaching, you can't prove one thing that you have said or what the author of the article said but yet you continue.

            I'll ask again.

            What is your agenda?

            1. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              OH gosh, since you've outed me so easily, I guess I'll just have to come clean... destroy America, enslave white people, create a world communist dictatorship, blah blah...

              /rolls eyes



              What do you think my agenda is?

              1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I suspect your agenda is to diminish the credibility of fox news or glen beck (both of which I have never watched) and you did it with the least credible evidence.

                And continuing to try and create credibility out of thin air is just silly.

                But it is fun so be my guest.

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Is it really possible to DIMINISH the credibility io Beck or Fox News?

                  Maybe if we multiply their credibility?  Nope, zero times zero is still zero.  Can't be diminished, sorry.   

                  Oh, and hilarious that you've never watched but are ready to defend them anyway.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Just pointing out the latest liberal lie.

                    Glad you found it humorous.

                    I found it rather sad that accuracy when pointing out others inaccuracies wasn't that important.

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It would be hard to diminish the credibility of Beck and Fox below zero where it currently is among sentient Americans.

              2. Jim Hunter profile image59
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And it was kind of easy, you may want to research things a little before you blindly follow.

                Never mind you probably voted for Obama.

                1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                  William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL and you probably voted for Bush?

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No I didn't, I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry.

                    I discovered early that Bush was not someone I could vote for.

                    I did it by research.

                    But I chose what I considered the lesser of two evils both times.

                    Research can be your friend.

        2. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah it's typical of the Left to outright say something accusatory and then act all innocent about even having said it.
          Are they suffering from short-term memory loss, or just unapologetic for their errors?    I figure the latter.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image59
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Its definitely interesting to start a thread accusing someone for inciting violence with an article full of lies and basically inciting violence.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What lies?

      2. Sab Oh profile image62
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Tell me again what I accused Beck of doing?  Inciting murder and revolution right?  Can you point to the place where I did that?"

        Isn't that the title of this thread YOU started?

        ???

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Dense as usual... did I incite murder in this thread?

          1. Pcunix profile image91
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I know.  It Is so frustrating that they cannot even READ.

            1. Reality Bytes profile image94
              Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Who are these infamous "They" that you keep referencing.

              You do like your labels don't you?

          2. Sab Oh profile image62
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Who said that you had?


            And thanks for the insult.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image59
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Its really all they have.

              Are you a real person?

            2. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You're welcome sweetie.  Now go back and reread what I wrote, and what you wrote in reply.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Why do you hate America?

                1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                  William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  smile

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Does that question tell you all you need to know about this guy, William?

              2. Sab Oh profile image62
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "sweetie"?

                ???


                Please don't reveal more about yourself than is appropriate.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "The author lied."

      ???I didn't notice any lies in the article.

  6. Jim Hunter profile image59
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    Knowing what you know now are you really going to continue with this thread?

    You asked for proof from me (although all you had to do was scroll) and it was provided.

    And you still continue knowing the author is an out right liar?

    You have an agenda what is it?

  7. tony0724 profile image60
    tony0724posted 6 years ago

    And I do sincerely apologize but I have to go to work right now.

  8. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Funny, for a guy "exposing" corruption, he sure missed a lot of it!!! 8 years to be exact! Gee, think he really is pushing an agenda and nothing else?  Me Me! I do!

    What'd he just wake up???


    BIG PHONY!
    BIG RACE-BAITER!

    BIG DANGEROUS CLOWN.

    "The irresponsibility of the right-wing media is surely going to result in more Byron Williams across the country.  Potential bloodshed, even of police officers, seems a price they're willing to pay to push their agenda."

    George Tiller.
    Tiller the Baby Killer.... Tiller the Baby Killer .....Tiller the Baby Killer....BOOM! Dead.

    "Obama hates white people.....They want to kill you.....Obama hates white people......They want to kill you......Obama hates white people....They want to kill you----

    What do YOU think is going to happen?
    These Baggers show up at parades with assault rifles!!!

    You think they have any self-control? 

    Beck is a master manipulator....he knows just what buttons to push and how to do it.

    HE'S the one like Hitler!  Just watch and see, this cynical rally of his,on the anniversary of a man calling for peace, togetherness and equality.....this CLOWN will be inciting hatred.

    Insidiously, subliminally, so it gets into your bloodstream.....he knows what he's doing. Just look at all those who say he is harmless.

    Yeah as a ssssssssssnake.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Where's the like button?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Beck is a pathetic asshole.

      1. Sab Oh profile image62
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There's a carefully reasoned position...

        1. TamCor profile image78
          TamCorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hey-that's what I was gonna say...  lol

  9. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    So you "expose" liberals and others expose righty's...what's the problem?
    Why so hysterical?

    You would think a fearless leader had been spit upon. Beck the Savior....leading us into a color-free world....the utopia of the poor, down-trodden white people.

    "*oh SOB SOOOOOOB*  *HOW will we survive?"*

    Bleck for Beck. He's a shill for Big Corporate Greeeeeeeed.
    "We'll do anything for a Buck" Beck.

    If you care about America.....BOYCOTT FOX!!!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Do you ever read what you write?

      You are constantly  hysterical, and not in the funny way.

      I don't think there are too many takers on the boycott fox thing.

      A little research shows they consistently trounce the competition.

      Maybe I will start watching fox.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Just a quick reminder that greed isn't a bad thing.

      The other day, this GREEDY man sold me a hamburger... BUT HIS ONLY MOTIVATION WAS THE $7.50/HOUR THAT HE WAS MAKING!!! THE GREEDY JERK!! HE CARES NOT FOR QUALITY HAMBURGERS!! ONLY HIS MONEY!!!

      ... ...

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think greed is a horrible thing.
        I think it has ruined America and I think the more greed, the more war, hunger, poverty, meanness, crime, death, misery.

        I do not subscribe to Vulture Capitalism. Or Gordon Gecko!

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          He's an acolyte of Gordon Gecko and Ayn Rand.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I absolutely LOVE the way that when I express opinions that are logical and coherent, I'm branded an "acolyte".

            "Yay, blessed are ye who come unto the loving hands of Rand. Lo, produce good services and goods, and be merry! Be wary of those who preach the benefits of inflation, for they will have they're reward at the expense of others!"

            ...

            I guess you're choir boy in the church of Keynes... RUN!!!

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Man, this guy today, he sold me a burrito... but I could tell that the only reason he was working there was because he wanted money.

          What a jerk. I hate people who are greedy like that.

          And the other day, some greedy bastard put his "i helped a customer" sticker on this wireless router that he helped point out to me... greedy bastard!! He answered all my questions for me, but it was ONLY for MONEY!!!

          OH, and get this, my PROFESSOR, of all people, makes just under SIX FIGURES!!! He's up there TEACHING me stuff, but he's only doing it for money!!! He actually told me that "if [he] wasn't getting paid for [his] work, [he]'d probably quit". What a greedy bastard!

  10. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Go for it...you have the Right Mind-Set.

    Soon you too will think Obama is a communist infiltrator from Kenya groomed to take over the world.


    Menwhile, you're country has been SOLD out from under you.

    and NOT by Obama!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I just think Obama is incompetent.

      He had no experience in anything and nothing in his background would suggest he would do a good job as President.

      But because of blind followers he is the most powerful man in the world.

  11. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha---that's rich, coming from an ideology that called people traitors for criticizing Bush, yet call Obama a liar in public!

    Un-Believable.

    AND Beck may be more than one kind of operative!! wink wink:


    "Anthony Weiner Demands Answers From Goldline, Glenn Beck Sponsor
    07-22-10 12:27 PM"

    mmmmhmmmm. Maybe some crooked shenanigans going on here too.

    why why why....I'm SHOCKED! Beckles, in it for da money????
    snark.

  12. Jim Hunter profile image59
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    Ralph, the author of the blog that is linked in this thread said this.

    "I have found no other news outlet that has mentioned the Tides Foundation in any context, much less portraying it as a Destroyer of America."

    Google Tides Foundation and tell me what you get.

    The whole premis of the article is to portray Glen beck as the only person mentioning Tides Foundation.

    That is false, a lie, made up, Bullshit.

    Get it?

    I doubt it.

  13. MikeNV profile image75
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    People get so upset over people on the radio.

    Would you listen to advice from Charlie Sheen?  He's on TV.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Mike, I was just talking about you!  Meet Jim Hunter, you guys have lots in common!  Mike, Jim.  Jim, Mike!  Libertarian, meet librarian!  HA!

      1. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What you lack in logic you don't make up for in humor.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Talk it over with Mike, he'll certainly agree with anything you say.  And vice verso, I'm sure!  hoo boy!

    2. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ask the people on this site who quote Glenn Beck.

  14. JON EWALL profile image47
    JON EWALLposted 6 years ago

    hubbers
    There is much that was not written about candidate Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. The main-street
    media was not reporting many of Barak Obama’s ties to radical
    groups. It appears that Fox News was one of
    the very few to expose many of his past experiences.
    The news media did not report about Obama’s relations with the Joyce foundation and other radical groups supported by the Joyce foundation.
    For an in-depth review of Obama’s connection to the Joyce foundation, Tides, Acorn and other radical groups, Google
    ‘’ The Joyce Foundation’’.
    The answers to why and who the real Obama is can be found  in his relationship as a director of the foundation.
    The plans to change our government is in full throttle without
    much opposition from his party.
    President Barak Obama's actions speak louder than words.WITH THE SIGNING OF THE FINANCE REFORM BILL, the government has taken control of 60% of the economy.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry Jon, but only those who are already Foxheads will believe anything pertaining to political reporting from this corrupt network.  After all, they kissed Dumbya's butt for 8 years which pretty much showed their true colors!  And now they try to pin his stupid mistakes on Obama!  What a joke of a news outlet.  But it suits your idea of a news source, apparently!  LOL!

