Why does he hate America?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/20 … s-UPDATED-
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
Jack Nicholson once said..."truth, you want the truth, you can't handle the truth!?"
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.
And the New Black Panther Party is not? I seem to remember some statement about " Kill some Crackers ! "
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?
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 !
Yes I did I just did not give you the answer you wanted.
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?
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
No but I have seen them outside of polling booths intimidating voters. You got any info on Glenn Beck doing that?
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.
Right Winger going postal? History cannot provide instances of left wingers going postal ? or is that just for the right wingers?
Uhmmm weather underground, what about environmental groups that blow up suv's at dealerships? You have "right wingers" intimidating voters or not?
Maybe some left winger can hang himself and we can get the media to blame it on Beck fans, that would be fun huh!
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.
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.
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?
I think the point here is that one is as bad as the other, not who gets the highest score.
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.
Why can't they promote outright lies?
You keep using the word "lies" over and over without specifying the alleged lies.
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.
HEY!!! There are U.S. Soldiers deployed in various global locations fighting for our right as U.S. citizens to be wrong... and HATE!!!!
Another lefty conspiracy to dammage the character of those who disagree with them. The only goal is to stifle our freedom of speach. Typical.
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.
???Another lefty conspiracy???
What was the conspiracy?
@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.
See my latest response to Jim Hunter.
And I'm sorry, but I haven't attacked anyone except Glenn Beck on this thread.
I agree with you 100%--I wish there were more like you around here...
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Financing? Ok, sure. Masterminding some communist conspiracy, as Beck seems to belieive? LOL!
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
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:
But why care about the truth, when you can just make unfounded allegations and whip people up into hysteria.
So the Daily Kos wasn't bad enough as a source so you had to pull from Hufpo? That ain't any better!
Nice of you to check out the facts presented in the article before you dismissed the source.
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.
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.
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.
What's your point? He's right, the progressives are a danger to this country.
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.
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.
Again, what was the context in which that was said? Or are you also a believer in Sherroding the right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yet you don't seem to think there is a supreme being. At any rate we'll see what's what when we die. Either there is something more or there is not. Even if there is not, our only legacy will be what we leave behind after we're gone. Personally I'd rather have a good legacy than an evil one.
Which is an interesting supposition in its own right. If there is no supreme being, should we bother to be civil to one another? Hmmmm.
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/
"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.
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?
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.
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?
Are you opposed to scrolling down?
The articles author appears to be quite inept about research.
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?
Unlike you and the author of this crap article I don't assume anything.
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.
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.
Oh really? Show me where I asked for anything?
Tides Foundation is just another one of George Soros propaganda machine.
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.
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?
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.
Tony - maybe we can continue this conversation later - get to work.
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?
Am I to infer that you are trying to get people to commit violent acts against Glen Beck or fox news?
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?
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?
"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.
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?
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...
What do you think my agenda is?
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.
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.
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.
I'm always happy to see that you sound every bit as logical as you look.
We can't help lying, Jim. We are Liberals. We have to compete with the Absolute Truth as presented by Fox and Friends. What choice do we have? We can't agree with you and we have no intelligence to argue, so of course we have to lie.
Have some pity, will you? I can't compete with your intellect. No liberal can. Plus you have Sab and Flightkeeper and Brenda.. We are just overwhelmed.
It's all too much, and it's my poker night. Have fun while I am gone.
I do notice that only the liberals seem so concerned with keeping lists of those who hold different opinions from themselves. Why is that?
Possibly because those lists are short and easy to remember?
You'd need a long page to list all the liberals, wouldn't you?
And funny how so many of you never write anything. Or can be identified as real people. Funny, that.
It would be hard to diminish the credibility of Beck and Fox below zero where it currently is among sentient Americans.
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.
LOL and you probably voted for Bush?
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.
I have done a little research on Beck, and written a hub about him. I see no reason to like him, or to excuse his race baiting, historical distortions, and inflammatory rhetoric.
The man is dangerous - and he has a huge media empire backing him. You think, if he was really a threat to people in power, that he'd have syndicated radio show, a TV program, and a ton of best selling books? Really?
I don't think anything about Beck.
He is of no interest or concern to me.
I just think that anyone who posts a link to a blogger who cannot tell the truth is not really making his case.
The daily kos is a rag, a liberal lying rag.
I consider Barack Obama to be dangerous,I consider those who follow him blindly to be even more dangerous than glen beck.
You seem to be one of those blind followers.
I could be wrong.
Then why did you leap to his defense so quickly?
It wasn't to his defense.
It was exposing more liberal lies that I jumped at.
