This subject was brought up at Sharpton's rally...after the Federal gvt had ordered the schools in Alabam to allow black kids to attend a white school, the governor said "more blood needs to be shed", because he was a segregationist.
A few days or weeks later, that church was bombed by the KKK, killing those little girls.
I saw a clip of MLK speaking on it after it happened......he was sweating and shaky and upset. But he said "the easiest thing would be to give in to hate. We must keep our focus on Love."
Do you realize what guts that took? How would you feel if a church had been bombed,and your little girl killed? People forget this: people were killed for being black!!!! Beat up, rocks thrown at, hoses aimed at, dogs sicked at, beat with sticks for marching....In this country!!!! Now why don't you tell me how that compares with Beck and Palin's dislike for the president?
Calling HIM a racist!!! Saying HE hates white people!
uh huh...yeah, these people are good people all right.......as villians in a nightmare!
And it will be a nightmare if they get back in power. Dick Armey bussed a lot of people in....what's his beef? He wants to quadruple-dip???
Thank GOD for John Stewart!!!:
"I have a Scheme"!!!.....EXACTLY!!!
Teresa: Read all about Mormonism...that's Glenn Beck.
Oh.
I see.
So he's a sexist racist, then?
Er...that's what I meant! the Mormon bible!
Oh, I don't think it's a bible, Randy -- I've seen the book of Mormon, and it's like a high school yearbook at the back, only all the pictures are of white men.
It depends on who is reading it, Teresa! It was written by the former con man Joseph Smith with a little help from an angel named Maroni! The M at the beginning of the angel's name was just short for Mac!
A nobody Teresa. He is a fifth rate American shock jock who only has credibility with the terminally ignorant by choice set.
Ah! Ignorance by choice should be a felony, shouldn't it?
The Tea Party and TARP...
When I see the Tea Party, I see a group of people who will largely end up supporting the GOP directly or indirectly.
I also seem to remember that TARP was supported by the GOP...not only them..but still, the party now interested in "fiscal conservatism" was out making sure that Cheney's "blank check" ideas were carried over from the Pentagon to Wall Street....
The Tea Party, as a whole, (especially with the Palin/Beck faces) is, in my perspective, nonsensical.
Not only was TARP supported by repubs....Paulson actually threatened Marshall Law if it didn't get passed!!!.... as Sandra Rinck (hope I spelled that right!!) pointed out on the "what does Fox own thread", they actually voted DOWN a bill that Pelosi proposed that would have had tax-payers benefitting along with the banks. They voted it down, so now only the banks benefit.
And how can anyone in their right mind think that tax give-aways for uber wealthy is a good thing? That's not paid for either! That adds to the deficit too! And for whose benefit??? Those who already have more than god!!
BUT...it's their constituency....their "base" as Cheney said. And "we will support you."
But, there's other people in this country too, and other people in charge now. So why don't you repubs get back into your corner and FUME....
For god's sakes, you had the Congress for 12 years and the presidency for 8!!
Can't you even share a little? Are you THAT anal??? ooooops, that was a bad analogy...but that's what popped out. since it's the T P.....
LMC;
But, there's other people in this country too, and other people in charge now. So why don't you repubs get back into your corner and FUME....
For god's sakes, you had the Congress for 12 years and the presidency for 8!!
Can't you even share a little? Are you THAT anal??? ooooops, that was a bad analogy...but that's what popped out. since it's the T P.... ]]
They are that anal. Because they no longer can continue to bankrupt the country via spending like a drunken sailor they're going to make sure nothing can be fixed. Then they'll rage about nothing being fixed and scream its all 'x's' fault when all the obstruction was theirs.
And, yes, the great unwashed hordes will, again, buy into their B.S.. The Rethugs are locked into the 'terrible two's.' Look at how many believe the BS about Obama being a Muslim as well as a Communist, as well as not born in Hawaii even as the state said three times that he was.
It isn't "my political party right or wrong." It isn't about any political party. What it is is infrastructure being rebuilt. Its about getting a functional government back. Its about getting the economy back on its feet and not decimating the environment-which the 'W' administration was well known for.
Thanks to the Republicans donors can now buy their Congress Critter outright and what company owns who doesn't have to be disclosed.
A lot of the things Obama's tried to do were ideas Republicans had thought of and wanted to do in the first place. Now, because its Obama utilizing good ideas these idiots reverse themselves and work themselves into a purple rage over it. This is beyond stupid.
Yes TARP was supported by the Bush administration and the republicians. So didn't you notice how the voters treated them after that?
Obama promised change by the change hoe's selling is worse then what we had, and you will see the results of Obama's policies at the polls in November and again in 2012.
It was CREATED by them.
And yes, we see how you treat them....as if they did nothing wrong, and it was all the Democrats fault!!!
What else is new?
And your Republicans will NEVER disgrace the people ever again.
I don't know how you can say that, after all we voted them out of office, gave control of congress and the white house to the democrats! I think the message sent to the republicans was clear, we didn't like what they were doing.
Now we are going to send that same message to the democrats. The change they are giving us is NOT what we want! It seems the republicans are just the lesser of the two evils and we'll just have to find a way to get them in line, perhaps by voting out the incumbents.
It's ignorance by brain-washing and d-r-a-m-a.
And Beckle-Head makes me SICK with his "God" talk. What "God" mocks 11 year old girls?
"God" says judge not.....this clown claims to know how our president feels about white people.
The T P claims to know what his religion is, no matter what he says!
Where is the love TP?
Oh yah...that's the new phase: The Love Phase.
First, kill em with hate and rage, then come back and Looooove them...as long as they see things YOUR way, eh Beckles?
pttoooooey: go to hell Beck.
Can I just interject, A few pages back there was a discussion on which party ws hte best, or how bad each political party is.
I think the truth of the matter is that just as there is a seperation of church and state, there needs to be a seperation of commerce and state.
When it comes to the healthcare bill, the original document was actually pretty good till the republicans stripped it of it's value, and what exactly is Obama's hidden agenda which has been revealed?
That he is trying to pull America out of a long expected depression, that he is trying to bring American healthcare up to the westernized standards, or are you one of the people who believes that he is converting one of the states in to a huge concentration camp for all the white people?
Obama gets a lot of flack, but the truth of the matter is that he is doing exactly what he promised, Change, and I think that a lot of the proposals being made are incredibly sensible.
I actually heard somebody blame the continued recession on Obama last week and I nearly burst out laughing. A major reason behind the recession is mortgages ten times yearly earnings and credit cards cumulating in to trillions of dollars of false wealth. I would like some of the peple blaming both obama and bush for the recession to take a look at how they contributed to a false economy.
Lady Love....the Republicans did not lose power because of TARP...
They didn't have a real candidate for president...
Additionally....I do think that there was some real politiking going on...
Bush put up TARP....and I guarantee the GOP understood the ramifications....
I have an uncle who, in 2006, warned me and my family that the prosperity we were living in (remember, prior to the collapse of the housing bubble) was coming down...