      1. JON EWALL profile image47
        JON EWALLposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Randy Godwin
        ''And now they try to pin his stupid mistakes on Obama!  What a joke of a news outlet. '' THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA  covered candidate Barak Obama's buns during the election and continues to do so today. Some of  the higher echelon  of the mainstream media sits on many of his added government commissions. There are reasons why the mainstream media can't complete with Fox News. Fox News stands for '' fair and balanced reporting '' and '' we report you decide ''.  The difference  is not just reporting the truth but who reports the truth and nothing but the whole truth.
        Suck it up and try to find the truth, the truth will set you free!
        hubbers
        Some recent comments I made regarding the truth and the mainstream media. We the people need to be more vigilant as to what President Barak Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress is doing in Washington. What is deeply concerning is that our honest representatives, both Democrat and Republican, continue to be silent as to the spending of tax payer monies to certain groups related in the government.
        Viewers suffer a form of brainwashing it seems‘’, when it comes to getting the full truth of any story from the major  mainstream news medias.
        Here’s a story you will not see or hear on the mainstream news . Staff members of Congress  were rewarded with the government paying off there student loans. The cost to the taxpayers was this time  only $12 million. For all those still paying off their student loans they need to get closer to the politicians in Washington. Let’s not forget that the student loan program was taken over by the government on 3/23/10 when President Barak Obama signed the Healthcare Reform bill. One must wonder what student loans have to do with the healthcare reform bill.
        Wake up America ,the government took over 60% of the economy with the signing of the finance reform bill on 7/22/10.

  15. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    The way I see it, they are taking back control from Corporate Forces.

    A radical group to you may seem perfectly normal to me.
    Just like your normals are radical to me....Srah Palin for example.
    Did you know her husband belonged to a group where the leader said he hated America? Would not be buried under this flag?

    See what I mean? We could hype that day and night and Palin would be looking like an anti-American triator.
    Just as Fox always does with Democrats--particularly president Obama. He could sneeze and they would find a way to make it socialist/communist sneeze.
    Fox and all of talk radio, they do a disservice to the American people.

    As the old bumper sticker said: Hate is not a Family Value.
    And distortions and bending the truth does not an informed public make.

  16. BobbiRant profile image81
    BobbiRantposted 6 years ago

    He was only hired, as is everyone else on Fox News, to incite and stir up controversy.  Fox needs the ratings.  Do I Really think any of them, Glenn included, care or believe in their topics?  Nope.  Like politicians, they say what they think will get votes and/or ratings.

    1. leeberttea profile image60
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      How many of Glenns show's have you actually viewed yourself in their entirety?

  17. Evan G Rogers profile image84
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    I think Glenn Beck is a stupid nut-job just as much as anyone else.

    But if you're going to try to blame "crazy maniac who thinks he should murder people that go against his political grain" on Beck because he "talked about that group of people in a negative way"...

    ...

    C'mon, you know that's nonsense. If we could do that, then Bush should be in Jail (which I'm all for), Clinton should be in Jail, the Pope should be in jail (at least one of em!), and so many other people who simply speak about things should be in jail.

    Blaming a nut on someone who speaks against something is the same justification tyrants use to squelch free speech.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Evan - in general I agree with you.  But:  is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater protected speech? 

      What if an Islamic mullah were preaching violent jihad against Americans in your town?  Would you defend his right to free speech?  What if one of his followers blew themselves up at the local Wal Mart?  Still free speech?

      1. tony0724 profile image60
        tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What Evan said and your statement are completely unrelated.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think so Tony - we are talking about things Beck has said and whether or not those things incited the California gunman to violence.  If Beck is saying things that incite violence, am I trying to "squelch his right to free speech" by pointing this out?

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thomas Paine wrote a bunch of things that incited violence.

            So did Jesus (at least, he spoke it).

            So did Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Martin Luther, Malcolm X.

            ...

            William - you ARE demanding that these people do not have free speech. No "ifs" "ands" or "buts".

            The simple truth is that yelling fire in a movie theater is the same thing as entering someone's house in the middle of the night and yelling anything at all - it's trespassing against property rights.

            People hear "Yelling fire in a theater is bad, thus government needs to outlaw it" and agree... instead of thinking. People, amazingly, have come to just think that the movie theater ISN'T a privately owned organization that can make it's own rules!! they just instantly think it's a public area -- even though a person has actually risked his livelihood to purchase that theater and let people in to view movies.

            Individuals make an agreement with AMC (or your local theater) when you buy the ticket to not cause a ruckus. That's all that needs to be considered.  I fully understand that the idea of "implicit contracts" is a slippery slope to fascism, but it's much better than what we have now.

            (on a side note, this is exactly why the recent media brouhaha over Rand Paul is completely false: people have the right to discriminate in their private property - including any restaurant they own.... and... no.. I'm not a racist... so don't say that)

            1. tony0724 profile image60
              tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Evan you have to remember the race card is always the usual card played. He intimated I was a racist too. And I am not even white. When they pull out the labels you have won the debate.

              1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Sensitive Tony?  I was referring to the Tea Party chairman who wrote explicitly racist things, not to you. 

                But, you are the one who said I was telling lies.  I guess when they start calling you a liar you have won?

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  anyone who claims to be the chairman of the tea party is only fooling himself.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I agree, it's impossible to pin these incidents on free-speech...

                ... but that won't stop the judges!

            2. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The implicit contract I "sign" by buying a movie ticket is a very limited one - and only enforceable to the degree that public laws already apply. 

              For example.  Buying a ticket implicitly obligates me to not disturb the other customers, and to not make a mess.  If I disturb other customers, I have broken the implicit contract (but not the law).  the business owner can ask me to leave.

              Buying a ticket also obligates me to watch the movie that I paid for.  If I sneak into an additional movie, I have just broken the contract, and also broken the law - I am committing theft.  The theater owner can call the police and prosecute me in the public courts. 

              There is no other recourse for the business owner but to either call the police, or to let me go with a warning.  The business owner cannot charge me with a crime by himself, and prosecute me by himself.  He cannot force me to pay him for the additional movie I watched.  But he can deliver me to the public court system for justice to be served according the the law.

              Similarly:  if I buy a ticket to a movie, and someone else shouts "FIRE", and I am injured or killed in the ensuing panic - the little "implicit contract" with the theater owner is worthless to me.  What's he going to do - hire a private police force to find the perpetrator, and force that person to pay for my medical bills?   How can a private business owner see justice done in that situation?  He can't. 

              In this case, it would be entirely just for the state to pursue the person who caused the panic, and punish them.  To call that "tyrannical squelching of free speech" would be ridiculous.  And expecting private businesses to be able to deal with such things is also ridiculous.  The theater owner has a business to run.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                your first sense is mostly nonsense- "The implicit contract I "sign" by buying a movie ticket is a very limited one - and only enforceable to the degree that public laws already apply.  "

                Would you really like the movie theater to bring out a 10 page contract for you to sign? There are implicit contracts in life, and "buying a ticket and not causing a ruckus" is one of them. But if you'd really like, I'm sure movie theaters could easily bring out contracts the size of your head to sign.

                Also, with this first sentence of yours, a private property owner can protect his property from disturbances - the same way that I can buy a gun and shoot trespassers, the movie theater could hire bouncers and push people who cause problems out. --- LAW DOES NOT NEED TO BE INVOLVED.

                Your next paragraph .... "For example.  Buying a ticket implicitly obligates me to not disturb the other customers, and to not make a mess.  If I disturb other customers, I have broken the implicit contract (but not the law).  the business owner can ask me to leave."  .... proved my point that the law needs not be involved, and that the movie theater has the right to bounce people out. So, what you're saying is that yelling "fire" in a movie theater is a break of a private contract, and that the person who buys the ticket willfully gives up his 1st amendment protection (which wouldn't even apply anyway, because the 1st amendment only limits CONGRESS).

                Your third paragraph... "Buying a ticket also obligates me to watch the movie that I paid for.  If I sneak into an additional movie, I have just broken the contract, and also broken the law - I am committing theft.  The theater owner can call the police and prosecute me in the public courts. "..... actually proves the case for "implicit contracts" --- trespassing breaks the implicit contract between the property owner and everyone else.

                Your next sentence ... "There is no other recourse for the business owner but to either call the police, or to let me go with a warning. " ... is simply wrong. Night clubs have bouncers, and so can movie theaters. It's amazing how fast you ignore the private sector and simply go straight to government!

                You then ask ... "What's he going to do - hire a private police force to find the perpetrator, and force that person to pay for my medical bills?  " .... but you fail to realize that not even a real police force would do this now.... so your argument... is bogus.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yelling Fire in a crowded theater is completely protected (at least, in non-tyrannical societies).

        What about the massochists? Why are they prevented form setting up private movie theaters where, half way through the movie, and individual yells fire and they all run and hurt each other in a devilishly good way?

        I'm sick of your pro-tyranny, anti-masochist agenda!

        -- To put this in a more believable argument, let's look at it this way:

        Yelling fire in a movie theater is to yell fire in private property. When you buy a ticket, you are implicitly signing a contract agreeing not to disturb the peace.

        The government doesn't need to be involved - it's a private agreement between individuals.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

          Brandenburg v. Ohio held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech *unless* it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."

          In other words, inciting a riot is not protected speech. 

          Your example of the masochists doesn't apply, since they are engaged in consensual activity.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            About the "masochists engaging in consensual behavior"... yeah, that was the point. When someone goes to the theater and yells fire it ISN"T consensual behavior. But it isn't non-consensual between "government and customers", it's non-consensual between "private-property owner and customers". The point, which you basically conceded, is that the government doesn't need to be involved because it's private property that is allowing the behavior / preventing the behavior through contract.

            Now, moving on to "inciting riots not being protected speech"...

            Yeah, it's not "protected by the government" speech.

            I don't care about that because ALL language is free. Any law that is tyrannical should be ignored.

            Just because 9 demons dressed in black climbed up from their dark, dank existence with their wretched mallets of tyranny yelled "OYEZ OYEZ OYEZ" while killing our precious Lady Liberty... that doesn't mean it isn't tyranny!

            To put it more succinctly: Sure, the government trampled our rights, but that's nonsense because they get their power from me. And I reject their demands of tyranny.

            If the judge claimed that "having your just-wed wife be raped by the president" was "not protected by law"... would you still let them take your wife to the "motel 6 of justice"?

            And, as an added bonus to this post! You'll get, at no extra charge, the argument that points out how ludicrous your argument is!

            You're demanding that talking about things that you hate might not be protected speech because it "incites riots" -- even though Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther, Malcolm X and so many others ALL fall under this banner -- but then you claim that a LAW backs up your argument! (you linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio )

            .... But what if that law pisses everyone off and incites riots?! Then the law is no longer protected!