Do you have anything of substance or are you just parroting what the left is saying.
OK - the facts:
The shooter wanted to start a revolution and kill liberals:
"After he was wounded and taken to Highland Hospital in Oakland, Williams told investigators "his intention was to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU," Oakland police Sgt. Michael Weisenberg wrote in a court affidavit."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … 1EHB37.DTL
Where did he get the idea that a revolution was needed?
"Williams watched the news on television and was upset by "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items," his mother said."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … z0uRF52PPc
and some nice facts, with supporting links, from the DailyKos blogger:
[Glenn Beck has] mentioned the Tides Foundation several times on his show, and ominously links them to ACORN and the Weather Underground. This transcript is from about a year ago:
"BECK: The Apollo Alliance — OK. Oh look: It's ACORN. ACORN founder Wade Rathke is former chairman of Tides Center. That's weird: Rathke was on the Tides board. ACORN, Tides, Apollo, Van Jones, Jeff Jones, Weather Underground — uh-oh.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ACORN, SEIU, Tides — all of those connections alone and seeing how they are all intertwined and related are eye opening. But, when you combine that with what they are being mobilized to work for, it's frightening — unless you love France."
Not recent enough? Beck brought up the Tides Foundation just last week, on Wednesday, July 14th.
"BECK: Well, they have the education system. They have the media. They have the capitalist system. What do you think the Tides Foundation was? They infiltrate and they saw under Ronald Reagan that capitalists were not for all of this nonsense, so they infiltrated.
Now, they are using failing capitalism to destroy it. They're using the churches through social justice. The media — do I have to explain that one? This is what progressives and all power-seekers do. They find something vulnerable. They latch on to it. They exploit it for power."
Links to those transcripts here:
So - Glenn Beck describes shadowy liberal conspiracies, "dangerous", "frightening" conspiracies.
He compares Obama to Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and says he hates white people. He has talked about death camps to be used on the American public. He uses revolutionary and inflammatory rhetoric.
And he does this on Fox News, every night, and writes books, and has a radio show. Millions of people every day are exposed to his nuttery - some of whom are armed, very dangerous, and don't have anything better to do than go kill some folks.
I think it's fair to say that Glenn Beck is at least partly responsible for this gentleman's actions.
So much proof.
The problem with all of this is you never said that Beck was partly to blame you blamed him solely, you and the lying author of the BLOG that you think is proof of something.
Now you are just grasping at anything to make this thread somehow relevant.
Want to know who is responsible for the bad guys actions?
The bad guy.
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.
"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?
Dense as usual... did I incite murder in this thread?
I know. It Is so frustrating that they cannot even READ.
Who said that you had?
And thanks for the insult.
Its really all they have.
Are you a real person?
You're welcome sweetie. Now go back and reread what I wrote, and what you wrote in reply.
Does that question tell you all you need to know about this guy, William?
You have to read the very first post of this thread to get the point of his question, I reckon.
If things are not spoonfed to the libs they are lost.
I read the entire thread, Sab! I think the connection with Beck's statements is entirely possible. Do you have a more likely source for the gunner's anger at Tide?
Ok, now you've change the subject again but...
Does this bring us back to throwing away the 1st Amendment? Or censorship? Or "the video game/song/movie made me do it defense?
Of course not! I do not like the "Becks" from either party. At one time news shows were held to higher standards than they are today. I am astonished at the way the Sherrod incident was handled by several of the so-called news outlets. A sad state of affairs!
Ooooo, I remember that one! When Ice T made the song Cop Killer, how everybody was up in arms! Even Pres Bush 1 got into the mix.
Remember, they said the song was inciting people to go out and kill cops!!! Well now, isn't that interesting!...
So, a song can be blamed for inciting violent behavior, but a tv show and radio show cannot!!!
And I do believe that is what started the labeling of record albums...parental advisory....
hmmm, no worries about 1st amendment then huh?
Cause after all, as William said...some people are more equal than others.
....how very interesting!
"And I do believe that is what started the labeling of record albums...parental advisory...."
And you would be wrong.
"hmmm, no worries about 1st amendment then huh?"
Tipper Gore certainly likes censoring.
Oh yes, I remember!!!
VP Quayle on tv railing against rappers!!!
"They do not have the right to YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED ROOM!!!
omg....you bunch of hypocrits!!!
All Fox does is yell fire. smear. lie. call for insurrection. call for dis-respec. call for hatred hatred hatred.
And none of you minded when Bush and Quayle were out there trying to shut people up were you?
And Tipper Gore yes....big difference though, she was not going out and inciting herself, like these Fox people now are.