He sold his properties here in Los Angeles, and he moved to Colorado. This man, who formerly worked on Wall Street, knew something that the rest of us didn't.....
I think the GOP has played this same game.., It was an advantage for them to not hold control of federal office right now....
Their wasted spending on two fraudulent wars....tax cuts...and other increases in government spending have destroyed our national finances...while at the same time the public clamoring that they instigated may well return them to power....
Ridiculous...
So you're a conspiracy theorist? You actually believe the rich, well the conservative rich republicans got together to rape and pillage the American economy and purposely gave up power so the democrats would get the blame for the mess they created?
That's a pretty big stretch, doncha think?
I think what you should be asking is how is it your uncle saw what was coming but the government agencies we created to protect us from such disasters didn't pick it up until the last minute?
Esy answer lady...de-regulation. laizze-faire attitude.
"You are our base and we will support you."
Do what you want....eh, who care....it's money in the bank for us.
BTW, speaking of conspiracy theories---you just reminded me......how about all those people who were warned not to fly on 9/10/01, and all those people who were told not to come into work on 9/11/01?
How about the short selling of airlines stocks day before 9/11?....seems like some people know a lot of things in advance!!!
Matter of fact, thanks to Sandra Rinck...what a durn coinkydink!!!
"The third largest one-day point drop in DJIA history, and largest at the time, occurred on September 17, 2001, the first day of trading after the September 11, 2001 attacks, when the Dow fell 684.81 points, or 7.1%. It should be noted that the Dow had been in a downward trend for virtually all of 2001 prior to Sept 11, losing well over 1000 points between Jan 2 and Sept. 10, and had lost 187.51 points on Sept. 6, followed by losing 235.4 points on Sept. 7.[13] By the end of that week, the Dow had fallen 1,369.70 points, or 14.3%. However, the Dow began an upward trend shortly after the attacks and quickly regained all lost ground to close above the 10,000 level for the year."
and:in 2008,
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks skidded Monday, with the Dow slumping nearly 778 points, in the biggest single-day point loss ever, after the House rejected the government's $700 billion bank bailout plan.'
put on your tin-foil hats...it's a bumpy ride!!!
If you want a conspiracy, have fun with this...
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
He abused his executive powers....he lied about a threat in Iraq that didn't exist...
And he eavesdropped with warrantless wiretaps on American citizens' communications without complying with the law which required approval by a judge.
he should not even be a topic. People just want someone who can direct them. Obama isn't, Palin could NEVER do it, and Beck is just a non-elected politician spouting out what middle-america wants to hear.
I find it funny that people will label an entire group of people simply by a few nuts that make up such a small part of the group?
Tea Partiers?
Then almost in the same sentence they will decree that it is not fair to judge a group of people simply because of a few nut jobs?
Muslims?
It either is or it isn't!
Hypocrisy!!
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference. The teabaggers' leadership supplies the lies and hatred to their useful idiots who are more than happy to parrot them.
The terrorists ( a tiny minority of the Muslim population) reject the peaceful teachings of Islam, and distort the more militant passages of the Quran...
... much like the Christian murderers who quote lines from Leviticus to justify killing gays and doctors or some years back wiping out entire nations of indigenous people.
There's those terms again, hatred and idiots oh and lies, of course, everything the right promotes is hatred and lies and stupid. It's not possible that there is a grain of truth in anything they promote. Of course there's no need to be specific here, everything they say are lies.
You know perhaps people would take you more seriously if you were to offer some kernel of truth yourself. What lies, what hatred?
OK, I'll spend 10 seconds supplying you with what you could easily find yourself.
Lies and hate-filled nonsense of teabagger leadership and candidates:
Birther statements, "second amendment solutions", death panels, taxes going up after they actually go down, border violence rising when it actually decreases measurably, Obama is a (Pick one...OR go for the wingnut trifecta and enjoy the whole list) Muslim, Socialist, Kenyan...
That should get you started, but that's just the tip of the FoxNews/Koch brothers septic system iceberg.
It isn't just a few.
But I don't think of them as nut jobs. I think of them as unhappy people with little grasp of history whose naivete is being manipulated by very wealthy people for their own selfish gains.
I know they do not agree with you so there must be something flawed in their intelligence.
You must be omniscient to be able to determine the knowledge of millions of people.
You will be just fine in November. Your superiority surpasses your expectations.
Did I say anything about intelligence?
Intelligent people who don't study history will repeat it. Intelligent people can be manipulated and fooled by people who are craftier and bastier than they are. Yes, some of your peers are yahoos swept in the same nets, and I am sure you know that.
If November goes as you say, so be it. All that means is that the manipulation was successful in fooling more than it should have. The ideas still remain invalid and dangerous.
Sorry...but anyone who can't see through Beckles is not very intelligent.
What man of god do you know who would say he hates the 9/11 victims for asking questions?
Mock a little 11 year old, brands someone a racist,imply that the president deliberately delayed working on the oil "spill" to increase the damage, "The war is just beginning . . .. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government . . .. There is a coup going on . . .. Grab a torch! . . . Drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers . . .. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered . . .. They are putting a gun to America's head...
I mean...COME ON!!! He got you all riled up about the president, along with the whole Fox/Talk radio onslaught, now he wants to come off as some Jesus figure who the spirit speaks through and will save America if you vote his way. (big money/big business/big war)
He's a flim flam man, and not a very good one. Less tears Beckles--you'll be more believable.
ps: I could not find anything on Beckles maligning Bush........
It was King George over at Fox news. You keep forgetting that. At best, he made some weak assertion that Republicans haven't done well either. Hardly maligning with the hate and rage he unleashed at Obama.....
Oh that's right....he's a new man now. A Godly Man. A spam man. spam spam spam spam
Here's Michael Keagan's take on Beck's DC rally--
Glenn Beck's Political, Hypocritical, Me-Party, Tea Party Weekend
What are we to make of Glenn Beck's repeated assertions that his "Restoring Honor" weekend had "nothing to do with politics and everything to do with God?" They are simply additional evidence that Beck is a shrewd marketer with an increasingly messianic view of his political role. The Right-wing Obama-and-Pelosi-hating base is already energized; Beck's soft-focus rally was a public relations effort to expand his reach to the middle. Join us, he's saying, we're the ones who love our country and what it stands for.
Beck's weekend events, and the Tea Party festivities that surrounded them, were really designed to advance the primary political project of far-right leaders in America: marrying anti-tax, anti-government economics with socially conservative religion, and wrapping the whole destructive package in a feel-good Christian-nation Americanism -- and all of that in the service of putting Republicans back in power in 2010 and 2012.
While Beck pretended that he was interested only in God and goodness, the weekend was a smorgasbord of right-wing delights. Americans for Prosperity rallied supporters to sign up for its "November is Coming" campaign, which is targeting 40-50 "big-spending" members of the House of Representatives with attacks on health care reform, energy regulation, and stimulus spending. Dick Armey's FreedomWorks and its political action committee held a "Take America Back!" convention on Friday night featuring Tea Party favorites like Michele Bachmann and promoting a raft of right-wing Senate candidates including Marco Rubio (FL), Mike Lee (UT), Rand Paul (KY), and Dino Rossi (WA). Freedom Works and the Tea Party Patriots both helped build the Saturday crowd for Beck's event, while urging people to attend Sunday's Tea Party Rally against health care reform.