            AHahahahahahhah How delicious THE IRONY!!!

            1. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, exactly.  But you originally said it was "completely protected".  You can argue about whether it's morally/philosophically valid or not, but your original claim was wrong.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                It's completely protected when agreed upon by individuals. That's pretty much what i proceeded to write in the next are when discussing masochists.

                When an implicit contract is broken, then it is a breech of contract, and the movie theater has full right to arrest him.

                But yelling fire in a movie theater, when agreed upon, is completely protected.

    2. Onusonus profile image84
      Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly.

  18. leeberttea profile image60
    leebertteaposted 6 years ago

    Show me where Palin or the Tea Party espouses such views.

    I'll give you a pass on the Obama hates white people because that was something that Beck said and made a case for though I don't believe it's something even the left can disprove. Personally I don't believe he does since he's half white but he has admitted he associates more with blacks (and radicals).

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Beck also said he is a racist.

      Palin said he pals around with terrorists.

      Her crowds were full of people saying the same thing...he's a muslim terrorist.

      Fox said he was "indoctrinating" school children....so much so that a mother was CRYING out of fear.

      Palin said Obama wants to kill your gramma.

      ALL of them say he is socialist. MOST of them question his Christianity.

      None of them ever have any thing nice or postive to say or give him credit for anything other than trying to "wreck this country".

      They are spreading poison, and making the whole country a rotten place to be.


      F them!

      1. leeberttea profile image60
        leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this
        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          When ANYONE in high position on the right denounces the lies I will believe they are sincere...until then, I will believe they LIKE having these lies and smears out there...it helps their cause: Return to Corporate Control.

          Where did you see the video of "indoctrination"? on fox?
          They were singing to The President...who happens to be Obama. Happens with every president, but all of a sudden it's communist indoctrination.

          I saw Palin in Boston. She could not have been more condescending and hateful toward the President of the United States. And the audience cheered.
          What has he done to deserve this?

          "he was a black liberation theology follower for 20 years under the Rev Wright."
          Really?
          He follows black liberation theology? This is the first I've heard of that.
          And isn't that all about Individual Freedom? Unshackled from suppression? Don't you also support that theology?

          And what would a fair tax system be?
          Me, I say the ultra rich were given the store under Bush--I want them to pay up!! What do you say?

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm curious why you're mentioning "on the right"... would it really matter if they were left, right, up, down, or upside down? What about ambidextrous politicians?

            Lo, it matters not what political party ye align oneself to. Yay, all men are either tyrants or freedom lovers. Doth your demands mismatch between each other?

            ... anyway, I'm not going to protect Beck - he is NOT a libertarian. You can't be a libertarian and be pro-starting wars. (you can be FOR defending a country, but this pre-emptive war is completely at odds with the non-aggression axiom).

            Palin? Dumb as a brick. I can't believe someone that stupid is so respected in this country. yeesh. Did you see her trying to waffle out of answering questions with Katie Couric and others during the presidency? She sounded just like that South Carolina "Miss America" contestant. HILARIOUS.

            A fair tax system, you say? 0% taxes on everything! that's as fair as fair can be!

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Zero taxes? Suppose you lived on a once pristine trout stream in Michigan and Dow Chemical built a plant ten miles upstream and started dumping pollutants into the stream. As a libertarian what would your recourse be under your zero tax scenario?

              1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Good question Ralph. I'm still wondering how all these libertarians are supposed to run their successful businesses without a functioning Post Office and interstate highway system, both of which Evan would decry as Socialist Tyranny.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You still haven't addressed the issue of Jesus Christ and his incitement of violence.

                  I just addressed the issue of courts with Ralph. And if you'd like to read more, check out my hubs- this is exactly what I write about.

                  I'm going to start a "Intro to libertarianism" series. Hope to see you there!

                  1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Jesus didn't have a nationally syndicated radio show, endless book deals, and a TV show on Fox News.  And as far as I know, his followers didn't actually commit violence as a direct result of his words.  That came later after the religion became a tool of the state.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                There would be a system of private courts. Property rights are worth enforcing, thus a system would sprout up to defend them. The same reason why "Food" is produced by people who aren't hungry would be the same way that "courts and police" / "property insurance" would sprout up.

                You will say, next, "but it will be corrupt" - don't waste your breath. The current system is already corrupt, so IF the private system became corrupt, it would just be catching up. Eminent Domain has been used NUMEROUS times to strip people of their land and then sell it to private companies.

                But the private system would have the added bonus of "people would stop using that courts' services", and they'd go bankrupt.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Who would pay for the "private courts?" Would they spring up spontaneously? Who would pay for them? What laws or rules would they enforce? Who would make those laws or rules? Who would pay the people who passed the laws?

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    the same way that just about every company ever has sprung up spontaneously... yes.

                    There wouldn't be 'laws' in the sense we have them now, so the rest of your questions are void. There would be contracts between consenting adults who wouldn't be forced to pay money to strangers with a gun to their heads.

                    Private courts would make money via providing a valuable valuable service to society.

                    "X = valuable, thus X can be provided in a free market. Also, because X is very valuable, there would be competition, which in turn would create a better X for a cheaper cost!"

                    Just plug in every single one of your arguments into that equation, and you won't need to ask me anymore inane questions.

            2. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You know, I never thought of that....I wish EVERYBODY would denounce the lies.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not denouncing lies - I kind of like lying. It helps keep people on their toes. It forces people to actually think about the nonsense they're being told.

                Imagine a world where NO ONE could lie... it'd be Uuuuuu~glay!

                And, anyway, can it really be a lie if one TRULY believes it? -- think about it - religion would be instantaneously destroyed - Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and Jewish people can't ALL be right!!! One (at least) is lying, but since they all believe it, is it a lie? is it true? can you believe something into truthiness?

                Facts are facts, but then again, facts are ONLY facts.

                For example see my hub on Dihydrogen Monoxide - it's a very dangerous chemical, and every statement I make on it is true... ... but... ...

        2. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I wrote a hub about the Obama song.. when you know the whole story it's not anywhere near as creepy as Foxaganda News made it out to be. 

          And, um, terrorists in his cabinet?  Whaaaaaat?  Proof.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not EXACTLY sure what the exact quote was - but a terrorist is a very loose term.

            Anyone who has ever used violence, the threat of violence, or any aspect of fear in order to change someone's opinion or actions can be considered a terrorist. That's what makes this whole war on terror COMPLETE nonsense.

            I think I'm even a terrorist! I'm pretty sure that I've bullied a kid once or twice in my life.

            Heck, just about every politician is a terrorist - "pay us your money or we'll throw you in jail"!!! sounds like "using fear to change the actions of others" to me! Policemen, too!

            Technically, even the Christian God is a terrorist - "Do as I say or you shall go to hell!!!" Yikes

            I remind you - I don't like Beck, I'm merely pointing out how idiotic the term "terrorist" is.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This isn't an attack at leeberttea, but I'm just worried at this idea that there are "leaders" of "the Tea Party".

      This is nonsense. The Tea Party began when tens of thousands of people donated a whopping $7 million to Ron Paul's campaign for presidency on Dec. 16th 2007 - i know because I donated money for my birthday present (born on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, thank ya very much!)

      Ron Paul isn't the leader, either. He's just the one that got the public riled up. And, heck, he isn't even the one that actually organized the damn thing - it was some kid out in California!

      But that "kid out in California" is eXACTly what this "Tea Party" is all about - individuals banding together, refusing to be told what to do, and speaking out for themselves against tyranny.

      ... at least that's what it WAS...

  19. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    What short memories some people have!
    The very fact that such people as Beck, Palin, tea partiers, bloggers, et al are able to so publicly criticize our president without reprisal is proof the First Amendment lives.

    Seems like only yesterday the Bush Administration denounced ANYONE who dared speak out or disagree with their policies or actions. Don't like the Iraq War? Shame on you... shut the f$*%up and Support our Troops, dammit!!!!

    The phenomenon is called selective recall. It's common in alcoholics, addicts and right wing puppeteers and their sheeplike followers.

    1. Sab Oh profile image62
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Seems like only yesterday the Bush Administration denounced ANYONE who dared speak out or disagree with their policies or actions"

      What selective memories some people have!

      That did not happen. People who insinuated that our troops were barbaric baby killers and rushed to (gleefully) declare that "We lost already!" were rightfully criticized for undermining our troops in the field. There was more than a lot of disagreement with the policies of the previous administration in many forms as there will be in a democracy.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Bush Admin Outsourced IRS Jobs, then Denied Protesting Workers a Rally Permit
        30-Oct-04
        Bush Dictatorship

        Common Dreams: "The nation's largest independent union of federal workers today sued the federal government, claiming violation of its members' First Amendment rights to protest reductions-in-force and outsourcing IRS jobs. The Bush GSA denied an August rally permit, claiming the purpose of the rally was inconsistent with the present administration's political "agenda."


        King George Abuses 1st Amendment at Wisconsin High School - Students Told to Wear Bush Shirts
        30-Oct-04
        Bush Dictatorship
        John Nichols: "The Bush campaign rented the local high school and applied the divine right of kings  - to a public school. Richland Center students were informed that they could attend the audience with Bush only if they donned a Bush for President T-shirt or so-called 'neutral clothing.' What they could not wear was any clothing that promoted the cause of any dissenter to the rule of Bush. If they showed up dressed inappropriately they would be removed..."



        Teachers Ejected from Bush Speech Just for Wearing T-Shirts That Said 'Protect our Civil Liberties'
        16-Oct-04
        Bush Dictatorship
        Bend.com: "Bush taught three Oregon schoolteachers a new lesson in irony - or tragedy - Thursday night when his campaign removed them from a Bush speech and threatened them with arrest simply for wearing t-shirts that said 'Protect Our Civil Liberties,' the Democratic Party of Oregon reported. The women were ticketed to the event, admitted into the event, and were then approached by event officials before the president's speech. They were asked to leave and to turn over their tickets - two of the three tickets were seized, but the third was saved when one of the teachers put it underneath an article of clothing. "The U.S. Constitution was not available on site for comment, but expressed in a written statement support for 'the freedom of speech' and 'of the press' among other civil liberties," a Democratic news release said."