She has more a right to complain since she's not doing it herself.
You tighty righty's on the other hand, have a lot of splainin to do!!!
"Remember, they said the song was inciting people to go out and kill cops!!! Well now, isn't that interesting!...
So, a song can be blamed for inciting violent behavior, but a tv show and radio show cannot!!!"
Well? Which is it?
You tell me!
Was O'Reilly responsible for his constant use of "Tiller the Baby Killer" on tv every night, on his radio show every day....and Tiller gets shot by a fanatic anti-abortioner. WHO, btw, watched Fox!
Same as this guy in Williams post....he listens to Beck, arms up to kill liberals....Beck to blame for inciting??
Ice T and the rappers sure were!
.....By these same people who are now crying 1st amendment rights!
OHHH, they are SUCH hypocrits!!!
You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.
Of course you do.
But its entirely likely that Beck wasn't the cause.
If you have read the article then you know that the author simply lied to create the connection.
You know, made stuff up.
it doesn't matter! even if the gunman yelled "I DO THIS FOR GLEN BECK!!" right before he blew away an infants brain - that doesn't make Glenn AT ALL responsible.
If we could make him responsible, then I would run out and start murdering people and then yelling out things like " I DO THIS FOR DOUG HUGHES!!" or "I DO THIS FOR RALPH DEEDS!!" or "I DO THIS FOR WILLIAM R. WILSON!!!!"
then they'd go to jail with me.
The arguments are COMPLETELY devoid of substance.
So why the big hullabaloo over rap lyrics???
Enough so that BOTH president Bush1 and VP Quayle egg condemned the record companies?
And Clinton did too,later, with Sister Soulja....
Why are rappers lambasted for their speech?
so your argument is that "because government gets all riled up once, it's appropriate all the time there after" ? that's not a very good argument. If that were true, then people living in Germany would really have to be on the look out for new Hitlers who say "well, we murdered jews during WWII, why can't we continue with it!"
Rap music just rap music - it's amazing that the federal government gets involved with this crap. They over reached their authority (i'll point you to the 10th Amendment) and now you're demanding precedence on a power that congress and the president never had to begin with.
Since William asked it of someone does that tell us all we need to know about him?
You have a hard time with following threads.
I did read the thread, Jim! While the reasons for the gunner's anger are not entirely know yet, the Beck statements concerning Tide's activities seem to be the most logical answer for his actions. Not saying it was for sure, but at this point the most logical.
If we find out he was a loyal "Foxhead" it will be even more suspect. The link furnished by William is not proof of this fact, but it does have some Beck quotes which might influence weak minds to actually believe him.
And if by "following threads" you mean taking you or Sab seriously at all, you are correct.
I wouldn't expect you to take anyone serious.
And yet you still respond to us.
Cant help yourself.
You are a liberal you always know whats best for others.
You will ignore evidence to the contrary, its what liberals do.
You are wrong as usual, Jim. I voted independent most of my life but realized after the first Bush I had to make my vote count for something. The much lesser of two evils it turned out to be too!
The Iraq War sealed the deal for me with its many humiliating acts of greed and corruption along with us torturing those who never attacked us to begin with. And Fox News was there with a raised terror alert every time Dumbya or his minions did something crooked or stupid or when a liberal did something good. Coincidence? Yeah right!
You never said who you voted for last presidential election? You said you didn't vote for Bush. Did you vote McCain?
You are denying the liberal title?
Its none of your business who I voted for.
I can tell you it wasn't Obama or McCain.
I like my Country too much to have it entrusted to either one of those inept fools.
Does that narrow it down for you?
Quite a bit! It means you are afraid to say because you wasted your vote. Which happens to be very convenient for you because no matter who won, you can rant against them with no chance at blame for your own personal decision.
I've met many of your ilk on the forums and you are certainly not alone here. Libertarians love to do the same thing, mainly because they are afraid to commit to one side, or else their fear of being on the losing side frightens them to much.
They are found out fairly quickly though, even if they are fearful of identifying themselves. There are also other signs which give them away, but that is another story!
I didn't throw my vote away.
My vote went to who I thought would do the best job.
I'm not afraid to say.
Its just none of your business.
You can vote for same ol same ol all you want. and you get same ol same ol.
Real courageous Randy.
What did your vote accomplish, Jim? Did you have any doubt as to what impact your vote would have? Unless you voted for McCain or Obama, you did waste your vote!
Please don't tell me you really believed a third party candidate could win the last election. If you didn't believe it, you voted knowing your vote would not affect the election outcome in the least. LOL!