Meanwhile, speakers at the supposedly nonpolitical rally made their agendas clear. Sarah Palin, who was invited by Beck as a military mom, not a politician (wink, wink) said, "we must not fundamentally transform America as some would want. We must restore America and restore her honor." She did not say Obama's name but who didn't understand that he was her target? Alveda King pushed the Religious Right's greatest hits: abortion, same-sex marriage, prayer in schools. Beck's newly formed clergy group, the "Black Robe Regiment," joins other Religious Right efforts to push preachers to become more aggressive in promoting "fundamental principles" in the public arena.
They weren't on the stage, but loud and clear were the messages of the anti-government billionaires whose money continues to fuel the political organizations behind the Tea Party movement. Beck described America as the idea that "man can rule himself" and warned against those who say, "the experiment cannot work, man must be ruled by someone." Beck also promoted the idea that poverty and suffering should be taken on by individuals and churches, not government. Beck urged people to give ten percent of their income to their churches, saying tithing is important because "our nation can only do great works through our churches if they have the means to do it."
Beck's extravaganza and the attendant organizing by Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works were a huge collective investment in appropriating the moral authority of Dr. Martin Luther King by a movement whose goals are utterly counter to Dr. King's progressive vision. Beck showed pictures of the 1963 March on Washington, but did not note that one of the major purposes of the rally was to demand action from the federal government to create jobs. A socialist stimulus? It's stunning to think that King would have anything to do with the anti-government, anti-tax economics being pushed by Beck and his billionaire buddies. If Beck were on air during the 1960s, is it more likely that he would have been promoting King's movement or echoing J. Edgar Hoover's efforts to denigrate King as a communist?
It's a testament to Beck's power as an entertainer that he can keep a straight face while preaching a "we're all Americans" unity standing before the Lincoln Memorial after making millions with daily venomous attacks on Americans who don't share his political beliefs. How can he bemoan the rise of hatred in America after doing so much to inflame it? And it is hypocritical in the extreme for Beck to tell people to respect each other in spite of their differences when he has denigrated the faith of millions of Americans who believe, as Martin Luther King did, that their faith leads them to advocate for social justice.
Ultimately, Beck's urgent plea that we "restore America's honor" is nothing more than a softer, ersatz version of the Tea Party demands to "take back our country."
A few thoughts for those of us who don't particularly want to "go back" to the kind of country Beck and the Tea Party's backers have in mind. We must focus on and expose their radical political goals.
When Tea Party-backed candidates like Sharon Angle suggest that welfare and government regulations violate the Ten Commandments as well as the Constitution, they are pushing hard to put a religious gloss on the goals of anti-government radicals like the billionaire Koch brothers, who have funded the Tea Party movement and are fueling unprecedented Republican obstructionism in the Senate.
We should recognize, not dismiss, the fiscal concerns motivating many people who may be drawn to the Tea Party. But progressive organizations and political leaders must make the case that the greater threat to Americans' well-being is the unbridled power of corporations and their political allies who are throwing sand in the gears of government to disrupt its ability to protect our food, air, water, and the common good. The ultimate goal of those who are funding the Tea Party movement is a country in which corporate power is unchallenged, corporate profits are untaxed, and corporate behavior is unhindered by regulations that protect workers, consumers, the environment, and everyone who breathes air or drinks water.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United gives us an opportunity to reach people who may be as concerned about big business as they are about big government. Polls show there are millions of Americans out there who distrust the level of power corporations have over our lives and our country, and who strongly object to the conservative Court giving corporations the ability to spend unlimited sums to buy politicians and judges to their liking.
We are up against a toxic mix: promoters of a political ideology that denies the legitimate role of the government in promoting the general welfare and protecting the well-being of individual Americans, a movement to give that anti-government extremism religious and moral authority, and vast funding for all these efforts. We all need to help Americans unpack this unholy alliance and call it for what it is. As George W. Bush once said, "fool me once..." Well, never mind. You know what I mean.
More coverage of Glenn Beck's "Divine Destiny" and "Restoring Honor" events is available at People For Blog and Right Wing Watch.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b … 99686.html
Michael Keagan writes a good article. He's writing for an informed audience who know who funds FreedomWorks, what a sleaze Dick Armey is - and what a bunch of fools the teabaggers are for being led by a corrupt crowd,
He does explain well the unholy alliance of religion and big money - the evangelicals willing to supply the voters - and big money funding the campaign. Together, money and religion are - well, Jefferson said it better than I -
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes."
My, what great info you provide ... much of America is trying hard to understand how they are now a "corrupt crowd", how their ancestors are a "corrupt crowd", how they are raising their children to be the "corrupt crowd", how such a nonsensical notion of "corrupt crowd" could ever be applied to truly mainstream Americans concerned about their country and the future life of their children --- gee, what a "corrupt crowd".
Did you miss Beckel?
Ha.
And what's with the unholy alliance of religion and big money, is that not the world wide way??? I don't think you can play that argument, that game, that accusation, in America anymore, it is quite global, and crosses Religious Party Lines (atheists and agnostics need to kind of figure that out), and as well causes liberal anti anti everything arguments to simply falter and fail....fail......fail. Sounds good. Ought perhaps to be a wake up call on all new 2011 alarm clocks....what a reminder of what is happening today in the USA.
"Tonight I am announcing...." a bunch of SNL style jive with a teleprompter, the best of SNL didn't need, without a doubt, a teleprompter for their telling jive...
Beck is authentic, notice he doesn't need a teleprompter to speak, can't recall that he ever has needed someone else to tell him what to say -- and who is telling our POTUS what to say?
Beck is a pathetic tool of the people who run Fox, Murdoch, Dick Armey, and David and Charles Koch the billionaire oligarch brothers who are the very personification of evil.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 … fact_mayer
Did you mean to refer to Beckel??? Rather than Beck?
Oh, forgot, Beckel has been a reliable liberal media tool for like Decades.....dang, I'm slow, maybe I missed the announcement that MainStream (HA) media slant was 'OVER' . . . sound Familiar??? I didn't even need a teleprompter!!!
All said in great good fun....once upon a time I never missed a New Yorker, have a great collection from old when the covers were 'covered' in brown paper and so awesome, will continue to keep them . . . and continue to miss having them arrive with anticipation for enlightened and expansive reading, rather than . . . disgruntled . . . just disgruntled.
I Pledge Allegiance to Uncle Sam . . . and my Grandma Ollie . . .
A movement that depends on George Soros and a few others to thrive dares deride the right for getting rich guys to help fund them?
Oh, the irony!
Keagan and Huffington Post don't depend on Soros or anyone else for funding. Huffington Post is profitable with ad revenue of nearly $9 million/year and an estimated worth of $83 million.