        Bush is Now Planning to Use the FEC to Silence Online Political Sites
        13-Oct-04
        Bush Dictatorship
        The Bush administration now "owns" the mainstream media - the arrogance of Sinclair Broadcasting is just the latest evidence of this stranglehold. The one avenue of non-Repug-controlled media that has been open to dissenters is the Internet. Now Bush wants to shut down that avenue, too! By abusing a treaty intended to fight terrorism, Bush last week succeeded in completely shutting down 20 indymedia sites. Now, in the guise of "regulating campaign finance" the FEC is setting its sites on other online sites. While the Repugs online sites are largely funded by corporate money, the majority of liberal sites are labors of love funded largely by individual small donations. So guess who will get "regulated out" of business? Not the corporate-funded sites, but the grassroots sites.


        To Silence Anti-Bush Media, Bush and Berlusconi Abuse Treaty Designed to Fight Terrorism
        13-Oct-04
        Bush Dictatorship
        It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the timing of the FBI's shut down of 20 important indymedia sites - less than one month before the Nov 2 election - ain't a coincidence! These were among the most outspoken anti-Bush sites. Now the FBI is claiming that well, ya see, even though they were the ones who shut the sites down, it was REALLY 'cause of an order by the Italian gov (ie Bush's pal Berlusconi) and Swiss gov (ie. Berlusconi pals). Worse, the shut down was achieved by abusing the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, which was designed NOT to silence political dissent, but to enable countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering. This is no different from Tom Delay's subversion of Homeland Security resourcesd last year to harass dissenting Texas Democrats.

        *******

        Want me to go on....cause there are pages of it.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The first major presidency to begin destroying liberty was John Adams. He and his party (the anti-federalists) were able to pass 2 laws, the Alien and Sedition Acts, that made it illegal to criticize his presidency or congress (which were mostly anti-federalists).

          Jefferson, who was VP at the time, and *mysteriously* not included in the protection (wink wink), demanded that the acts were unconstitutional. He also said that it is inappropriate to think that the Supreme Court would ever find those acts to be unconstitutional because they were mostly appointed by Anti-Federalists.

          Jefferson's solution? The states should Nullify the laws - i.e. refuse to enforce them, announce that they were unconstitutional, and demand that the laws "are not laws".

          The next major presidency to destroy liberty in America would be Lincoln, but I'm not even going to get into that one - I'll be branded a racist forever.

          Another big presidency to trample over civil liberties was FDR. He not only made gold illegal (because banks kept inflating the paper money supply too much), but he also CONFISCATED it from people.

          Anyway ... food for thought. The only check on tyranny is the masses resisting.

  20. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Sab Oh, I think you are describing a previous war -- Vietnam.

    When W declared "war" on Iraq based on the faulty premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (which was proved to be wrong early one), Americans balked.

    When W sent troops to Iraq ostensibly to ferret out Osama bin Laden -- when it was quite clear to all he was not IN Iraq, Americans balked.

    So to keep Americans distracted from the fact that going into Iraq was wrong, W (meaning his handler, Karl Rove) trumped up the whole "Support Our Troops" campaign. Anyone who dared criticize the WAR was labeled unpatriotic.

    Barbaric baby killers? We've already lost the war?
    Who said that? Certainly none of the anti-Iraq war protesters I ever heard.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Americans did not balk.

      If they had the democrats would not have voted to invade.

      democrats only react in the way the citizenry reacts.

      There are not a lot of courageous democrats.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Just a quick reminder - not a criticism.

        "voted to invade" does NOT mean that we went to war (which you never claimed! - once again, i'm just reminding everyone). The Iraq war is NOT actually a war.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio … lared_wars

  21. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Well hello there Jim.
    Nice to have you join the conversation (I would have said tea party but it has negative connotations).

    1. Americans did not balk. You are right. Initially they were all for going after those terrorists who committed 9/11.
    The word of the week being "snookered" I would say Americans were snookered into believing invading Iraq was for that purpose, when it really never was.
    When the found out the government had LIED to them, then they balked.
    2. Right. If the Dems had been in the majority at the time,they would not have voted to invade. And how many American lives would have been saved?
    3. Democrates only react in the way the citizenry reacts.
    I cannot believe you could say such a thing! How DARE you accuse our elected officials of reacting in the way the citizens they represent want them to? Political sacrilege!
    4. There are not a lot of courageous Democrats.
    Now there's a bold claim!
    Not sure if the armed forces keep records of the political party affiliation of their recruits. Would have to check.
    I would argue that for every Eisenhower and McCain there's a JFK and a John Kerry.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh Mighty Mom, politically courageous is what I meant.

      I know how dare they act the way the citizenry want.

      How about acting with integrity, I have more respect for someone who would act in the best interest of the citizenry rather than what is politically a good idea.

      That goes for the vote on health care as well, if a politician really believed it was the best thing then vote in the affirmative.

      The problem with that particular legislation was that it was strictly a party line vote and it was terrible legislation that will not solve the problem.

  22. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Ohhh!
    POLITICALLY courageous. NOW I getcha!
    Yes, it would be nice if politicians voted in line with what their constituents really want.
    The problem,too often, is defining who their "constituents" really are.
    Citizens of their state/district?
    Unions?
    Lobbyists?
    It gets fuzzy inside the Capitol sometimes!

    1. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      MM I know we do not always agree politically , but on that one you are right on point ! When are both sides here gonna realize , we should not be opposed to one another. We should be opposed to the complete dismantling of the constitution that is taking place before our very eyes ! In the 60s the counter culture was all about opposition to Big Government. Now they are all for it ? Very strange.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Speaking for myself, it's to protect us from Corporate Control.
        I went into poverty with Bush and his business/big-oil friendly policies. Sky's the limit on pricing! Cost of living went wild, as did company/ceo profits.
        We got into 2 wars, 9/11.....

        Save us from Corporations, who the republican/baggers want to have free-reign.

        1. tony0724 profile image60
          tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Were you aware of who Obamas biggest contributor was ? Goldman Sachs !

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          man, the other day, some Corporation sold me this really awesome thing that let's me listen to music for free any time I want to! AND, on their website I can get free prestigious-college lectures on many many subjects... FOR FREE!!!

          BUT!! that damned corporation was just out to get my money, I realize NOW!!! They sold me that darn thing JUST for the MONEY!! And I realized AFTER I BOUGHT IT, that the entire point of the lectures was JUST to get me to BUY their product!!!

          THOSE BASTARDS!! I ACTUALLY AGREED TO GIVE THEM MONEY BECAUSE I THOUGHT I WAS GETTING A GOOD DEAL!!

          But they're just greedy!!! Greedy pigs!!! I hate them so much!!!
          (sarcasm)

      2. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "In the 60s the counter culture was all about opposition to Big Government. Now they are all for it ? Very strange."

        Not really a surprise when you consider who the government is now.

  23. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    And? He has done a lot for the "invisible people" in America....
    People the republicans throw away.

    Bush did nothing for the underclass...he served the wealthy.
    Sorry if you don't like others having some attention for a change.

    Dick Cheney at 2000 inauguration, speaking to millionaires: "You are our base, and we will support you." Mission Accomplished. Biggest income gap since 1930's. Congrats.

    1. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      My point being if you sincerely think he or anybody else on Caputol Hill really care about you and your circumstances, I can guarentee you that you are going to be extremely dissapointed in the very near future. I thought he eould be different, he is just part of the machine.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I could not be more dissapointed after 8 years of hell if you paid me.

        I have no-where to go but up.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Bush's tax cuts helped me and I'm nowhere near wealthy.

      Tax increases don't help anyone or the economy.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You must be upper middle class then, cause the middle went low and the low sunk lower...while the uber-rich went through the roof.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No not upper middle class.

          I hope to be one day.

          Is there really an upper middle class?

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Used to be.

      2. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Bush's tax cuts helped me - so did Obama's.

  24. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    If you don't want to be labeled a racist, don't have a sign with tne N word on it. (not you---the guy who was fired)

    That guy is racist. Just like the Panther who used the term Cracker.

    And the woman who leads the Tea-Party (BAGGERS) up in Boston allegedly sent out e-mails saying "The Obama's, just another black family on public housing."...another racist...and a REAL one, if true. That woman really thinks she is better than black people.

    Along with all the racist, gun-toting, violence threatening signs that show up anytime a Bagger rally occurs, it's not toooo much of a stretch to say "They have Racists in their midst".

    AND STILL....no signs protesting Bushco.....even though ALL this sh*t began with them....another curious phenomenon, leading me to suspect racism.

    Freedom of speech, OK. But when rappers were being lambasted for their song lyrics, you had the President and Vice President condemning it in speeches. On tv in front of millions.

    Where are the prominant Baggers to denounce the racism and violence in their movement???

    Palin?? Armey?? Beckles?? Gingrich??......anyone?

    nahhhh. You see, They have more freedom to speak than rappers. Who knows why? Can only harbor a guess.

  25. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Just the existence of threads like this one exemplify the fear instilled in the Leant Left by Beck.

    It is halarious that they cry about the things he says, when all the leant left does is spout hatred and the overthrow of  oppressive white America.

    They have spent the last year and a half trying to start a race war, and here they try to pass the blame for that.... as they are trying to pass the blame for Sherrod.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I like your hubscore Mason.

    2. TruthDebater profile image61
      TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Anyone conservative or liberal can see Beck is a drama queen. Who will say that he doesn't overract and play off of the emotions of his audience? He also uses God and religion to capture his followers. I wouldn't be surprised if he thought or was trying to make others think he is a prophet. That is usually how the game works.

  26. John T. profile image61
    John T.posted 6 years ago

    I've listened to Beck before, he is kind of entertaining but he takes so many tangents I can't stand listening to him anymore.  I can say this though I have never heard him urge to violence or murder, and secondly your source was the daily kos! That is just as fringe as the glenn beck

    1. TruthDebater profile image61
      TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Does he preach as much on the radio as he does on TV?

  27. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    I am glad you like it, will.

    And truth... your reasoning about Beck is a perfect example of how the Left just doesn't get it.

    1. TruthDebater profile image61
      TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks. Ha, are you sure it's me that doesn't get it? Are you denying that Beck is a drama queen, plays off of God/religion, and the audiences emotions? It's interesting you claim I am the one with faulty reasoning, yet you don't list any reasoning to back up your assumptions.

  28. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Listen to all the lil scared puppies whimpering about Beck, (awho is an independent), and the right.

    You all better figure it out, it is the independents which are about to oust Oby and his ilk.