Therefore, your opinions on things both liberal and conservative are tainted more than usual. At least TM, Flit, and I'm not sure about Sab, admit to their choices and I can respect them for that, if nothing else! Doh!
You may want to discuss politics with MikeNV! You may have some things in common!
Once again your logic is warped.
I voted for the person I thought was better for the job.
Thats not a wasted vote.
Using your logic any vote for McCain was a wasted vote because he did not win.
I don't want or need your respect, you have an overblown perception of your importance.
Please keep responding to the one not worthy of your time.
I would laugh if it weren't so pathetic.
Like your logic, even your laugh would be pathetic, if you want to take the insult route.
And who cares how you voted now, after all, you have very little in common with most of the posters here, nor with any of the writers either. You can't seem to commit yourself to anything at all here except to being critical. And you're not too good at that either! LOL!
I don't know, Who cares?
Oh yeah, you did.
For some reason you feel entitled to peoples private business.
And you claim you aren't a liberal.
I like and dislike facets of both parties. I'm an avid hunter so I own many guns. Does this sound like a liberal to you?
And no Jim, I do not care to know your private business, your public personae is enough for me. Just knowing you wasted your vote is so doggone funny to me. Thanks!
What makes you sound like a liberal is every position you take.
I wasn't aware that liberals didn't hunt.
I'm sure not every conservative hunts or even owns a gun.
Your evaluations need some tweaking.
Sure, mine may need tweaking but yours are unsupported by your vote!
I guess that made sense to you.
Well Randy I really don't see much use in explaining my vote was one of integrity.
To you there are only two parties.
Dumb and Dumber.
To me changing that predictable political landscape is important.
You making sure you vote the party line is important.
Keep following blindly and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Now pull out your shootin iron and kill something. I hunt so I can't be a liberal, brilliant.
Once again you read words and fail to understand them. What good did your vote do? Did it make the slightest difference in the outcome?
Nowhere did I state that owning guns or hunting prevented me from being a liberal. It was clearly intended to show my lack of total support for either party. If you fail to grasp this simplest example then too bad. You wasted your vote, get over it!
Actually most political scientists and historians believe that our country has been well-served by having, until recently, two relatively moderate political parties. Our system avoided the pitfalls in a system with two polarized parties, one conservative and another socialist as was the case in the UK for many years. The UK system tended to cause the country to lurch from left to right depending on which party was in power. In the U.S. more gradual political and economic change fostered steady productivity and real income growth. More recently our political scene has been muddled by the Tea Party movement which has stirred up the country's ignorant rabble to lash out blindly at the government and both traditional political parties.
Paul Krugman's column this morning is instructive on the Republican Party's response to the current situation--
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/opini … ef=opinion
You see, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The left is nothing if not arrogant in their view that those that disagree with them or oppose them are "ignorant rabble".
Go back and view the poll data on the Tea Party and I think you'll see your assumptions are quite incorrect.
And please read something else beside the NYT and Krugman!
I read a whole lot besides Krugman. The Tea Party and the GOP's reaction to it may well be destroying what has been a successful constitutional democracy and free enterprise system. No one can predict what will emerge from the current turmoil.
Of course! The left knows what's right and what's best and the right is "irrational" and as Cass Sunstein says has to be "nudged" into rationality!
Yes so let's not report that facts let's leave out the truth we don't want to confuse the irrational right into making an informed decision.
Ignorant rabble? I don't know about where you live, but where I'm from, the Tea Pary members are FAR from "ignorant rabble"...
I'm amazed by this attitude, and completely taken aback by the gall of some of you to judge others so harshly, just because they don't agree with your politics. It's ludicrous.
This is exactly the problem with Obama and the democrats because they all have that attitude. They simply believe those on the right are too stupid to know what's best. They continually point to what they "inherited" as evidence to support their arrogant intellectual attitude. The result is an extremely partisian government where all their legislation is shoved down the throats of America. There is no compromise with the right, no negotiation, but plenty of blame that it's the republicians fault when bills are stalled by their own party!
Now with the passage of their legislation they continue to talk about what they inherited even as the econoomy continues to falter unemployment is rising foreclosures incrreasing and Bernake has warned the economy is "unusually uncertain".
Yet this administration will not take responsibility for our economic woes for wasted stimulus spening that has failed and for their other failed policies that have done nothing to improve the situation for Americans and likely have exacerbated the problems! But what do I know, I'm just part of the "ignorant rabble"!
Why on earth would I assume that the Tea Party, and the American Right in general, are rational?