Soros has the old fashioned belief that businesses should operate honestly with respect for their employees, the environment and the public interest. The people at Fox and the Koch brothers manipulate ignorant voters and the government to serve their own interests.
I said a movement, not Huffington Post. Apparently, there are enough people who read that trash to make it profitable.
Three cheers for Soros for being a good businessman! I don't give a hoot what kind of business he runs - he still bankrolls every left-wing group out there.
Great article by Keagan!! He said it perfectly.
Beckles is a shill for anyone who pays him the most. That's it!
And he does it well....so some people think. I think he's a big BOOB. And NOT believable at all.
For, why doesn't he cry for all the children who go hungry in America? Get beaten, tortured, sold as prostitutes?
Why doesn't he cry for all the innocent civilians our wars destroy?
Why doesn't he cry for all the people who suffer needlessly because they have no money?
Wouldn't THAT be a man of God?
But Oh NO.....HE cries because big bad guvmint wants to stop his paymasters from ripping us off!
He cries for the wealthy business man who is shackled and oppressed by regulations!!!!
For the white people who are hated by this president!!!
For the down-trodden, hapless, victims of evil...BIG BUSINESS and Company profits!!!
OHHHHH, the paaaaain!
"Beck is authentic"
you-tube: "Glenn Beck's Fake Crying Photoshoot"
"Palin is smart"
When her son went to Iraq with his regiment, she said they were going to "avenge 9/11". This was in 2007 or 8........long after we knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
That is scary stupid.
I hear one thing coming from the left here, that is that they are emoting in a politically correct group mode . I feel a group hug coming ,sorry guys I don't like pituli None of these people are Gods , not MLK , nor Beck, Such simplistic reactions come from both sides of this issue, take some and leave the rest! Its simple. Theres nothing real hard about it! Everyone of these parias has an agenda, any one of them , none better than the other. MLK was no angel either , did you believe everything he said? No , Pres. Obama , No? Beck , no. But at least his messege is simple , make yourself a better person! No harm there , a lot of us could do that. Only hypocracy would diss someone , calling for bettering ourselves.....
What a great response! The left worked hard to make Beck's rally into something it wasn't, a political event. The left talks about the hatred by the right, but did anyone listen to the hate filled rant by MSNBC's Shultz?
Everyone has an agenda, yes including Obama, me and you! What we each have to determine individually is what that agenda is and whether or not we support it. It is clear the agenda of the left is a society built upon collectivism and run by intellectuals that think they are better and smarter then the "little people".
Becks rally was not political, there was no hate and no anger. Some of the stories I heard from people there were touching, like the couple that lost their wallet being handed 400 dollars from a stranger and then later finding their wallet had been turned in untouched, or the family that helped and stayed with a couple one of which was in a wheelchair, throughout the day.
Beck said he was chanelling "the spirit".
I'd say that makes him feel rather special...lady gaga chanells the spirit too.
must have been the one to tell her to swallow black rosary beads, and have an upside-down red cross on her crotch.
Same spirit? Me thinks so.
Yeah, that happened at the Sharpton rally too...one girl was given a $100,000 scholarship to college by the college president!
And that rally was political.
Things have to change in this country. And not to make thing better, or just to keep the status qou for rich white christians...we need help for the rest of America as well, thank you very much.
And Shultz is not "hate-filled", he's angry! As am I!!
What GALL telling the president he should thank Bush for the war.
Bush should thank Obama that he's not in a court of law facing criminal charges.
Angry?
I thought that was a bad thing? Isn't that how the left constantly (and incorrectly) portrays the Tea Party?
The left is angry, and is filled with hate, hate of America, hate of capitalism, and hate of freedom. They want to destroy this country and turn it into a Utopian commune run by radical intellectual elites. That would make me angry except I'm secure in the knowledge it will never happen. Come November the leftists will be sent packing and in 2012 the head leftist will be purged too.
We don't want to destroy anything.
It's Tea Party people who want to tear down the government, destroy needed programs, change the status of religion in government and all of the other ugly and destructive things you propose.
We like the system as it is. Constant tweaking, of course, but we are not out to destroy as you are.
Beck and Limbaugh...2 peas in a pod:
you-tube: "Beck "Lose[s]" His "Mind;" Screams At Caller: "Get Off My Phone You Little Pinhead!"
Is this the thread where we post all the wonderful Glenn Beck quotes?
"This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture....I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."
... anyone who would say this on national TV or anywhere else for that matter is a lunatic.
But Earnest, lunatics like other lunatics! The old "birds of a feather" axiom, you know!
Randy, no person who is sane could take this loony seriously!
"O-L-I-G-A-R-H-Y." –misspelling "oligarchy" on his chalk board while claiming he had deciphered a secret code that he said was proof President Obama was trying to create an "Oligarhy," Aug. 27, 2009, Glenn Beck show on FOX News Channel
The secret code eh?
Here's a good one:
"The plan that He would have me articulate, I think, to you, is get behind Me -- and I don't mean 'me,' I mean Him. Get behind Me. Stand behind Me."
--Glenn Beck, speaking on behalf of God on his radio program, April 20, 2010
...the day after the rally, on the Chris Wallace sunday morning show, Beck was confronted with that very point...Beck responded with self condemnation for having said so...but qualified that with the point that he knows that was not the case, but that what he thinks now is that it's Obama's liberation theology philosophy, not racism...
"Is this the thread where we post all the wonderful Glenn Beck quotes?"
Videos are better at conveying what a looney tunes nutjob he is.
Rachel Maddow showed a bunch of Bush and Cheney videos offering four or five justifications for the Big Iraq Attack. Bush was obviously reading a script written by somebody else. What a weenie for a president.
"... anyone who would say this on national TV or anywhere else for that matter is a lunatic."
Yes, and a dangerous one, because people believe him.
Remember that guy who went to that organization with a gun to shoot it up because Beck said something about it to make him mad?
Jones getting fired because of him, and it was all manipulated and twisting of history.
He is NOT a nice man, and people had better realize it before it's too late. he WILL cause an uprising of hate-filled loonies just like himself......if there's enough money in it for him!!!
I, too, know the secret code:
It's "D-R-I-N-K-M-O-R-E-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E"
Tee hee
Les Visible, Smoking Mirrors blog; (don't read if you offend easily)
"Now the battle cry of the potato headed leadership of the Tea Bagger tools is, “Get rid of the liberals and career politicians”. They want to replace them all with something much, much worse. There’s a certain kind of stupidity that is terminal. There’s no cure. What the outcome of it will be, I don’t know. Even now, some monstrous, retarded savior is lurching up out of the swamp of human ignorance to save his people. They are crying out for him. They want more of what they always wanted, more conveniently, less intellectually challenged and attached by wires to their genitals and taste buds, so that they can push the buttons of automatic gratification, just like the monkeys who kill themselves in the laboratories."
OMG!!! Doesn't this sound like Beckles???