    We will start with the House and Senate... then we toss Oby in 0-12.

    Both the left and right better figure it out... it is us Independents which decide the races these days.

    So you all continue to argue among yourselves well we take care of business.

    1. TruthDebater profile image61
      TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ha. If a person is independent, they don't stay on one biased side as Beck stays on the right. How do you claim to be independent when you stay on the right and believe everything is liberal conspiracy?

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It doesn't take being on the Right to see who is trying to change this country into a Socialist Eurpean Style democracy.

        Yes there are Progressive Republicans and Independents who desire us to be Socialist, but they are few compared to the many on the leant left.

        Anyone who opens thier eyes can see that.

        1. TruthDebater profile image61
          TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks. So you admit being biased to the right along with believing the liberal agenda is to convert everyone to socialists. So you believe everyone that agrees with some liberal politicians or policies is in on the agenda and conspiracy? Sounds biased and assumptive to me, not independent.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I don't understand how anyone can NOT understand the (so-called) "liberal agenda" is to bring about socialism...

            The government takes around 30% of our paychecks, then taxes the stuff we buy for another 6%, and then our states take away another (varying) 5% of our incomes... And then it borrows money on debt, and then it inflates for the rest (which is an indirect tax)...

            ... all to pay for society-wide projects.

            That's like, THE definition for socialism: government taking money from it's people to help out the masses (this is a very "non-evil" definition).

            Believe me, I think Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and all those dweebs are idiots - but it's almost impossible to claim that are government isn't moving towards the half-way point of socialism (35%+6+5+interest+inflation =~= 50+% government spending on the masses)

            1. TruthDebater profile image61
              TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks. So you believe every single liberal has the same socialist agenda and same way of thinking? Does every Christian and Atheist also think the same as each other and have the same agenda? If true that all have the socialist agenda, it can only last so long in a free country until they are voted away or create anarchy.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well said,

                But every Christian believes in God, Jesus, heaven Hell, the new testament, the holy trinity and many many many other things.

                Every atheist believes that there is no supreme being, that there is no church that they should subscribe to, that there is no religious leader that they should look up to, nor is there an "absolute truth".

                I have yet to meet a single liberal who ISN'T pro-government spending. In fact, if you look up "liberal" in the UrbanDictionary (which i chose because it allows readers to vote for the definitions - i.e., people can actually agree on what a heavily loaded word like liberal would mean), the answer that got the most votes, and is agreed upon ALMOST 2 to 1 (7:4, really), is that the person values government spending.

                So... I would say that I'm not being a jerk, I'm just simply describing the political "community wide agreed upon definition" of Liberal.

                I'm surprised you got so upset, though. I was trying to write it in a very "not-insulting" fashion. I mean, I'll admit, I'm against socialism, but I was simply pointing out that "government spending = socialist tendencies", and thus, because most liberals like government spending, most liberals like socialism.

                1. TruthDebater profile image61
                  TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks. Not every Christian believes in what they claim to believe, the same as some Atheists not believing everything they claim. Because you haven't met one liberal against government spending, do you assume all are for government spending?

                  I didn't know I was upset, I was just making conversation with you. I don't have any emotional attachment to liberals, conservatives, or any other political party. I could care less for any of them, all are dirty.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "All are dirty" is an extremely cynical and inaccurate opinion. There are many members of both parties who are dedicated to serving the public interest honestly and to the best of their ability.

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    my argument was not that "just cuz i ain't never met no liberal that dunn't like gubment spendin', all lib'rals like du gubment"

                    It was much more along the lines of "people actually voted on the definition of liberal, and the one that got the most votes and had the widest "acceptable" (7 to 4) margin, agrees that liberals like government spending."

                    It much more "a word is something that people use, and those people agreed to a definition that included government spending"

  29. All-Things-Red profile image59
    All-Things-Redposted 6 years ago

    It's not nice to bash Glenn Beck, i once heard he suffers from night terrors, it was rumored that it involves Joseph Smith and Rand Paul getting beaten to death with a giant constitution while Benjamin Franklin and Voltaire sit sipping tea and laughing incessantly.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ha! Ha! That's great.

  30. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    If all you leftists believe beck is responsible for this... then you have all got to agree that the Qu'ran and mohhammud are responsible for islamic terrorism.

  31. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    And you would have to agree that Beckles and O'Reilly are just as responsible as Ice T!!!

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      man, the other day, i bought a cd from an artist, who was being greedy and actually admitted he got into music, partially, for the money!! What a greedy jerk,.

      And it turned out that the record company that he worked for ONLY Signed him for the money that he would generate!! what a greedy group of SOBs!!

      Then, the guy at the store was only working there so he could get money!! I can't believe how greedy he was!!

      And the manager who hired HIM agreed that the only real reason he hired him was because he did the best work for the lowest price!! what a greedy jerk!!

      Everyone is so greedy - not me though. I just need cash to pay for my preferred standard of living!

      .... oh, and I got some music i like out of the whole mess of greediness....

      I hate greed so much!
      (sarcasm, btw... I'll stop posting things like this - i think I've made my point)

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It's not about greed Evan.The pres and vp wanted that song taken off the market because they said it incited violence against police.

        So, in that vein, the same could be said about O'Reilly and Beck. Inciting violence against "Baby Killer" and "Liberals" (always said with a sneer)


        --I just remembered!! It was Rosanne Barr who said that about somebody..."he talks with a sneer"!!  Probably Cheney.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          either way, it doesn't make the rappers responsible.

          Left, Right, Ambidextrous - doesn't matter. the federal government does not have the power to regulate such activity, and you still have the right to free speech EVEN IF your government makes it illegal.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Tell that to George HW Bush and Dan VP Quayle eggs.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              that's why the second amendment exists - so you can tell them...

              .. WITH GUNS!!! that way they'll listen!

  32. Cagsil profile image82
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    To make it simple:

    All politicians are corrupted. Those who are not looking out for the best interests of public are the worse.

    Those who are "supposedly" looking out for the best interest, but do nothing to negate the others actions, then they are not any better.

    Corruption is in government, this is known, because of the stranglehold business and lobbyists have on Congress.

    Those who do nothing to stop it from happening are corrupt.

  33. elayne001 profile image45
    elayne001posted 6 years ago

    At least we agree on something Cagsil. Glenn Beck is just trying to expose all the corruption. Those that don't agree, haven't really watched him very much.

    1. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Elayne, I don't watch him at all. I have been saying for the last 10 months I have been here. wink

    2. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      From what I've seen of Beck, he only exposes the corruption on the left side of the aisle.  If he was sincere, why wasn't he screaming and crying "take my country back" when Bush was in office?

  34. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Exactly!

    This all started with Russsshhhhhh back in 91. Venom towards Democrats....and it hasn't stopped since!

    Much like the so-called right-to life movement...they plan and execute. And take their time. And wait.

    Sneaky little devils.

  35. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    I see the left wing propaganda machine is alive and kikin.

    Just think, you all do a good job, and you can try to take over the media any day now.

    That is what this is all about... we are well aware of the next step in the game. Blame the right wing media and then begin dismatling it so all we are left with is Leant Leftists like CNN and MSNBC among all the others.

    I do not see Beck, Rush, Boortz, or anyone else on the Right or in the Center going anywhere, anytime soon.

    But hey, feel free to have at it... we expect nothing less than your full strength venom and hate, your all, everything you have left in you, in creating an atmosphere where there will be racial upheaval in this country.

    The Leant Leftist know exactly what they are diong.

    The question is... will we fall for it?

    I believe we will not.

    http://www.archive.org/stream/YouDontNe … 0/mode/2up

    It is funny what you see, when you look.

    So keep it up... keep spewing your anti-America racist BS. We will all be watching you.

    Cause.

    We see you... all of you.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I like how this is all about race for you, TM.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No mark.

        It is about race-baiters.

        Do not confuse me with yourself and your racist leftist friends. Who think they can push this country into a race war.

        You all are worse than your NAZI brethren these days.

        I bet they are real proud of you.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Go back to the fifties where you belong.

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this
          2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Do you think he might be parodying McCarthy? Or does he actually believe the crap he puts out?

            1. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I think he's probably a good friend of his local KKK chapter.

  36. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    MSNBC is the only leftist show out there....Joy Behar is liberal...and strong minded.

    But they do not dominate the airwaves like right-wing at the moment. I know, because I have had to stop listening to talk radio....well, at least FM. I found a great staion that shares my pov on am.

    But, as a listener since 85, I see exactly what happened....once Russsshhhhhhh hit, gradually all other opinions were replaced with far right ones. It was gradual, but now all you can hear is extreme right wing venom. For 20 hrs a day. Only  4hr relief with coast to coast at 1:00am.

    And now that the extreme right has the Supreme Court, we will see Corporate adds attacking Democrats too.

    And the big babies cry waa waa.

    Don't know why....Fox is number 1, they own the radio....we are just fighting back the attack.
    Attack of the CIA lunatics. hahaha

  37. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "So keep it up... keep spewing your anti-America racist BS. We will all be watching you."

    See my point?

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I used to love Coast to Coast with Art Bell.

      Not so much anymore.

      And no, I don't see your point.

      Oh... you mean that we see you all for the race baiters you are, and what it is your attempting to do.

      Yes, I do see your point.

      Gdnite, chrs.

      and remember...

      We see you... all of you.

      Hey anyone here ever google earthed 1429 Channing way, Berkley CA., home of the Hubbilites.

      I have... I see you... all of you.

      ...and the old yellow truck out the back next door. lol

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        My point?

        We are fighting back the attack.
        The attack of the right wing loons.

        I'll try again:

        Started in 91 or so with the placement of Russsshhhhhh in ALL venues of talk radio at 12 noon. No other options avaliable on talk but Rush. So, if you were a listener....you listened! He started out tame enough....yeah, he had Femi-Nazi's and all, but it was mostly humor. But once Clinton was elected, the real venom started....so much so that I could not believe what I was hearing! So much so that I had to stop listening to it, as it was poisoning my mind!!!

        But I could see where others who felt like he did would revel in it....it was verification of their feelings, but on steroids!
        He had a tv show where he furthered his venom, to include Chelsea, who was but a teenager then. Nice man....NOT.