The company you keep says a lot about you. Sarah Palin couldnt' name one single news source she read to keep current on national and world events. A significant number of right wingers/tea partiers believe in one or more of the following:
*shadowy conspiracies run by George Soros
*Obama is a Muslim plant
*Obama is not an American citizen
*Obama hates white people
Glenn Beck lies constantly, as do all the folks on FAUX News. Tea partiers show up armed at their rallies. White, right wing gunmen go on rampages every few months or so.
The head of the Tea Party express writes a racist blog making fun of "coloreds" who he says are too lazy to work and thus don't want to be released from slavery.
Sorry dude, the supposed liberal media isn't smearing the Tea Party - they are doing a fine job of it all by themselves.
That might be so if anything you wrote was factual.
I'll ask you have you ever watched any of Becks shows in their entirety? How many?
It's typical of the left and people like yourself, to pick a couple of examples of the fringe right and project their beliefs (or what their reported beliefs are according to the left wing radical blogs you use as a source) on a whole group.
I'll say it again, you're entitled to your beliefs and your opinions, but because they are aligned with those on the left doesn't make them fact, or even correct.
I don't watch TV, so I have only watched snippets of Beck, Hannity, etc. Likewise I don't watch Olbermann, Maddow, or others.
I have, however, read full transcripts of the Beck show. It's easier for me to do that than suffer through all the idiocy and commercials.
HAHAHA! Sarah Palin is a fringe right winger? The head of the Tea Party Express is fringe? LOL!
As for whether what I wrote is factual - research some of my claims for yourself.
All lies you just wrote. Except for the Palin part
So someone resigned there post after a racist rant.
However that is about the only true thing you wrote.
Except the Palin thing.
And she isn't an office holder so who cares?
So we go from "all lies except for Palin" to "all lies except for Palin and this other thing".
So um.. not really all lies hmm? I mean, I could keep going trying to prove my point but I kind of feel like I'm wasting my time with some people here......
And the Tea Party disavowed that guy Immediately William. But nice try though !
I have the same problem with your side, who thinks they have the right to ruin a presidency that I and many other Americans voted for!
Especially after SUFFERING the 8 years of YOUR choice.
We wanted Obama, and you have done nothing but obstruct, smear, show viloence towards, YES--white supremacy!, denegrate, look down on, have an uppity attitude as if Liberal was a word that smelled like sh*t on your shoes.
You tear down and malign, not only president Obama, but all your fellow Americans who wanted to give him a chance.
Get out of here with the "liberals think they're better" crap.
It's the other way around. You don't think anyone other than your side has the right to govern. IMO
The republicians have been incapable of obstructing anything! Like you said the democrats have control fillibuster proof control of both houses of congress and the executive office, that can pass (and have) anything they want without the republicians. They only want republican support to give them cover because they know without it they will have to shoulder all the blame for the mess they have created. Fail 1.
Where is this violence towards Obama? The only violence I've seen is from the left throwing eggs, manning polling stations with batons, beating a black vendor selling products at a tea party rally etc. Fail 2
Liberals don't thinkthey're better? Listen to Bill Mahr talk about how the American people are stupid and have to be dragged to it regarding health care. Or Obama saying the MA cops acted stupidly etc. Fail 3
Terror alert levels were/are set by the Dept. of Homeland Security, not any one cable news network.
That makes a big difference to you? Fox continued to display the terror alert level long after the other news networks caught on to the use of it as a propaganda tool by the admin. You never noticed this? Did you watch Fox News during this period?
There is plenty of info about the misuse of the system if you care to look and Fox was a willing participant.
"after all, you have very little in common with most of the posters here, nor with any of the writers either."
And what is that little appeal to popularity supposed to mean?
"That makes a big difference to you? "
It makes a big difference in discrediting your implied accusation.
"Where did you read "appeal to popularity"?"
Right there in your post.
Not between the lines, right there in the lines themselves.
As you see it, Sab? LOL! The opinion of someone afraid to speak under their real name means so much to me! Bok Bok Bok!
Oh, now I remember your excuse for not using your real name on here! You were afraid someone would sneak up and sucker punch you sometime. If I'm mistaken about that being your response, please correct me. I don't want to smear your rep! Doh!
Please don't reveal more about yourself than is appropriate.
"The author lied."
???I didn't notice any lies in the article.
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?
And I do sincerely apologize but I have to go to work right now.
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 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."
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.
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!!!
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.
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!!!
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!
He's an acolyte of Gordon Gecko and Ayn Rand.
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!!!
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!
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!
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!
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????
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.
I doubt it.
People get so upset over people on the radio.
Would you listen to advice from Charlie Sheen? He's on TV.