And THANK YOU for standing up for me PP!!
That does remind me exactly of most liberals and leftists. They ask the government to take care of them so they don't have to take care of themselves.
Do you have any actual facts to back up this statement? Demographics tend to point to the opposite.
Sir, name one thing that conservatives have asked the government to do for them. The only thing we ask is for the federal government to provide for the common defense and to preserve freedom. We'd rather they get off our back otherwise.
And big tax credits for the rich. Bigger tax credits for business.
Oh, so selfless!
I'm not rich and don't have a big business. I must be missing out on the whole conservative racket!
I'm not a fan of taxes for anyone, rich or poor. Too bad about that whole 16th amendment mess you were discussing earlier. You do realize, though, dont' you that if you destroy business through taxes, that no one has a job?
I suppose that you would prefer no jobs and just distribute what is left?
Your comments bear little or no relationship to reality!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/ … 2535.shtml
Two points:
Did you notice the quote that said "Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said. That accounts for a great percentage of those companies. If they are paying the tax through the individual tax code, why should it be of concern to you? It is still being paid.
Secondly, you and Pcunix were discussing taxing at a considerably higher rate overall than now. That has no bearing on this article. Those taxes get passed right on down to us - maybe you have enough money from your labor relations work that you don't worry about it, but I don't.
The "half" quote probably refers mostly to small businesses like mine. As a group, we are enormously responsible for employment and taxes. But we get no breaks, no loopholes - those are reserved for Bill Gates and the like.
Agreed. I have a small (very, very small) business as well and I do what is required. Frankly, I'm not a fan of loopholes for anyone - I just want taxes dropped so far that loopholes aren't necessary.
And what services or government functions would you like eliminated? Military budget? Social Security? Medicare? Food and Drug Administration? National Park Service? Education Department?
FEMA? Securities and Exchange Commission? FDIC? Justice Department? FBI? Energy Department? Federal Reserve? ICE?
Social Security, Medicare, Department of Education, Department of Energy, and a number of other programs and departments could be either eliminated or combined.
Many of those cannot be found in the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution anyway, so there is no reason for them to exist on a federal level. If they are needed, they should be handled by the states.
That's what I thought. I would appreciate it if you didn't eliminate Social Security or Medicare since I depend on both programs and find that they work quite well. Your attitude may change as you come closer to becoming eligible.
Sure. Where local yokels can decide that they don't need any if it.
Tea Party policy - unbelievable.
Where is your law degree from?
I know: Fox News University.
Back to the practice of not being able to reply to posts on the far edge again - this is ridiculous!
Pcunix, my law degree? I can read and I have read the Constitution, which is apparently more than I can say for you. I also have respect for the rule of law and the supreme law of the land which, again, is more than I can say for you. I rarely watch Fox News. Really, its only good point to me is getting to watch liberal's heads explode over it.
Man, if you want me to take you seriously, back up your position. I've gotten more intellectual discussion with a brick wall.
Perhaps you would be happier in Mexico, one of the few countries where taxes are lower than in the U.S.?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing … tional.cfm
Perhaps you would be happier in Europe, where the society seems more to your liking?
Off the top of my head how about letting hedge fund operators pay capital gains tax on their profits? Or depletion allowances offsetting huge oil company profits? The drug companies demanding a really sweet deal guaranteeing their profits in return for supporting health care reform. Or demands by chemical, agricultural, mining, oil and timber companies to be free of environmental regulations? Or demands from the banksters to be allowed to make a bundle off of Pell Grants?
How about letting me handle my own health care business and you won't have to worry about drug companies getting a sweet deal? Maybe we could cut spending down to a reasonable level so that we don't need as much tax money, so that you won't have to be so concerned that someone might make a profit?
"name one thing that conservatives have asked the government to do for them."
Stop the gays from getting married?
Build border fortress walls to thwart the dreaded bronze horde?
You get rid of social programs, public schooling, etc for illegals and I won't complain much about illegal immigration, okay?
Weapons systems that the military doesn't want?
Providing for the common defense is one of the few direct powers of the federal government. I'm for almost anything that will keep us on top in air, sea, and land power.
How do exorbitantly expensive weapons systems - rejected by military brass achieve that goal?
Ron, if congress and the military experiment and study a project and determine that it isn't useful at all, fine. If it is turned down for political purposes, that is a problems. If you are referring to the F-22A, I am for it - I believe we need to upgrade our fighters, but I can understand that there are two sides to the issue.
Marriage has been co-opted by the government, which makes it a different matter. We are discussing government recognition and implicit approval, not merely a religious ceremony. It is no longer a private matter - if it were, then let them go off some where and get married or pretend to do so. That wouldn't bother me at all legally. The legal matter has to with the word "marriage" which has always been between a man and a woman.
"The legal matter has to with the word "marriage" which has always been between a man and a woman."
So far, yeah. But why must it always be that way? Why shouldn't two men be able to get married and enjoy the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as a man and a woman who get married? Why is it necessary for the government to stop them?
Why should they get to change the primary relationship over the history of the world to suit their fancy?
Who is stopping them from starting any relationship they would like? Homosexuals can go to a church and have a wedding ceremony whenever they would like. Government approval is a different matter.
The issue is RIGHTS.
Conservatives are on the wong side of history, as always. And they never understand why.
"Why should they get to change the primary relationship over the history of the world "
How would they be changing anything about traditional marriage by getting married themselves? I mean, I'm not going to wake up tomorrow and find my marriage bed infested with sodomites, am I?
"Who is stopping them from starting any relationship they would like?"
Busybodies who want to stop married gay people from enjoying the same benefits of marriage that married straight people enjoy.
"Homosexuals can go to a church and have a wedding ceremony whenever they would like." Yes, that's true...
"Government approval is a different matter."
Seems to me, if the government approves of a marriage ceremony conducted in one church, they ought to approve of any marriage ceremony conducted in any other church, right? Free exercise of religion, right?
If marriage means a man and a woman, then by default they are changing marriage if a man "marries" a man or a woman a woman. That makes it not "marriage" any more. I'm not sure what is so complicated about that.
Those "busybodies" aren't keeping them from any relationship. You keep conflating government recognition and approval with a relationship.
In 1967, prior to Loving v. Virginia, 16 states had and regularly enforced anti-miscegenation laws. 30 years before that, the majority of states did. Would these laws be okay, in your mind, if they did not actually seek criminal punishment against interracial couples but simply denied them the legal status of marriage? In other words, anyone can think they are married and have a ceremony, but only same-race couples can be married in the eyes of the law, have spousal rights to hospital visitation, inheritance, child custody, etc.? Would it support your argument if same-race marriages have not been recognized since the 1700's (true)...in other words, historically "marriage" meant marriage between same-sex couples?
At that time, supporters of anti-miscegnation laws argued that permitting interracial marriage would be a slippery slope to gay marriage. They were right.
They were as prophetic as Judge Douglas during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, who argued that emancipation of the slaves would lead to interracial marriage and mixed children. Right again.