        Then the station here started adding more and more right-wing fanatics. Day in and day out. Even the Democrat is a right wing fanatic!
        So I figure the station is a sell-out to big business. It's not an exchange of ideas anymore, it's a shoving of one political agenda down our throats 20 hrs a day.

        So, you go ahead and watch us....there's not much we can do but yell about it. You own everything, including the Supreme Court. HW was CIA for how many years? Cheney has moles all through the current gvt....he's a right wing operative since the 1970's!! It's quite a losing battle, and you have won....so what are you crying for?

        The demise of America wasn't enough for you? What do you want, blood? Apparently so--many of you do.

        Count me out of your "revolution". Your total domionation and control is not worth one drop of American blood.

  38. Caterino profile image61
    Caterinoposted 6 years ago

    Good try.  Many who know Glen Beck see he is what he is.  To say he is a war monger is just another nice try tactic by you on the left. You man is a huge failure and blaming Bush or Beck is not going to work, try blaming your beliefs. Obama is a small fish in a huge pond.  Beck calls it as he sees it.  The more you speak the more we are on to you so keep up the great job and speak on.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I didn't read anyone say he is a war monger. The question was Why does he hate America???

      And I would like an answer myself.

      Why is he and all his ilk calling for insurrection against a president that the majority elected?

      Why is he more important than the majority of Americans?

      And does he have an ego the size of Texas???

      And did he go to clown school???

      And why oh why does he fake cry????

      *OH the pain* *boooohoooooo*---you BUY that crap???

      1. leeberttea profile image60
        leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Beck doesn't hate America where did you get that idea? He loves the country and continues to be optimistic about it's future.
        He has never called for insurrection, in fact he has called for the opposite. What he has said is the left wants the right to act in anger that would be their excuse to attack the right. This is born out in the recent report of reporters plotting to use the racist label against conservative pundits to elicit an angry response. That is why the left continues to attack the Tea Party as racist.

        Beck doesn't think he or the right is more important than anyone else. What he espouse is equal opportunity under the law, what the left is espousing is equal reward regardless of effort.

        The rest of your statements are left wing rhetoric and don't even deserve a response.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          REALLY??

          You mean he WANTS you to support a white-hating racist president???

          Here's a clue: If a leader of your organization carries a sign with the N word on it, he's a racist.
          If a leading organizer says Just another black family on public housing, she's a racist.

          YOU may not be, but your organization is full of them.

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No where near as full as the left is.

          2. leeberttea profile image60
            leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Racism is prevalent throughout the population. Racists exist in every group including the NAACP.

            Crying racism is just a way to distract people from the real issues.

          3. William R. Wilson profile image60
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            How can you write what you did here, and then say that Glenn Beck doesn't support the right or the left?  It's obvious he's a right winger, from your own statements.

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              They can and do write anything.  They don't need to make sense and they don't.

              It's pointless to argue with people like this.  You can't use rationality because they just ignore it.  You can't use facts because it's all les to them.

              1. leeberttea profile image60
                leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Who are "they"? What "facts" and rationality are you referring to?

              2. Arthur Fontes profile image90
                Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Oh No! the infamous and notorious organization of "THEM " and "THEY"!!    Beware "THEY" are involved in many operations and you can more then likely always put the blame on "THEM"


                Be on the lookout for anyone that looks like THEY might be one of THEM

                lol lol lol

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPH … re=related

            2. leeberttea profile image60
              leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Where did I say Beck doesn't support the right or the left? Beck is a conservative that leans libertarian so naturally he would support the right.

              What Beck is against, are progressives, those that would  distort the intent and meaning of the constitution in order to impose their will on society. He doesn't hate Obama but will oppose his agenda until the time that Obama sees the light and redeems himself.

              1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                leeberttea wrote:

                Beck doesn't think he or the right is more important than anyone else.






                So why is he against the "progressives" but not against the Neocons who started two wars, tortured people, wiretapped and detained American citizens without warrants or charges, gutted the regulatory bodies which should have protected us from the Banksters, etc. etc. etc.? 

                You are proving my point:  Fox News is not fair and balanced, it is propaganda for a corporatist right wing viewpoint.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  1 is right.  Lot's of blame to go around.

                2. leeberttea profile image60
                  leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I can't speak for Beck and I don't know what his position is or was on the two wars. I know that he opposed Bush's deficit spending and I know that he did a show on the outrageous defense budget of the US.

                  As far as the wiretapping, Obama has always supported the Patriot Act. He voted for it as senator and extended it as President. As far as torture, Obama has continued most of Bush's policies. In addition he continues to target foreigners and American citizens with drones in Pakistan. He isn't arresting them or bringing them to trial or reading them their rights or allowing them to present evidence in their defense. How is that any better than what Bush did?

                  What regulatory bodies were "gutted" under Bush? The glass -stegal act was suspended by Clinton and some say that contributed largely to the economic meltdown.

                  Say what you will about Fox, but at least they are raising questions about this administraion unlike the main stream media which conspired to bait the right with racism acusations in order to defelct criticism of Obama. That alone should give one reason to at least consider the press suspect and to watch Fox.

                  1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    One quick point for now - Glass Steagal repeal was done by Republicans in the Senate, not by Clinton.  More later.

                    1. leeberttea profile image60
                      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Clinton signed it, silly!

    2. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      The concept of a "Racial Holy War", or "Rahowa," is a core rallying cry for White racist groups. In 1987, the White Patriot Party declared that a race war had begun.
      Race war is the main theme of William Luther Pierce's 1978 novel The Turner Diaries.

      The murders perpetrated by Charles Manson and his "Family" were inspired in part by Manson's prediction of Helter Skelter, an apocalyptic race war.

      The Turner Diaries is a novel written in 1978 by William Luther Pierce (former leader of the white Nationalist organization National Alliance) under the pseudonym "Andrew Macdonald". The Turner Diaries depicts a violent revolution in the United States which leads to the overthrow of the United States federal government, nuclear war, and, ultimately, to a race war leading to the extermination of all Jews and non-whites. The book was called "explicitly racist and anti-Semitic" by The New York Times and has been labeled the "bible of the racist right" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

      ****
      Those are facts.
      And how interesting is it that Beck has not only called an African American president a racist, but he has also said this about Jews:

      "If he was a victim, and this theology was true, then Jesus would've come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did."

      He's got all bases covered...Jews and non-whites...he IS anti-immigration as well, I assume??. All the while telling you that liberals are the problem...he's the loving Christian man! ahahaha, what a masterful manipulator. He's as good as Benny Hinn!!!


      Another interesting factoid: Barbara Bush is from the Pierce lineage!!!(William Luther Pierce)

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And NAZIs are.... sing it with me now... Leftists.

        And white supremists are... racist trash.

        And La'Raza is... racist trash

        And the black panthers are... racist trash

        Shall I list all the trash in the world?

        And stop using out of context quotes.

    3. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      How much more in context can you be?

      Jews killed Jesus....that's the context. And if that were ANYBODY else saying it, the label would be thrown as fast as you can say Zionist.

      And speaking of context, here's the man who brought me into the Democratic party!!! Howard Dean:

      "Fox News did something that was absolutely racist," Dean said. "They had an obligation to find out what was really in the clip. They had been pushing a theme of black racism with this phony Black Panther crap and this business and this Sotomayor and all this other stuff."

      Host Chris Wallace countered that Fox had held off on broadcasting the footage in question until the Agriculture Department forced Sherrod out of her job there, but Dean was having none of it.

      "It was about to go on Glenn Beck, which is what the administration was afraid of."

      He added later: "The Tea Party called out their racist fringe and I think the Republican Party's got to stop appealing to its racist fringe. And Fox News is what did that. You put that on. Continuing to cater to this theme of minority racism and stressing comments like this -- some of which are taken out of context -- does not help the country knit itself together."

      YEEEEAAAAHHHHRRGGGHHHHHH..the Dean Scream!!

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You know if any of you on the left had watched the clipS on brietbart you would know that the clip of her stating her redemption was posted on there also.

        So I agree fox should have looked at the whole clip... which should have been released immediatly by the NAACP. But they chose to withhold that clip and call her a racist also.

        So who is really at fault here... Fox who reported on it after the head of the agraculture dept fired her for racist remarks?

        Which does seem like news to me.

        Or those who had the full tape and with-held it to promote this race-baiting agenda?

        I know who I blame.

        And I also know there has been no redemption for Sherrod from her racism... as she states... there is a bigger fight... rich against the poor.

        Ahhh Marx would be proud.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Them black folks is comin fer yer trailer TM!

    4. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      uh...you don't have to me a Marxist to see that the rich have been favored over the poor.....look what happens when a president takes the side of the poor!!!




      Outright MAYHEM!

      How DARE he.....right???? From ALL sides.

      He's doing too much, he's not doing enough....


      and little ole becky-boy, slips in the first racist shot then skates like a prima donna....

      What, me? Lil ole me??? ahahhaaaaa...such a manipulator.

    5. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      If he's so much like Bush, how come he's a Communist and Bush was a Patriot?

      If he's so much like Bush, how come the Bush supporters don't support him?

      Fox is raising questions about THIS administration, but they CHEERLEADED Bush.

      Watch them? Only to see what the enemy is up to.
      And I mean that...the enemy of America.

      Why you give money and support to an Australian A-moral money-grubber and a Saudi Royal prince???

      You call THAT support for America?


      Nahhh, I don't buy the hype.
      I don't watch anything but C-Span and MSNBC. LOVE Keith!

      1. leeberttea profile image60
        leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The real question is why is it that an Australian is the only one doing the job the American press should be doing, questioning those in power?

        Obama is nothing like Bush though he maintains many of his policies, like continuing to keep Gitmo open, and continuing to prosecute wars, expaning the troop count in Afganistan and bailouts for businesses.

        Bush supporters don't support him because even Bush supporters were not pleased with Bush's spending and Obama's far worse than Bush in that regard. Also Obama continues to grow government and constrain freedom.

        I don't know what Fox did under Bush, I didn't watch it as much then I watched CNN more, but I tend to think you are exagerating based upon you extreme left views and repitive left wing talking points that crop up often in your responses.

    6. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      watch the video "Outfoxed".....you will SEE how they treated Bush....like a King.

      Fanfare and parades, Patriotic music, War Hero,  LAUGHING at dissenters.....

      Oh it was quite a show.

      360% turn-around now!