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!
Ask the people on this site who quote Glenn Beck.
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.
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!
''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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
What Evan said and your statement are completely unrelated.
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?
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)
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.
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?
I agree, it's impossible to pin these incidents on free-speech...
... but that won't stop the judges!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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."
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?
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!
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
You know, I never thought of that....I wish EVERYBODY would denounce the lies.
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... ...
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.
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.
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 $7 million to Ron Paul's campaign for presidency on Dec. 16th 2007 - i know because I donated money for my birthday present (born on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, thank ya very much!)
Ron Paul isn't the leader, either. He's just the one that got the public riled up. And, heck, he isn't even the one that actually organized the damn thing - it was some kid out in California!
But that "kid out in California" is eXACTly what this "Tea Party" is all about - individuals banding together, refusing to be told what to do, and speaking out for themselves against tyranny.
... at least that's what it WAS...
What short memories some people have!
The very fact that such people as Beck, Palin, tea partiers, bloggers, et al are able to so publicly criticize our president without reprisal is proof the First Amendment lives.
Seems like only yesterday the Bush Administration denounced ANYONE who dared speak out or disagree with their policies or actions. Don't like the Iraq War? Shame on you... shut the f$*%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.
"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.
Bush Admin Outsourced IRS Jobs, then Denied Protesting Workers a Rally Permit
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
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'
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
It gets fuzzy inside the Capitol sometimes!
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.
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.
Were you aware of who Obamas biggest contributor was ? Goldman Sachs !
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!!!
"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.
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.
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.
Bush's tax cuts helped me and I'm nowhere near wealthy.
Tax increases don't help anyone or the economy.
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.
Bush's tax cuts helped me - so did Obama's.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Thanks. I disagree. It's about who's the best public speaker or biggest celebrity, not who has the best policies that gets elected. All of them are dirty and overpaid. Most are also horrible role models to lead a society.
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"
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.
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.
And you would have to agree that Beckles and O'Reilly are just as responsible as Ice T!!!
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey Elayne, I don't watch him at all. I have been saying for the last 10 months I have been here.
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?
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.
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.
We see you... all of you.
I like how this is all about race for you, TM.
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.
Go back to the fifties where you belong.
We see you...
We know your plan...
http://www.archive.org/stream/YouDontNe … 0/mode/2up
Do you think he might be parodying McCarthy? Or does he actually believe the crap he puts out?
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
"So keep it up... keep spewing your anti-America racist BS. We will all be watching you."
See my point?
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.
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
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.
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.
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???
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who are "they"? What "facts" and rationality are you referring to?
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPH … re=related
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.
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 is right. Lot's of blame to go around.
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.
One quick point for now - Glass Steagal repeal was done by Republicans in the Senate, not by Clinton. More later.
I know - but he didn't repeal it. He could have vetoed it, but then he would have been "playing politics", "obstructionist", etc. Point is, it was Republicans, trying to cut the size of government by repealing the Glass Steagall Act - and look where that got us.
Like I said Clinton signed it inito law, and it had to have some democrat support in congress. The republicians didn't have fillibuster proof majority. Your attempts to explain it away as playing politics is disingenuous.
No, my point is, it was Republicans, following the Republican credo of small government, who repealed Glass Steagall. See where that got us?
You chose to blame the republicians but Clinto could have vetoed the bill and congressional democrats could have prevented an override, but they didn't. So there was bipartisian support for repeal of the bill, unlike this presidencey which passes bills in the most partisian of all manner.
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)
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!!
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.
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!!!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not hindered by the government at all. I pay some taxes, but what I get for it is a bargain.
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.
Fire departments, public transportation, garbage pickup, street cleaning, police, courts, road maintenance, ambulances... yeah, what a burden!
Did I say fire departments or the police were a burden? I admitted there are legitimate and beneficial functions that only government can provide, that doesn't mean that everything government does is good or isn't abused. You use the courts as a benefit, a perfect example of a tool that the government uses for it's own purpose and to justify it's existence and it's growth. Continually passing new laws that do nothing to promote freedom and everything to sustain and grow itself.
Public transportation is another joke. It's never where you need it, it never makes a profit, it's often late, dirty and unsafe, plagued by crime and corruption. NY's MTA is a perfect example!
And I never said that the government is always beneficient. There is plenty of corruption in government, and plenty more in the private sector - and where the two combine, lord help us.
But... don't discount the benefits that you got, de facto, simply by being born white in America - many of which were provided to you by the government, as I've pointed out.