Judge Douglas also said that when the Declaration of Independence said that "all men were created equal" it did not mean negroes. He argued that the term "men" historically meant white men. That historical argument was also made in the secession declarations of a number of states. Do you find that argument persuasive? It's not precisely true historically, in the sense that black men had voting rights in 4 states at the time of ratification of the Constitution. But do you find the historical argument persuasive?
There is a difference, or course, from something I may find loathsome and something that is un-Constitutional. But I'm just trying to get to understand the parameters of your argument based on the historical definition of words.
I would be against making anti-miscegenation laws. However, the idea that black people weren't "men" is at best a advantageous invention by certain people for which no valid reason existed, since they are obviously "men" to even the most casual observer. Even at worst, in many parts of the world, no one claimed that blacks weren't "men". Marriage has had the same basic meaning throughout the history of the world and throughout the world's cultures. They are not comparable at all. I see your point, but I don't think that you can compare them accurately. Calling a black man anything other than a man is ludicrous, since he fits every definition of a "man". Calling two men or two women a marriage is ludicrous because it does not fit any definition of a marriage.
The other point is that black or negro is something a person is born with, homosexuality is something a person does. While I don't personally believe in a "gay gene", the matter is irrelevant because it isn't the gene that makes a person act a certain way, but their own behavior.
I am not sure your conclusions about history are as clear cut as you say. Whether a negro is a "man" within the meaning of the phrase "all men are created equal" was an issue of national debate and controversy...even civil war. As you do with marriage, if you want to take this to the "history of the world and throughout the world's cultures," I would say that there are a number of instances in history where people of one category or race have been considered subhuman and not deserving of the same rights and freedoms as others. Some would say these beliefs still exist today.
I am not sure your historical view is correct with respect to the definition of marriage either if you are talking about the "same basic meaning throughout the history of the world and the world's cultures." There were recognized legal marriages between same-sex couples in 17th century China, 19th century Africa and in medieval Europe. The practice ended in Europe, I believe, when Christianity targeted homosexuality in the 1400s. There is scholarly debate on whether the word "marriage" was ever used. I haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that it was. It is also unclear in my mind whether these unions had all of the legal rights and privileges of marriages in those societies (civil unions in ours do not). But understand also that historically the term "marriage" had religious roots. The question is whether the historical definition of "marriage" truly matters in a secular society, and one that is constitutionally-prevented from laws based on religious beliefs or definitions.
I will also point out that historically, polygyny, polyandry and group marriage have fit within the definition of marriage in some societies.
I don't think any of this is really relevant but I am only leading where you take me.
But Sylvie, you are forgetting that our founding Fathers were all Born Again Christians and that somehow evil Satan-led forces have diverted their desires for a True Christian Nation.
I just do not understand why you keep forgetting that. Doesn't the Constitution say that plainly enough? Isn't it OBVIOUS that homosexuals can't be married?
Moreover, all this historical reference has nothing to do with God's United States. We aren't talking about the heathen Chinese or a bunch of savages in Africa, we're talking 'bout America!
(Just trying to save the Conservatives some time and effort. Great work as usual, Sylvie)
"Those "busybodies" aren't keeping them from any relationship. You keep conflating government recognition and approval with a relationship."
So, you'd support the end of any government approval of and support for traditional marriages as well?
If not, why should the government approve and support a male-female marriage and refuse to approve and support a female-female marriage?
If not, why should the government approve and support a male-female marriage and refuse to approve and support a female-female marriage?"
Because it isn't marriage. Marriage has a definition, it actually means something. That definition isn't up for grabs just because somebody gets a bee in their bonnet and decides they want to change it.
We are arguing in circles, here. I say that marriage isn't some arbitrary term, but actually is a serious term for a specific relationship. You respond by saying that if government recognized that, then they should recognize homosexual "marriage". I respond that it isn't marriage, so shouldn't get the same recognition.. You say why shouldn't homosexual marriage be recognized. This is just a circular argument going nowhere.
"If not, why should the government approve and support a same-race marriage and refuse to approve and support an interracial marriage?"
Because it isn't marriage. Marriage has a definition, it actually means something. That definition isn't up for grabs just because somebody gets a bee in their bonnet and decides they want to change it. We are arguing in circles, here. I say that marriage isn't some arbitrary term, but actually is a serious term for a specific relationship. You respond by saying that if government recognized that, then they should recognize interracial "marriage". I respond that it isn't marriage, so shouldn't get the same recognition.. You say why shouldn't interracial marriage be recognized. This is just a circular argument going nowhere.
or
Because it isn't a man. A man has a definition, it actually means something. That definition isn't up for grabs just because somebody gets a bee in their bonnet and decides they want to abolish slavery. We are arguing in circles, here. I say that a man isn't some arbitrary term, but actually is a serious term for a specific type of person with rights and freedoms in our society (i.e., white). You respond by saying that if government recognized those rights for that person, why not recognize them for all men, including black men. I respond that they aren't men, so they so shouldn't get the same recognition.. You say why shouldn't black men be recognized. This is just a circular argument going nowhere.
Sylvie, I have to respond to you here instead of under your post.
You bet a man has a definition and actually means something. A man is a male human being. That is the definition. The fact that a few people at various times disagreed on the color of a man is irrelevant. That is what a man is. I'll bet that even at the slave markets, the trader sometimes mentioned "that man over there looks like a good specimen."
No one for the last many hundreds of years has seriously tried to argue that marriage meant anything but the union of men and women until the last 50 years or so. Polyandry, polygamy, polygyny - still men and women.
Classification based on inborn traits is different that classification based on behavior. Nice try.
The union of same-race men and women? That is what marriage meant for hundreds of years in this country. Look at my post again. I recast your argument to involve interracial couples. The same words involving a bee in your bonnet apply to a great many things actually. With respect to your newer argument about how we are born as opposed to learned behaviors, I am rather happy that you rest in that narrow ledge. Let me ask you a question? Do you desire to have sex and/or a romantic relationship with men? If so, are you resisting these temptations due to your moral convictions? If not, I think your assumptions may fall apart. If you will admit that you and all people are born with a strong desire to have sex with someone of their own gender I will admit that the difference between gays and straights is that straight people have more restraint. Fair?
"Because it isn't marriage. Marriage has a definition, it actually means something."
Okay, let's take a look at the definition of marriage. It's when a man and a woman commit to live together, forsaking all others, usually for life.
Okay.
Now explain to me why the definition is man + woman, and what reason two men, or two women, can't enter into the exact same relationship and shouldn't get the exact same benefits and responsibilities?
I know you respect logic and rational thinking, so I'm sure your answer won't be some variation on, "Because that's just the way it is."
So, Jeff, your point is that just becaue a word means something, that meaning is irrelevant if political correctness demands a change? Here are people who want the benefits of something while not meeting the requirements for such. Maybe I should redefine "senior citizen" to mean someone 30-some years younger and demand social security and medicare. After all, meanings don't matter, do they if it is politically or socially expedient to change them?