      Unless you can tell me when they treated Obama like a King??

      and thank you for making MY point.....Obama is NOTHING like Bush.

      so I can support HIM, event though I don't support all of his doings. And I realize that much of what happens in government is so far beyond government...it hardly matters.

      Military Industrial Service Industry Mercenary Complex....bigger and more powerful than any president/king/prime minister

      ALL we can hope for is domestic policies that help those of us who NEED it, not those of us who have more that some third-world countries combined.

      1. leeberttea profile image60
        leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The jealous are troublesome to others, but a torment to themselves.  ~William Penn, Some Fruits of Solitude, 1693

        Personally I don't care what others have. If you're rich I'm happy for you! All I care about is I have the same opportunity to achieve what you did. I neither want help from anyone in doing this nor do I wish to be hindered in my attempts.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Did you go to public school?  Paid for by my taxes. Do you drive on the interstate?  Paid for by my taxes.  Do you use the post office?  Paid for by my taxes.

          I could go on - but the point is, we are all in this together.  You did not get where you are - wherever that is, without the help of society.  When we pool our resources we can do much more than as individuals acting alone.

          1. leeberttea profile image60
            leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I never said that government has no role to play in society, I only said that role should be minimal. The interstate system was percisely something that government should do. Education is supposed to be local, the federal gov should have NO role in that. The Post Office is obsolete and is being propped up by the federal government. It should be allowed to operate on it's own without subsidy except in very remote areas that have no other choices. I assure you I am where I am not becaue of society but for my own efforts and I might well be better off without government weighing me down.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              actually the interstate road system is unconstitutional - james madison's final act of presidency was to veto an interstate road system on the grounds, ONLY on the grounds, that it was unconstitutional.

              1. leeberttea profile image60
                leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I suppose you could make that case, but like much of what the federal government has done in defiance of the constitution the "commerce clause" could be used to justfiy it as part of one of it's enumerated powers.

              2. William R. Wilson profile image60
                William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So I guess you don't use it, since doing so would violate your principles and violate the constitution?  Better not buy anything at the supermarket either, since all that stuff came in on trucks that traveled the interstate.

            2. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



              LOL.  So you taught yourself to read?  And you've never driven on the interstate? Never mailed a letter?  Oh yea - the internet sprang from government sponsored research as well.  Guess you were never in the military.  Give me a break.  We all benefit from government spending, every day.

              1. leeberttea profile image60
                leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes we all benefit but we also are hindered by government everyday. It's not a zero sum game. The question is, how much of a role should government play and at what cost? At what point does the over abundance of regualtion and the cost of government exceed the benefits? I contend we passed that threshold a long, long, long time ago and it;s time to reverse the trend.

                1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                  William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not hindered by the government at all.  I pay some taxes, but what I get for it is a bargain.

                  1. leeberttea profile image60
                    leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Well it must be nice to get that free cheese every month! Good for you! Personally I think what I pay is way too much for what I'm getting, high unemployment, no interest, war, etc, etc.

                    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                      Fire departments, public transportation, garbage pickup, street cleaning, police, courts, road maintenance, ambulances... yeah, what a burden!

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                nope, my parents taught me. In their free time. And then they gave me books that I wanted to read (calvin and hobbes).

                1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                  William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Did their parents teach them?  And...  you still drive on the interstate, dont' you?  And use the post office.  And the internet.  And cell phones.

                  None of which would be here without government spending.

                  1. ledefensetech profile image80
                    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'd be careful boasting about our interstate system.  Right now the interstate system is an albatross around the necks of our several states.  Also the Internet wasn't much more than a curiosity until the government relinquished control over it.  The Post Office is dying Will.  Because of the Internet, which I find hilarious.  Cell phones are way too expensive because of the monopolies given them by the government.

                    In short, you have a point about all that being available, but what you don't consider is that all of those things are more expensive than they otherwise would be because of government intervention.

                    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      If it were not for the laws preventing private industry from directly competing against the postal service in some key areas the postal service would be dead,dead,dead.

                      And it loses money every year it remains open.

                      Great examples.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It is my sworn duty in life, at least one of my sworn duties in life, to squelch this idea that "we all paid for stuff through taxes because 'we're all in this together'".

            the argument "I helped pay for it through taxes, thus it's everyone's" is nonsense because all that money was collected at gunpoint. Try not paying your taxes for a year or two!!! you'll find those guns eventually!

            Using your logic, I could go around robbing people on the street, and then use that money to buy everyone I robbed some ice cream, and then say "hey, man, we bought this ice cream TOGETHER!!!"

            We ARE in this together, but for some reason, some of us are allowed to rob the other ones? I guess that some animals ARE more equal than others!

            We're all in this together - lord knows that when I go to a sandwich shop (I'll plug Jersey Mike's and Jimmy Johns), I don't want a bad sandwich -- but you keep thinking that "we're all in this together" allows people to rob each other. This is nonsense. We're all in this together should mean "Those guys at Jimmy Johns worked, greedily, for $7.50/hour, and while making that money they made a sandwich when i showed up and asked for it and paid the store 7 bucks!"

            We were all in it together - just very very indirectly! Some greedy guy started a business to make money, then those greedy kids worked there for money, and the greedy farmer sold his turkey and bread for money, and I greedily wanted a sandwich... and we ALL worked TOGETHER to benefit each other!! it's so simple. It's so beautiful! And we all worked together without anyone having to be robbed by the government!

            *sniff* Excuse me, I have something in my eye.... *sniff*

            We're all in this together, but let's kill this "thus we need to pay taxes" nonsense.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Some of us don't consider paying taxes getting "robbed."  Some of us consider it their civic duty.

              Just letting you know, in case you forgot that little point.  :-)

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                any time anyone threatens me with jail time at the point of the gun...

                ... it's robbery.

    7. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      And Fox only started questioning "those in power" when Obama came into power.


      not truth-seekers. just partisan hacks.

    8. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to target." George W. Bush


      You DO care what others have!! You are SO concerned with "poor" people taking from you, you cant' see the real bandit.

      There IS no equality!! It all depends on the amount of money you have. And it has gotten even worse so in that regard.


      Unless you really want to say that a poor ghetto or Appalachian kid has the same opportunity as an upper-class wealthy one???


      COME ON!!!!

      And YOU are anti-abortion, so you are NOT for freedom.

      1. leeberttea profile image60
        leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I must question how you can say without hesitation what I care about. You don't know me do you?

        I am certainly not worried about the poor taking from me, I'm worried about the government taking from me! Putting more money in my pocket allows me the liberty to support the poor as I see fit. Certainly I feel I can do so better, and more efficiently and with less corrution then the government can.

        No of course there's isn't economic equality. Some people just work harder some jobs pay more some people take risks wiht their money that pay off. Would you confiscate the lottery winnings of a ghetto mom? Why should she have to give half to the government? I'd rather she keep it all! I don't expect equality what I expect is that we all have an equal chance to achieve our dreams. Having an equal chance doesn't we we have equal success.

        You claim I'm against freedom because I'm against abortion. I question how you can hold that view. Do you believe the life you are aborting has a choice? Is it right that they don't have the freedom to choose what happens to them? I'm not totally aginast abortion but there has to be a limit on when these are performed and the reasons.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well I'm glad to see you're not one of those..."take from those who make, to give to those who sit on their lazy asses all day eating lobster while they drive Limos."...

          And I will concede that I don't know you, I just assume. As do you. And everybody else.

          Abortion--not getting into it! Just remember that the Republican party and many of the Tea-Baggers want to force their ideas of life upon me. FORCE. By order of the state. YET they will condone the massacre of live civilians. By the state. Negotiable Virtue.

          And you spun my question....some illegal immigrants work harder than any West Coast millionaire...what does hard work have to do with it?
          Some people do NO work, but inherited a fortune....and have the benefits of all the hard work that went into creating this society.Shouldn't they have to pay back?

          The ONLY way to have true equality is to have all start out the same....and that is not going to happen. So we need the gvt so ensure the PURSUIT of life liberty and happiness for everybody. Because if we left it up to circumstance, only those born to wealth would have any chance at the good life.

          I LIKE America, the one for all attitude!!
          Unfortunately, the Robber Barons have taken over......again.

          That's the kind of Revolution I want......for the people, not for business.

          And I see Fox as purely for business...Beckles being the Prime Suspect.

          1. leeberttea profile image60
            leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So you think everyone that's born should be issued a check? That we should all start out in the same economic station? That more should be confiscated from the rich and equally distributed with every birth?

            There are literally thousands of stories of the poor lifeting themselves out of poverty and becoming rich. Many never would have been able to do so in any other country!

            We aren't all equal! We all have differnet talents and different faults. I can't play the piano so should a world class concert pianist living in America have his fingers broken to make us equal?

            All I want is an equal chance. That means a fair tax code, not one that Congress uses to extract money from lobyists. Rich or poor we should all pay the same, whatever, 15%, 20%, anything more is prohibitive.

            1. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



              20% of 15,000 leaves you with 12,000 to pay the rent, feed your kids, buy a car to get to work, pay for healthcare, clothes, etc.

              20% of 150,000 leaves you with 120,000.

              No way the poor should pay as much as the rich.

              1. leeberttea profile image60
                leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                They aren't! The poor are paying 3,000 the rich 30,000. I think that's pretty fair especially given that the poor are likely using more services.

                1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                  William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I guess you've never tried to get by on minimum wage then.

                  1. leeberttea profile image60
                    leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Well you'd be wrong. I once worked two jobs totally 20 hours a day. I know what it is to be poor. At the time my only for of transportation was to hitchike. Public transportaion was inadequate then as it is now and will always be.

                    The fact is I struggled, but I was able to improve my life becaue I had the will and because the country experienced prosperity, the opposite of where we're heading now in spite of what President Obama and Tim (tax cheat) Geithner claim.

                    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      So, having been poor, you can see that trying to live on 12,000 a year is much more difficult than trying to live on 120,000 a year.

                    2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      don't you just love how, because you're trying to make sense, you're an evil crackpot who's rich and wants to kill poor people?

                      It's awesome.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The poor should pay for whatever they can afford.

                If people can't afford something, then... they... can't... afford ... it...

                A lot of poor people have CARS, REFRIGERATORS, TOASTERS, MICROWAVES, COFFEE MAKERS, TVs, RUNNING WATER, ELECTRICITY, WARM HOMES, COMPUTERS!! imagine a poor person with these products going back in time 200 years ago - he'd be the king of the universe!!! (or burned for being a witch...)