The trick is to keep the good stuff and get rid of the bad. That's all. The right wing caricature of Liberals who want to control every aspect of your life is ridiculous. Admit that government does good and I'll admit that the government wastes.
I'll admit that there is waste right now.
But it doesn't amount to much.
Oh, yeah, you can always find the gold plated screwdriver story, though they always forget to ask WHY it needed to be gold plated - sometimes there really was a good reason.
And then there is that "crazy scientist" studying the sex life of some obscure insect who gets a grant - except the story forgets to mention that the insect is an important pollinator.
Or the welfare cheat. One good cheat is always a good reason to screw thousands of needy people out of any help at all.
There is ALWAYS waste. I have waste in my household, in my business. Some of it can be avoided and some of it cannot.
Waste and corruption should be looked at. Fraud should be punished and savings should be investigated. But it is utter nonsense to think that "rooting out waste" will significantly change anything. Just more right wing nonsense.
And funny how a welfare cheat, who might pull in a couple hundred dollars a week, is somehow worse than a rich tax cheat who can steal hundreds of thousands of dollars by paying accoutants and lawyers to do some funny business.
Class warfare is alive and well in America. The poor are shiftless and lazy, while the rich criminals are just hard working folks like you and me.
nope, my parents taught me. In their free time. And then they gave me books that I wanted to read (calvin and hobbes).
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.
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.
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.
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. :-)
And Fox only started questioning "those in power" when Obama came into power.
not truth-seekers. just partisan hacks.
"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???
And YOU are anti-abortion, so you are NOT for freedom.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I guess you've never tried to get by on minimum wage then.
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.
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.
Right so what are you suggesting, that the guy making 120,000 give the guy making 12,000 48,000 dollars so that they are all equal?
No. I am saying that those who can afford to pay more in taxes should do so, and those who cannot afford it should pay less.
Very simple. The guy who makes 150,000 and pays 30,000 will still be able to feed his family and give his kids many advantages that the guy making 12,000 will not.
Says who? You? The government? You don't know what his bill are so who are you to say what he can afford? This is the slippery slope of the left who would like us all to wear the same clothes drive the same car, and live in the same 200 sq foot house. The left doesn't care about promoting prosperity what they ant is to make everyone equally miserable! That's why the left will never succeed in thsi country. Any free thinker will see the folly of their philosophy!
Actually, we HAVE succeeded. And we will continue to do so, because most people are smart enough to see right through the kind of nonsense you spout.
You can fool some of the people some of the time but...
2010 is going to change everything as will 2012.
It could. Mob rule has succeeded now and then.
But I don't think so. First, I don't think you'll be nearly as successful as you think you will be and secondly I think where you are successful you'll often end up electing Scott Browns who will turn against your rabid ignorance and vote intelligently.
But if I'm wrong, the country will realize its mistake quickly and your politics will be nothing but sad memories soon enough.
LOL well if his bills exceed his income at 150,000 a year, perhaps he should practice some personal responsibility?
You sure like to go off on mad imaginings about what the left wants. Maybe you should turn off the Glenn Beck and what not?
What we suggest is that the guy doing well fork over enough so that every person in this country can get decent health care and a decent education. We'd like to see him fork over enough so we all have decent roads to drive on, so that we don't have to put mentally ill people out on the streets.
I know of no liberals who want to make everyone equal. There may be some, just as there are some right wing nuts who want to make us into Jesus Nation. But most of us just want an orderly, fair and JUST society. A society with compassion. A society of justice.
So how much is enough and who is to decide? Why can't we all pay 15% and be done with it? Seems perfectly fair to me.
No, it is not.
Where are the ultra rich getting their wealth? They stole it from the middle class. They stole it in the stock market, in banks and in voting themselves tax breaks. We need to take it back and do good things with it.
They stole it? The rich stole it? They didn't earn it by risking their money in stocks? They didn't earn it by starting a business and selling us products that we wanted and even hungered for? You sound bitter, envious, and you want to punish the rich for their success.
The rich voted for tax breaks for themselves? Really? That was your government, you know the one that created this complicated tax code, a code that actually is the reason for their power and corruption and the reason why they refuse to change it and make it fair, like a flat tax for example. Under such a system what would lobyists lobby for?
Yes, they stole it.
People like Madoff and a thousand others who never got caught. The executives of the bailed out banks. Bill Gates. All of the super wealthy. They stole it.
The SEC, you know that GOVERNMENT agency that was supposed to protect us from the likes of Maddoff was informed of his dealing ten years ago and did nothing. Our government at work!