The family is the basic building block of society. Government gives it certain recognition because it gives a stability to society, conceives and raises children, and provides role models for both boys and girls. I do not believe that homosexual relationships can do any of that.
You apparently are unaware of the many successful families headed by gay men and by gay women who have adopted children or in the case of some women couples borne their own children. I recommend that you watch the recent movie "The Children are All Right." It might expand your views of this topic a bit, but I doubt it.
"So, Jeff, your point is that just becaue a word means something, that meaning is irrelevant if political correctness demands a change?"
Political correctness, no. Equal treatment under the law, yes. Once upon a time, a wife was a woman who stayed at home, raised the kids, cleaned the house, cooked the dinner, and so on. That's what the word meant. It doesn't anymore. Is that bad?
"Here are people who want the benefits of something while not meeting the requirements for such."
Again, why must it be only male-female couples who qualify to marry? (Not "that's just the way it is.")
"The family is the basic building block of society."
Sure, I'll agree with that.
"Government gives it certain recognition because it gives a stability to society,"
Sure.
"conceives and raises children,"
Some straight couples can't conceive children together. Should they be denied the right to marry?
"and provides role models for both boys and girls."
Parents (natural or adoptive) are role models, to be sure.
"I do not believe that homosexual relationships can do any of that."
Really? Why not? Why can a stable gay couple not give stability to society, and raise--and be role models for--their adopted children?
"Maybe I should redefine "senior citizen" to mean someone 30-some years younger and demand social security and medicare."
Okay, this is a bit of a false analogy, but I'll indulge. Why should someone who is 30 be classified as a senior citizen? Is there a logical reason?
Jeff, I will say that I respect you far more than anyone else on this thread and I appreciate getting to debate with someone who seriously uses their brain. You actually are willing to debate with fact and opinion.
Thanks for that, Tim. The respect is mutual.
Were conservatives asking for government health care? Have conservatives been trying to get welfare increased? Do conservatives try to ban guns or prevent their legitimate use in protection of self and family so that we are forced to rely only on police who often can't get there? Do conservatives try to get preferences in hiring? Do conservatives ask the government to "do something" when times get tough?
No, we do not. The left always says that the government should do something when a problem comes along, not the right.
I don't know if he is a TP member, but I love this quote he made in another thresd:
"White power in this country has nothing to do with Christianity."
Another jaw dropping moment for me.
I'm not surprised that you didn't know that the white power movement is largely comprised of atheists. Sometimes I learn something new, too.
That is probably the most silly thing you have ever said, and considering the contenders for that honor, that's impressive.
Says the gentleman who won't even try to give me evidence for anything he claims. I'm not so sure that is much of an insult.
Sure, sometimes, I'm wrong. I admitted so on the other thread about Obama and golf, whatever it was called to Jeff Berndt, but unlike you, he actually gave me something to back up what he said.
Hey, Pcunix, here is a time I admit I was wrong. I just realized that I just said "atheists" above here, when in the original thread with Jeff, I said "atheists" and "anti-Christians" and those "weren't necessarily the same people".
I apologize for just saying "atheists", because that wasn't what I was intending to indicate.
While I agree with you that White Supremacy has nothing to do with Christianity, but those wankers totally try to co-opt Christianity and bury their hatemongering in superficially Christian rhetoric.
For example, these guys are based in Kentucky.
The first line on their homepage is this: "Greetings in the wonderful and mighty name of Jesus Christ."
So far so good, right? But they say in the very next paragraph:
"The so called churches in this country, as elsewhere in the world, are corrupted with the trappings of jewish fables and false doctrines detrimental to the true Israel people of scripture; that is, the Anglo Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic and kindred peoples that comprise the twelve tribes, to whom the Holy Bible is exclusively about."
Then there's this little gem from the page entitled "The Fiery Cross:"
"I used to get perturbed with righteous indignation when the brainwashed masses would say that we burn crosses and then explain to them that it’s a Cross Lighting."
This wasn't hard to find.
Jeff, like I said on the other thread, I'm not so stupid as to say that none of them claim to be Christians. I said that most aren't and the real powers are not and I stand by that claim.
Actually, you claimed that they are atheists.
And you wonder why you get no respect.
Correct me if I'm misstating your position. But I believe you contend that most white supremacist movements are atheist. Can you provide some examples or more of an explanation? I'm not an expert. I know that the Christian Identity movement has had a tremendous influence on white supremacist movements in the country, even though the group itself is relatively small. I believe the KKK had Christian roots. I personally once represented a leader of the Aryan Brotherhood. His belief system was a mix of Christianity and Norse mythology. But I don't know whether there are different factions of that group with different belief systems. Which group of atheist white supremacists are you talking about? Thanks.
Hi Sylvie,
I was just doing a bit of research to see if I could find the article I was reading on it. I agree that the KKK claims Christian roots and apparently the Aryan Nation does to some extent.
The Creativity Movement is an atheist organization. White Aryan Resistance is as well, if I am correct. You won't find too many Christians in the American Nazi Party. A lot of the skinhead type groups that make up a very large part of the white power movement are either atheist or pagan (mainly Norse).
However, most of this information is second hand. I won't go to stormfront or some of those websites for first hand information - I don't want to soil myself like that, so I'll admit that this is second hand.
I'm sorty, but that is utterly ridiculous. You misread, I am sure. As it is second hand, it is probably from someone who saw some anti-christian message and assumed that it must be from atheists.
Atheists, taken as a group, are more rational, more educated and more intelligent than the average Joe. I realize you may take offense at that, but it is simple truth and does not imply the opposite for any Christian or other believer, it is just statistics. It also doesn't mean that you cannot find an ignorant White Power racist who is an atheist, but it does imply that it would be very unlikely.
I don't have statistics for self identified pagans, but I would think that unlikely also.
I did some research on the internet and gathered that from a number of different sites. If you want to do your own and prove me wrong, feel free. It would be the first evidence you have ever provided for anything you have claimed.
Have you ever heard of the Creativity Movement? They are a white power "religion" who does not believe in any kind of god. Surely, the whole group must be lying because you claim that atheists are too rational to be white power racists, right?
As for atheists being more educated than average, quite possibly so, in general. More rational and more intelligent, absolute garbage. You cannot have statistics for rationality that show anything other than your opinion of what is rational.
The other point, in my original reply to Jeff that you apparently saw on the other thread, I said atheists/anti-Christians and that those weren't necessarily the same people. I did not say that they were all atheists originally.
As for your opinion on pagans, I don't really care. I'm interested in facts, not what you think. I know, I know, they aren't Christians, so it is okay for you to protect their reputations.
Tim, I think you're absolutely right that they are not Christians. But I think you're very wrong that they don't claim to be Christians. It's an integral part of their modus operandi.
Yes, they did. Kennedy said he deeply regretted not compromising more when the Republicans proposed health care.
Conservative constitutionalist/libertarian is the right, not Republican. Big difference.
I was simply responding to your nonsensical "Were conservatives asking for government health care?"