                The poor today are VERY VERY VERY wealthy. Compared to a century ago, they are VERY well off.

                1. leeberttea profile image60
                  leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Great point! And they didn't get all that from the government but from a country built on risk taking rich people creating prosperity!

                  1. Pcunix profile image91
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    What was the tax rate during the fifties?  One of the greatest periods of growth we had and chock full of government financed projects too.

                    I bought a house in 1973.  My income was about $18,000.  The house,  a small Cape in one of the wealthiest towns in the State, was $24,000.   The same year, we bought a brand new car:  $3,700.00

                    We lived well.  So did all our friends.  Everybody was buying houses, new cars, we went out to eat often, went to the movies.

                    Do you know what the highest tax bracket was then?  It was 71%.

                    Of course not many paid that.  Then, as now, they had lawyers to find them loopholes.  And then shortly after they got Congress to roll all that back - not the loopholes, but the horrible taxes that had funded decades of prosperity.

                    Sure, there were other problems.  The oil shortage hit right about then.  Vietnam was over soon after that and we had to start dealing with all the trouble that came from that.  We had a corrupt President who was not a crook, or so he said. 

                    Life wasn't great for everyone, but we were hardly the privileged few. And we had those awful, awful taxes on the rich.

                    1. leeberttea profile image60
                      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Actually in the 50's the top rate was 84% it went up to 91% in the 60s. In the 70s it went down to 71% and was 70% in the 80s.

                      The period you're talking about was not great economically. Unemployment rate  went from 3.9% to almost 8% by 1976 before retreating to 6% by 1980. We experienced the oil embargo then and we had the Iraian hostage crisis. Interest rates soared from 8% in 1970 to as high as 20% in 1980. Under Carter we saw double digit inflation and a real reduction in wages. He was a disaster as a president. Sadly, Obama is on target to eclipse him as the worst President in the History of our country.

            2. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "So you think everyone that's born should be issued a check? That we should all start out in the same economic station? That more should be confiscated from the rich and equally distributed with every birth?"

              Ahahahaha....

              I must question how you can say without hesitation what I think about. You don't know me do you?

              See how easy it is?

              No--but I think the cost of living should not be based on company profits! How much is ever enough???
              Last week, I was talking to my baby-sitter and she said "I'm blowing fans all over the place, using AC..I don't care." I said, "I owed $178.00, and the electric company was threatening to shut me off." She said, "Just tell them you'll pay them half. I knew someone who owed $3,000 and told them she couldn't pay, and they said pay half and we're fine." I said, "Wow--they gave her that great deal?" and she said, "NO, THAT"S HOW MUCH THEY WERE RIPPING HER OFF!" She really only owed $1,500, they just wanted 3,000....

              Who's to say if she's wrong? All I know is this: my town, yesterday I payed $2.82 for gas.....went to a town 30 miles up, and saw signs for gas at $2.67.......what the f?

              Business NEEDS regulating! Banks NEED regulating!

              Or, as Mike says, get rid of the FED. Let Congress do it, like it says in the Constitution...just like that whole declaring war idea....isn't it supposed to be Congress, and not a Unitary Executive?

              BTW, did Fox or Beckles ever question the Bush/Cheney administration on that????? NO?
              I'm shocked.

    9. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      Hmmm, well damm!!
      Maybe you hit on something....because Martin Luther King's goal at the end of his life was seeing the REAL culprit, and working on a Poor People's Campaign.
      Beck twists it around and uses MLK anniversary as a way of promoting HIS agenda....which imo is more wealth for the wealthy.

      Shirley Sherrod...the real story is she finally realized that the biggest culprit was poverty...no matter what color.
      She is "got" by right-wing operative Blackheart Breitbart.

      Maybe the real warfare is hidden behind race warfare...maybe the real warfare IS class warfare!!


      Rich wanting to keep it all....
      Using black vs white to divide us.

      Just a thought.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Rich don't want to keep anything!!

        There's NO WAY you could convince me that Bill Gates is gathering up money just for the sake of having money... or that he gets his money, and then buys everything he can with it JUST so that he can have it and no one else can!! MWA AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

        no.

        That's completely wrong. No way. Bill Gates (i'm using him as an example cuz he's like, THE, definition of wealthy) got rich because he gave me a product that I valued MORE than the price he charged me. AND IN THE PROCESS, I BECAME WEALTHIER!!!

        He was able to make computers so streamlined that there's NO way ANYONE could ever argue that he doesn't deserve his wealth!! He worked his tail off and gave us all a better world!! Now he's investing his money, donating his money, and just buying stuff he likes.

        He ISN'T just sitting at home thinking "mwahahahahahah I have the money!! NO one else does!!! YAYAYAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!"

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you actually knew anything about the history of Microsoft and the lawsuits that people brought against them over intellectual property, you might think differently.

          Obviously you know very little, because you think I'm using his products.  I'm not.

          But please, remain ignorant.  Worship your capitalist heros. 

          By the way, I'm not a socialist.    I just want to see restraints on corporations and a return to high taxes on high income.  Of course you can't tell the difference between a socialist and a liberal, so I'll remain that in your mind.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Microsoft NEVER had a monopoly, no matter what my idiotic government had to say about it.

            Apple, macintosh, and so many others were competing against him. And not to mention that ANYONE could have simply started up their own company and began competing with him.

            THere was no monopoly, no matter what your Government Overlords told you.

            1. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I love the Microsoft monopoly conspiracy theory.  One has to wonder why, if Microsoft held such a deathgrip on the industry, that things like Firefox and Open Office ever got off the ground.  Look at Google.  If there's an MS killer out there it's Google.  Who benefits from the MS and Big G rivalry?  The users.  It's about impossible to get a Progressive to believe that, however.  Must be some sort of developmental disability.

        2. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You have to think of the big picture, not just Gates.

          And remember the great philosopher Balzac: "Behind every great fortune is a crime."

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            some guy with a naughty name said something? and so it must be true?

    10. leeberttea profile image60
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago

      Maybe you should see exactly what Gates is doing with his money.

      http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

      Look at Warren Buffet while you're at it. He is giving away all his money upon his death.

      The rich do more than the government to help the poor and conservatives contribute greater to charities than liberals.

    11. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      That's an interesting concept that I never considered before..though such an obvious one!

      Once the tax rates on the wealthy fell, so did the standard of life in America...except for the very rich. And the gap has just grown and grown...until now, my kids who are in their twenties don't have a SHOT at what my parents and even I to an extent had.....do not own homes, cars, no "job for life", no social security for them so they say, even though they have to pay into it....no security whatsoever!

      Meanwhile, the upper class has shrunk to some very few owning a whole lot.

      It's assbackwards.

      And it's time to make it right...which means going left!!

      When did greed become the value of this country?
      People say it was the sixties generation....but I hate to say it...it's the greedy geezers in my book....I see them all the time...people who are so comfortable...have had it comfortable and expect to be comfortable til they die...even if it means taking from future generations.....who are living on the edge of no return.

      Just my take.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        greed is quite possibly the best thing to happen to humans since we noticed that a rock could be used to cut something.

        There is no such thing as the haves vs have-nots (when it comes to free-markets, that is... when we talk about government, there are!)

        there isn't a total amount of wealth (TAW) in the world!! Thus TAW/population does NOT equal what everyone should have.

        wealth is created through trade, and usually (usually, mind you) the wealthy are people creating things that others want.

    12. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      well welll....look at this ; should have known.

      "Turns out Van Jones' name was added to a website without his permission, a fact the group finally admitted some time after he resigned. And maybe he said some things about the Republican Party that he shouldn't have -- but that has nothing to do with the fact that he is a brilliant environmental organizer."
      Smeared out of a job by your faithful bully-dog and resident new MLK..the Beckster himself...what was that? Free speech you say??? bwahahaha

      "It also turns out that it was the Bush Administration who decided not to prosecute the case against the black panthers because as Bush's Assistant Attorney General Perez testified, "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statues, and under the Obama Administration Justice Department a judgment was won in a civil case."

      More bwahahaha.....NOW let's hear it!!!

      The Bush administration were Black Racists!!!


      Oh   My   GOD...you cannot make this stuff up!!

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        True. And Van Jones, amazingly to me, in an NPR interview this morning praised Glenn Beck for not jumping on the crucify Ms. Sherrod bandwagon. He went on to characterize the false and exaggerated claims in the blogosphere and the media as attacks on American democracy. And he made a plea for greater truth and accuracy to replace false attacks from all sides. He responded to a question about whether the liberals/progressives should fight fire with fire to the effect that they should not but rather stick to the truth.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Everything I've seen and read from Van is great.  He's got a lot of integrity and good ideas about how to make change.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I agree. He came across in the interview very positively. And he must have a sense of fairness in order to praise Beck for backing away from the attempted crucifixion of Ms. Sherrod.

      2. Arthur Fontes profile image90
        Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What is an Environmental Organizer?   And can you name ONE that was not brilliant?

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          An environmental organizer:  someone who organizes citizen action against environmental destruction.  Similar to a Union organizer or a community organizer).

          Name one who's not brilliant:  me.

    13. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      Yeah, trying to have a smart, decent, CALM administration is an impossibility with the loons on the attack.

      No wonder Beckles had to smear him....it would have made President Obama look good to have Jones there...and would have been a great start to the green movement...which of course, would  not be good for Big Oil.... God, the cry-babies these goonatics are!

      I also saw that an Obama spokesman says he thinks Elizabeth Warren would be great for the consumer protection agency....

      She's next on the hit list.

      Republican Mantra:
      "Hey! Got somebody smart and foreward thinking? Someone who cares about the people and future of this country??
      Get em Outta there!!! We want to go backwards. We want to be back in."  "We want the world and we want it now"....(Jim Morrison)

      "Hate, like moulten lead
      Drips from the wounded country...
      They call it Neo-Con"

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I hope Elizabeth Warren gets the job. It was her idea. And, if memory serves, she once was a Republican.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        dang it, I was all excited when i saw you say that you were interested in Libertarianism earlier in another post.

        I guess I haven't been able to show you the light!

        Here's the first most important thing to realize, that's still pertinent to this conversation: the left and the right are the same thing - they both want to use government to get re-elected, even though this is bad for you.

     
    working