Bill Gates stole it? Really? You shouldn't be so bitter and envious, it's un-becoming. Did Bill Gates make you buy a computer? If you hate him so much perhaps you shouldn't be buying his products.
hahahah, you must be a socialist - that's karl marx talking right there!!
"the wealthy stole their wealth from the hard working masses"!! Sounds like it's right out of one of his books!!
No - bill gates never stole a damned thing from me. He started a company that gave me an excellent product that I valued at a MUCH higher cost than he charged me. In fact, I'd say that I stole from him - I woulda paid 5k for the CPU and Operating system I'm using (i only paid 1.2k)!!!
Now, let's look at this --- EVEN IF you give me an example of some business man who got money from government, and then you say "THAT BUSINESS MAN STOLE THE MONEY", you'd be incorrect!
GOVERNMENT steals money - if you don't pay taxes, you go to jail at the point of a gun. Let's be 100% honest - if you knew no one would come to your house with a gun and arrest you, would you REALLY pay taxes?
yeah, didn't think so.
Didn't he get in trouble for monopolizing?? Somehow making there no competition with his product?? Intel inside....
Yes. And for not letting people like Dell sell any other OS.
And during the trial, the great mastermind of this giant corporation somehow couldn't remember details of conversations with important folks like Dell and Intel. Conveniently, emails had tragically been destroyed also.
He got off. But anyone who read the details knows what he really is.
WE are always right, why don't you trust US!
THEY are the ones you need to watch out for, all the trouble starts with THEM!
Sounds like a "Get Smart" Parody
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?
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.
Great point! And they didn't get all that from the government but from a country built on risk taking rich people creating prosperity!
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.
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.
You neglected to mention Harding and Nixon and a few others that come way ahead of Carter on the worst list. Most people forget that it was Carter, upon the recommendation of economist Alfred Kahn of Cornell University, who deregulated the trucking and airlines industries. I would think that the libertarians among us would at least give him credit for these significant actions. Carter also foresaw the current energy crisis and began conservation efforts as a result of the 1979 energy crisis.
According to a 2009 C-Span Survey the top ten were
4. T. Roosevelt
Carter ranked 25th before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical … ted_States
It's awesome - if you take that list and match it to "president's who got us involved with unnecessary wars", there's a striking connection (perhaps with the exception of washington and one or two more)
... I guess historians love murdering people!
That's the point,. When taxes were high, life was good. As they went down, things went south. Not directly because of that, of course, but it did not help.
I guess you missed the entire Carter Presidency.
Yeah we was a happy nation.
21% interest rates and a misery index to match.
Gotta love them high taxes.
You're telling me that You would be in favor of a 100% tax? really?
You're actually implying that you'd WILLINGLY pay your taxes if you knew that no police would EVER come to your house to collect it?
Of course not. No one would ever do that.
So I guess life would be perfect if the tax rate was 100% right?
Really your argument lacks any common sense.
"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?"
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?
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.
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!!!!
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!!!"
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.
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.
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.
You have to think of the big picture, not just Gates.
And remember the great philosopher Balzac: "Behind every great fortune is a crime."
Maybe you should see exactly what Gates is doing with his money.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
What is an Environmental Organizer? And can you name ONE that was not brilliant?
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.
"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"
I hope Elizabeth Warren gets the job. It was her idea. And, if memory serves, she once was a Republican.
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.
by Stacie L 7 years ago
Glenn Beck Losing It. Glenn Beck was a target Friday when Joe Scarborough claims he is losing it before our eyes. The “Morning Joe” host said the Fox commentator has gone “out of control” and is “bad for the conservative movement.”"I’ve been telling conservatives for about two...
by Stacie L 5 years ago
Conservative radio host Glenn Beck is at it again. Beck, known for his outrages comments on American political life, is now saying that he plans to expose what he calls a government cover-up and conspiracy involving the Boston Marathon bombings.According to Beck's website, The Blaze, a Saudi...
by Ron Montgomery 9 years ago
Glenn Beck is losing sponsors (his life blood) at a rate that threatens his future as a TV/Radio ranter.33 and counting.
by RTalloni 22 months ago
Aren't the news media, Clinton, and the president inciting more violence in the protests?The news media's coverage of the violent protests is truly criminal. After their initial shock they are angry. They are following the lead of Clinton and the president who, if they wanted a peaceful transition,...
by lady_love158 8 years ago
So is anyone here going?http://www.glennbeck.com/828/
by BJC 9 years ago
The mainstream liberal media can't handle anyone who isn't politically correct. Yes, Beck gave his opinion and that is his right. People are treating Obama like he's God, he's not.How on earth can Obama attend a church for 20 years with a racist for a pastor and either not know or...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|