I used the word "Republican" because it was a Republican bill. Of course there are conservatives in the Democratic party.
Try to stay focused. It helps not waste time with unnecessary quibbling like this.
I understand it may look like quibbling, but it isn't. If I had meant Republican, I would have said "Republican" instead of "conservative". I am a Republican, but I disagree with a lot of what goes on in the party because it isn't conservative. No Child Left Behind was pure stupidity. Medicare Part D was horrible. We had to force our own party not to support amnesty. Bush signing McCain-Feingold was probaby the lowest point of his career. None of those things were conservative and there are a host more.
There are a few conservatives left in the Democrats on a local and state level - a few. There are none in national government. There are a couple that are more moderate, but in the end they will vote for anything the party tells them.
Of course not. They simply bow down to their corporate masters and hope for the best.
Really?
The liberals I know are self sufficient. All nice, caring people. Quite a contrast with many of the conservatives I know, frankly. Selfish, suspicious, angry.. Not all of course. But enough that I notice.
I never met a liberal who wanted anything for themselves. For others, yes. But never selfish.
Liberals are always people I like because they care about people. I like some conservatives, but not the bitter, selfish, nasty ones. Definitely not the Tea Party folks because their ideas are just too ludicrous.
Well, so far you haven't defended any of those wonderful, selfless ideas from a constiutional viewpoint. If I wanted to google them, I could do that. I want to see what you have to say from your enlightened viewpoint, rather than my selfish, bitter position.
I'll say that you meet different liberals than I do, that is for sure. I do agree that some liberals actually care about people and are merely misguided in how to go about doing so. They tend to ignore that little thing about the rule of law in their do-gooding.
Quite a few liberals are millionaires. The difference is they (e.g., Warren Buffett, Bill Gates) willingly pay their taxes and support a fairer tax system even though it would cost them money.
Some more of the genius from Mr. Beck's own lips!
"I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today." –on why people who lost their homes in forest fires in California had it coming, "The Glenn Beck Program," Oct. 22, 2007
Lets all get behind him!
So one week after the fact, the Liberals receive the memo to "get Glen Beck." It is funny watching them make up lies about the huge event. It was peace filled loving honor to encourage the idea of America and keep it alive. They would have you believe it was just mall visitors wondering what was going on. They would have you believe Beck had other motives in mind. Remember November.
Please point out, specifically, the lies that liberals have made up about the huge event in this thread.
I agree that some of us liberals perceive Beck's motives differently than his supporters, in the same way that Beck's supporters seem to perceive Obama's motives differently. This is not a big surprise.
Unlike Conservatives, we make up our own minds about things. We don't do group think.
The entire 2008 election results was "group think".
Stop it, you're killing me.
Do you perform at comedy clubs?
"The entire 2008 election results was "group think"."
So, now you're disparaging the constitutional process by which our president was elected. That's great.
Okay, fair enough.
Of course, the next question, even assuming you're opinion is true, is, "So what?"
How could my opinion be false?
Its an opinion.
Again, words mean things.
"I think the entire 2008 election results was "group think"."
This cannot be challenged. It's your opinion. Clearly, you think this. There's no reason not to believe that you think this.
"The entire 2008 election results was "group think".
Is utter bollocks, as it's a factual assertion and completely unsupported.
Words mean things.
With this wig?
Liberals don't run in packs like conservatives. Most of us had a really hard time deciding who we wanted for President. I favored Hillary, but kept vacillating.
Y'all did what you were told. Like you always do.
Maybe there is something to this whole projection thing.
Indeed. It was blessed by this "peace-filled, loving" man, seated honorably in the front row.
"All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.
"Islam in general -- those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews."
"military confrontation with Iran is foretold in the Bible as a necessary precondition for the Second Coming."
This is what glennbeck means by "returning to God"
Prediction:
The conservatives here will completely ignore this or dismiss it as play acting or tell us that they personally never watch Glenn Beck but they know that it is just "entertainment" and not meant to be taken seriously.
In other words, they will ignore it or lie about it; sop in the conservative playbook.
I won't ignore it.
Who cares what one person says or believes?
One person doesn't speak for all.
We are not democrat lemmings.
Phone hoooooooome.
"The conservatives here will completely ignore this or dismiss it as play acting or tell us that they personally never watch Glenn Beck but they know that it is just "entertainment" and not meant to be taken seriously."
"In other words, they will ignore it or lie about it; sop in the conservative playbook."
What exactly did you tell?
Wasn't ignored.
Never said it was a lie.
Never dismissed as entertainment.
And anybody who wants can take it serious.
The ramblings of one man should not be an indictment of all.
You are having a hard time today.
OMG....Hagee was there?????
Well Well WEEELLLLL!!
Funny---isn't he McCain's "pastor" as well? That explains the "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" little ditty he did on stage!
What, was the whole PNAC end-times crew there? Ahahaha-it was Like Benny Hinn when he gives those "sermons" and all the other pastors sit and watch!
This was Pastor Beck's trial by fire!!!
Can he make it on the world stage as another RW Christian/Israeli-Firster??? Palin is one. As is newly minted Scott Brown.
Benny Hinn...check. And THAT dude makes a FORTUNE on his crusades. Serious money.
hmmmm, this gets more and more interesting.
There are also those 2 men who wrote the end times series....and Jack Van Impe from Michigan.With lovely wife Rexella.
Oh ....no.......It couldn't be because he was facing Reverand Al Sharpton, could it? Had to make himself a legitimate spokesman for God too?
Well, let's see how long this lasts....God knows, if it's acting that's needed and drama overload....Beckles is da man!
*oh sob* *weep* *gulp*....I don't feel your pain, I AM your pain!!
I AM pain. SEE it! FEEL it! I am the down-trodden, martyred VICTIM. Of OBAMA and the Democrats!!!!!
hmmmmm, I think I'm getting it!
I don't quite understand , once in a while a new voice comes along and all of a sudden it's everyones duty to diss or to claim every word from them is ,or has some hidden messege. Glen Beck is no god! There , I said it, wow ! Now you can go on about your business ragging on some other lost cause. What is it about restoring honor and integrety to the American culture that you don't think you can swallow? Did you think we have too much to start with? Or is it this , yes that's it isnt it, you dont like anyone advising you to be a better person!
Glenn Beck is no God, but God speaks to him according to what he said at the rally while desecrating the memory of Martin Luther King in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
by Ron Montgomery 15 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 Stacie L 12 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 BJC 15 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...
by William R. Wilson 14 years ago
Why does he hate America?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/20 … s-UPDATED-
by Doug Robinson 14 years ago
Is this guy a plant, a sociology experiment gone awry? What are his motivations? Who IS Glenn Beck really? I invite your commentary.
by Susan Reid 14 years ago
So much for toning down the rhetoric. Not just Beck, but Beck's boss at Fox News are refusing to call off the dogs on this one.How a 1966 article about welfare reform could POSSIBLY be considered the cause of America's current economic collapse is beyond me. Then again, everything Beck says is...
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
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. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
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. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
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. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |