Democrats & Liberals Archives

Glenn Beck: Moocher of Historic Significance

Even as Glenn Beck makes his bid for self-importance, I think it’s good to note the irony of what he’s doing. Glenn Beck, in his rally, is doing nothing less than trying to leach off the historical significance of the giants that came before him. The fact that his movement operates in contempt for both the key historical figure’s values should not be ignored.

If Lincoln were still alive, I don't think he would be very pleased with the direction his party has taken. It speaks volumes that the people in his party have essentially picked up on "states rights", "nullification", and even "secession" as key words and concepts in their politics. I mean, I have a decent familiarity with those words, and where I remember them from is from what Democrats were saying in the lead up to the civil war.

That should not be casually disregarded, that a party has essentially adopted the rhetoric of the opponents of its founding members. The Republican Party has so twisted its own rhetoric, so sold its soul to the race-baiting of old Southern Democratic Party politics, that it's essentially met itself going the other way.

Which makes it all the more ironic that Glenn Beck is trying to mooch off of, even hijack Martin Luther King's legacy, with a stated desire to take back the civil rights movement.

Here was a man who stood for using the government to address economic inequality, who vociferously opposed the Vietnam War, who pushed a vision of non-violent protest, of not responding to hate with hatred, and here you have this conspiratorial nut who race-baits, who inspires people to bother literally and figuratively get up in arms about the government, who calls any attempt to try and repair our economy through government spending socialism, and he thinks that he's entitled to a piece of Martin Luther King's legacy.

That's just twisted. And, in its own way, deeply pathetic.

Let me put this plainly: Glenn Beck could not achieve this kind of noteriety for this event on his own. He has to pretend that he's some kind of intellectual successor to those people in the Civil Rights movement, who endured beatings, jailings, death threats, and bigotry of the worst kind. He has to compare himself and his followers to people who sometimes even died for their beliefs, died for standing up to the system.

Glenn Beck, gently put, is a pretentious bastard for what he's doing. He doesn't deserve and has not earned the right to the kind of acclaim he's aiming for.

If he truly had that kind of presence, that kind of charisma, that kind of significance on the national stage, he could pick any other day of the year, and do just as well.

Instead, this man, who regularly accuses others of just wanting to mooch off the system is himself simply borrowing prestige from somebody who truly earned it. And his followers? You know, when Martin Luther King Jr. Stood before Lincoln's Memorial that day, he was standing in the shadow of the man who liberated his people from slavery, and his party had not yet betrayed that legacy in the name of capturing the South from the Democratic Party that had endangered its hold on it with the Civil Rights Act.

Beck's supporters are thick with the kind of historical revisionism that allows them to make George Washington, the man who put down this country's first tax revolt with an Army, a hero to small-government tax revolters of the modern day. It's thick with the sort of people who try and turn Thomas Jefferson, the man who removed all trace of miracles from his version of the bible, into a supporter of this nation as Christian in its founding.

Many Republicans know Reagan cut taxes considerably. How many know what rates taxes were under him? How many know that he also raised taxes three times? Many Republicans know that Income taxes are a liberal idea. Perhaps they should look in their own party's history, see where Lincoln instituted the first income taxes, where Republicans pushed the amendment that made the income tax unquestionably constitutional.

Maybe they should look and see how many of the most important regulatory agencies were founded by Republicans? Maybe they should look over the history of this country, the things that people in the past went through in the absence of regulations on certain things. Maybe they should realize that many regulators come about because the real world presents a need for them, and when government doesn't act, the problem doesn't necessarily solve itself.

The Republicans have been trying to rewrite history not only to support their agenda, but also to reinforce the agenda of some within the party to push it further down the road of hardline politics that many Republicans of the past would have found unrecognizeable.

I venture this: when somebody revises history for the sake of supporting their modern day efforts, they make a toxic asset, of uncertain worth and trustworthiness, of their sense of histories lessons. When politics is the lens through which history is seen, and deliberately so, we end up blind to the concerns and the ideas that actually got us where we are today.

Glenn Beck talks of restoring honor, but I don't think he knows the first thing about doing that for real. I think he's using the idea of restoring honor as a glittering generality, even as he and his fellow travellers feed people the worst kind of BS. To him, it's about restoring some ideal government, even as the consequences of previous attempts at restoration remain in place. Bush, too, talked about restoring honor and integrity to government, before he went on to operate one of the most corrupt and despised Presidencies of modern time.

People can talk about things, and talk themselves into believing things, they can claim the legacy of great men, and claim to be following in their footsteps, but at the end of the day, their talk is cheap, and their ideas must be judged not by more talk, but by the consequences of their actions.

It was not a liberal who busted the bank on the government these past few years, and finally broke a trillion dollars in deficit spending. That was a Republican. All their talk about what should happen, and what would happen meant nothing in the end, when the money and the numbers came in.

Talk and rhetoric does not create good policy. If it did, the Bush Administration would have been the golden years. When Glenn Beck talks of restoring honor, we have to do ourselves the favor of recalling who it was, really, who blackened this country's name, and brought this country's government to the depths of fecklessness and incompetence. We have to remember, when we so facilely reference somebody's Katrina, who had the original event on their watch. We have to remember whose policies turned surplus into deficit, whose tax cuts not only failed to pay for themselves, but indebted this country to the tune of billions of dollars.

The bitterest of ironies of Glenn Beck talking about restoring honor, is the number of lies he has to tell in order to bolster the reputation of his party, in order to get people to forget all the pain and suffering they've caused this country.

Restore your Honor, Glenn Beck: retire, and recant of your lies and innuendo. Quit using your lies to lead this country around by the nose.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2010 11:21 AM
Comments
Comment #307015

Glenn Beck I believe is just trying and succeeding at making alot of money saying damn crazy s#it. But who’s the bigger fool.. the fool or the fools that follow?

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2010 2:12 PM
Comment #307016

Stephen

Glen Beck supports Martin Luther King’s big idea that we should judge people by the content of their characters, not the colors of their skins. Since the time of MLK, many in the “right movement” went off the tracks and embraced special rights for some people. We should get back to the basic truths of civil rights and restore to its proper place

I was unable to get to the big rally, but I know the area well. When I saw the crowd on TV, I know that to fill that space it must be one of the biggest rallies in recent history.

Try not to think as a partisan for a minute and ask yourself why so many thousands of people come out. They are unlikely to think they can get personal gain. Whether you agree or not, most think they are helping their country. They may be misguided (and are in your opinion) but respect the motivation and intelligence of your fellow citizens enough to ask why this movement have grown so rapidly.

Remember that Obama had only a 13% disapproval rate in January 2009. Call the 13% the radical core if you like. But something happened to convince 40% of the American population to change their minds about Obama.

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2010 2:27 PM
Comment #307017

One question Stephen did you see the rally on cspan or are you just spouting left wing media BS?

Posted by: MAG at August 28, 2010 2:28 PM
Comment #307019

To say glenn beck can judge anybody’s character is some funny s#it!!!!

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2010 2:40 PM
Comment #307020

Jeff did you watch the rally on cspan or are you just spouting off because you don’t like Beck. I myself don’t watch Beck.

Posted by: MAG at August 28, 2010 3:10 PM
Comment #307022

I don’t need to watch him I have seen and heard enough of him to know that he is just a wind bag appealing to a crowd of unstable people. Mark my word somebody is going to take his words out of context and hurt people. Like I said unstable people.

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2010 3:17 PM
Comment #307024

So jeff your just spouting hate filled left wing retoric about something you know absolutely nothing about.

Posted by: MAG at August 28, 2010 3:22 PM
Comment #307025

By the way jeff most conservative would say the same about the likes of Shultz, Olberman, and Maddow.

Posted by: MAG at August 28, 2010 3:24 PM
Comment #307028

MAG

Good points, but I have noticed the liberal street only runs one way. Many of them think that Shultz, Olberman, and Maddow are intellectuals and I have actually had some people try to prove something to me with a reference to Daily Kos.

You and I understand that there are lots of interpretations and that Beck on the right more or less corresponds to them on the left. Beck, Shultz, Olberman, Kos or Maddow are not always wrong or right, but they always have a point of view. I have seen even Maddow be right on some facts, I suppose proving that even a broken clock is right twice a day. But many of our liberal colleagues are unable to handle this kind of nuance. They cannot hold the two (to them) contradictory ideas that - Beck said it and it is correct - in their minds at the same time.

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2010 3:37 PM
Comment #307029

It’s one thing to frame the debate But to compare what beck rush and hannity do to Shultz, Olberman, Kos or Maddow is crazy talk.

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2010 3:43 PM
Comment #307031

Spoken as a true liberal Jeff.

Posted by: MAG at August 28, 2010 3:49 PM
Comment #307032

I was reading some comments on another blog concerning the successful Beck rally in Washington. The parks service estimates the crowed to be between 300,000 and 325,000 people. Some even estimate it to be above 500,000 people.

One blogger asked how many liberal commentators could gather a group of 5,000? Could Olberman, Matthews, or Maddow, actually get anyone at all to show up. This event is successful and I guarantee it scares the Hades out of liberal democrats and the liberal MSM.

One writer said it brings out the liberal trolls to try to smear and attack Beck, Palin and American conservatives. As you see, it has also started on WB.

Stephen said:

“If Lincoln were still alive, I don’t think he would be very pleased with the direction his party has taken.”

So Stephen, in your vast wisdom, your posts presume to know what Lincoln would think!!! How arrogant.

“Which makes it all the more ironic that Glenn Beck is trying to mooch off of, even hijack Martin Luther King’s legacy, with a stated desire to take back the civil rights movement.”

Does Martin Luther King’s legacy belong to the Democratic Party? It was republicans who allowed Johnson’s civil rights to pass and it was democrats who filibustered the civil rights bill. What gives democrats the right to claim the civil rights movement? Stephen, perhaps you could provide some proof to for these accusations?

“Here was a man who stood for using the government to address economic inequality, who vociferously opposed the Vietnam War, who pushed a vision of non-violent protest, of not responding to hate with hatred, and here you have this conspiratorial nut who race-baits, who inspires people to bother literally and figuratively get up in arms about the government, who calls any attempt to try and repair our economy through government spending socialism, and he thinks that he’s entitled to a piece of Martin Luther King’s legacy.”

I’m sure I have heard more from Glenn Beck than Stephen ever has, and except for a democratic controlled government that is moving the US toward socialism, I have never heard him say the things you say. He has never attacked MLK; he has never promoted violence or taking up arms against the government, and he certainly does not race bait. I suggest Stephen either has his facts wrong through ignorance, he is simply quoting the liberal media and liberal politicians, or his posts are purposely lying. Which is it?

The deeply pathetic thing is the left who accuses conservatives of doing the very thing they have done for decades, and expect people to believe you.

C&J said:

“Try not to think as a partisan for a minute and ask yourself why so many thousands of people come out. They are unlikely to think they can get personal gain. Whether you agree or not, most think they are helping their country. They may be misguided (and are in your opinion) but respect the motivation and intelligence of your fellow citizens enough to ask why this movement have grown so rapidly.”

I might add to C&J; Stephen CANNOT think as anything but a partisan. His posts suggest that he believes these thousands of people who, were not bussed in by unions or ACORN, but paid their own way; are nothing more than stupid, ignorant, and unenlightened sheep being led to the slaughter. Stephen writings have no respect for anyone who does not believe as he and the left does. This post is probably one of the most hate filled, racist, bigoted, and hateful examples of how far the left will go to smear people. It is apparent that the left is in full panic mode. They have had 2 years of obama and 4 years of congressional control to ram and cram socialist bills down the throats of America, and they are honestly perplexed by the fact that Americans do not like any of it. They honestly believe Americans should be thanking them for this crap. Let me tell you something Stephen, Americans don’t - just not like it, but when they take control in November, they will demand that congress repeal this crap. Not correct it, but repeal it…

MAG said:

“One question Stephen did you see the rally on cspan or are you just spouting left wing media BS?”

Stephen did not see the event, he does what I have been saying for years, and his writings are a mouthpiece for the liberal media. He posts have no original ideas; they simply repeat the liberal talking points…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 3:54 PM
Comment #307033

I take that as a compliment. But seriously find me something any thing that compares to what these people say day in and day out and I don’t mean some crazy blogger somebody that’s legit.

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2010 3:56 PM
Comment #307035

Jeff

As I recall, many liberal commentators implied or claimed outright that President Bush started a war in Iraq in order to increase profits to American oil companies or Haliburton. That is among the stupidest things anybody can believe.

They also implied or claimed that he was about to attack Iran. (He didn’t, BTW).

Moveon.org - ran ads calling General Petraeus “general betray us” How sad is that.

Leftist commentators continue to talk about the prevalence of racists at tea party rallies. They site no evidence that it is widespread, but show a couple signs among many thousands of participants.

I bet you don’t think such things are crazy, but I sure do. I, however, can understand that even people nuts enough to believe these things may actually be motivated by what they think is right.

I don’t expect many liberals to respect what F. Scott Fitzgerald said about intelligence. Liberal is a word that no longer actually applies to most who call themselves it.

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2010 4:13 PM
Comment #307037

jeff cspan is airing the rally again tonight maybe you ought to watch to make your accusations more legit or maybe not.

Posted by: MAG at August 28, 2010 4:18 PM
Comment #307038

This youtube video was sent to me by a friend. I watched it and reposted to facebook. It is a great explanation of the Arizona law and the effects of what Holder and Obama are trying to do to America.

I was listening to a liberal comment on the radio the other day, he said, “tea partiers want to take back the country, take back from where, has America gone somewhere?”. This is arrogance and ignorance, but I don’t expect anything else from a liberal commentator. Well, this youtube video explains exactly where America is heading and where conservatives want to bring it back to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsH8xvjTAlo

I personally consider obama to be on the verge of being a traitor; what other conclusion can a person come to after watching the video?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 4:23 PM
Comment #307040

C&J some of what you said is is true the part about General Petraeus was very wrong the racist part sorry but it’s true. The oil company..I think is plausible But it’s still comparing a fire cracker to a atom bomb the amount of vitriol that is coming from the right.

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2010 4:28 PM
Comment #307041

God the little guns out of the holster firing blanks

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2010 4:30 PM
Comment #307047

Jeff
\
I cannot think of a more scurrilous charge than that the president brought our country to war for personal profit. Now that time has passed, clearly neither Bush nor Cheney made that big money. Nothing can come close as an insult.

I honestly cannot think of a worse charge. This is the hydrogen bomb of charges. If the leftist throwing it around thought it was just another accusation, I have to wonder about their sense of duty or honor.

And how is that “plausible”?

re racism - both of us (C&J) attended the big tea party rally in Washington. Among the tens of thousand of people present, we saw nothing that was overtly racism and heard no racist comments. The only thing we saw that COULD have been called racist was Obama as the joker. I interpreted that to mean he was a joker, but you can call it racist. No matter, there were only a few of those.

Some people associated with the tea party have said things that could be interpreted as racist. Every group has such. Remember President Obama’s preacher, or Sharpton with his bogus race-baiting rape accusations. Jesse Jackson saying he wanted to cut off Obama’s nuts off…

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2010 5:21 PM
Comment #307050

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve for 18 years, and a Republican

I’ve heard and seen Beck before. He’s bad news for the country. He makes money for himself by spreading hatred and inciting anger. In an ironic example of psychological projection, Beck routinely accuses liberals of being fascists and nazis, yet people like Beck (and Limbaugh and Hannity) closely resemble the propagandists, the fascists, and the nazis of the 1930’s. Like Beck, such people call for ultra-nationalism, xenophobia, homophobia and militarism, and then pretend it is all somehow uber-patriotic, and that anyone opposed to it is possibly a traitor. They push a national religion while disparaging other religions. They favor corporatism and despise working people.

These lemming-like followers of Beck often dismiss evolution, Global Warming, and other inconvenient aspects of science at Beck’s call, yet it is nearly impossible to engage them in a logical discussion.

Posted by: phx8 at August 28, 2010 5:26 PM
Comment #307054

phx8:

“These lemming-like followers of Beck often dismiss evolution, Global Warming, and other inconvenient aspects of science at Beck’s call, yet it is nearly impossible to engage them in a logical discussion.”

Let me ask you: if a Christian believes the Bible and believes in creation rather than evolution, does he have the right to dismiss evolution as nothing more than a theory? If an American reads science reports from those other than GW supporters, and they want to believe that GW is nothing more than a hoax, do these Americans have that right?

How many of these Americans, who believe in creation and believe GW is a hoax, have you personally had logical discussions with? Further more I might add, it is impossible for you to have a logical discussion with these people because you have already determined them to be lemming-like followers of Beck.

Your whole premise is illogical…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 6:01 PM
Comment #307055

Although I only occasionally watch Glenn Beck, I do know that he offers evidence through audio and/or video for all his claims.

I have to believe the attacks on Beck, Rush, Hannity, or Palin are the result of jealousy. These people have a following of supporters and the left can produce NOBODY to equal conservatives. What person on the left has any following at all? Alan Combs started with Hannity and as far as I was concerned, Alan Combs prevented me from watching Hannity. Combs is a completed idiot. He has a radio show that is going nowhere. The libs financed and endorsed Air America, how many times, and where are they today? Oh, that’s right, off the AIR… If your message is so good and everyone loves it, why don’t the left have a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck????

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 6:10 PM
Comment #307058

From The Christian Science Monitor:

“Dr. Alveda King – the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., – explains why she’s speaking at the Glenn Beck 8/28 rally in Washington this Saturday.”

I would like to know how the left categorizes Dr. Alveda King? Is she a racist and part and parcel to a racist organization?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 6:31 PM
Comment #307066

Conservatives use the media to conduct a respectful rally in Washington DC and honor Dr. King. Attendees want to honor our soldiers and those that have sacrificed. Honor Rally. None of the posts above really address the simplicity of this. Did Sharpton, by having an alternative rally and march to the future sight of Dr. King’s monument disrespect those that have paid the ultimate price for our freedom?

By the way, I love the point above about MSNBC announcers. Could Cooper Anderson, Christiana Ampour, MAddow, Oberman, et al use their position to get their audiences to come to Washington DC and celebrate the country in anyway? Perhaps one of them could get a rally on the 14th amendment because that has been in the news? Or like the honor rally … have a marriage rally that has all types of couples that love each other engage in listing to stories of love and companionship.

Personally, I would find it hard to believe that any of these commentators would put a stake in the ground proclaiming their position on anything. Much easier for them to comment and usually criticize things once they have determined the conservative position.

Posted by: Edge at August 28, 2010 7:31 PM
Comment #307067

Beretta,

“if a Christian believes the Bible and believes in creation rather than evolution, does he have the right to dismiss evolution as nothing more than a theory? If an American reads science reports from those other than GW supporters, and they want to believe that GW is nothing more than a hoax, do these Americans have that right?”

They certainly have the right, however, I doubt, at least from my point of view, that they should be taken seriously.
These folks are willing to dismiss phenomena that are right in front of their eyes every single day, in lieu of a belief system that relies totally on faith.

RE: Beck;
Glen beck makes PT Barnum look like a piker. If he wasn’t making bushels of money being controversial, Beck would be out on a street corner yelling at pigeons.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2010 7:35 PM
Comment #307068

If your message is so good and everyone loves it, why don’t the left have a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck???? That’s easy we have no need to have some Idiot think for us.

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2010 7:35 PM
Comment #307069

Good thoughts Edge.

What I heard from Sharpton and Holms was anti-Beck rally speech…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 7:39 PM
Comment #307072

RM:

“Beretta,

“if a Christian believes the Bible and believes in creation rather than evolution, does he have the right to dismiss evolution as nothing more than a theory? If an American reads science reports from those other than GW supporters, and they want to believe that GW is nothing more than a hoax, do these Americans have that right?”

They certainly have the right, however, I doubt, at least from my point of view, that they should be taken seriously.”

Perhaps Christians and GW opponents feel the same way about you! What makes you right? Because you are a liberal?

Jeff:

“If your message is so good and everyone loves it, why don’t the left have a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck???? That’s easy we have no need to have some Idiot think for us.”

No, you do have them, they are called Combs, Dean, Maddow, Olberman, Matthews, etc. But nobody listens to them. You say you have no need for some idiot to think for you, and yet the left’s responses to any subject can be heard from these people before it ever gets to the pages of WB. Take Stephen for example, his posts are right off the liberals talking points and he declares himself to be a debater. It’s hard to debate with a person who only has one thought in his head.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 7:49 PM
Comment #307073

You have Shultz, Maddow and Olberman Jeff I put them in the same category as Rush and Beck so you have your Idiots to.

Posted by: MAG at August 28, 2010 7:51 PM
Comment #307074

Beretta,

“What makes you right? Because you are a liberal?”

What makes you right? Because you are a liberal Christian?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2010 7:55 PM
Comment #307075

RM, does it bother you that Beck is making money? Do you have the same problem with Al Gore making millions off his preaching GW? Or is it ok for Gore, because he is a fellow liberal, but not ok for a conservative.

Why does the left make personal attacks on conservatives; i.e, how they look, or dress?

Starting with SDD’s post; it’s not about content, it’s about personal attacks. Why is this???

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 7:56 PM
Comment #307076

RM, I assume you can’t answer the questions? So you result to playground, “is not/ is to”. Thanks…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 7:58 PM
Comment #307077


No one is more presumptive of what our leaders of the past had in mind than Glen Beck. People shouldn’t be suprised at the turnout, his average audience is retired and well off.

Conservatives have a right to believe Beck.

Posted by: jlw at August 28, 2010 8:01 PM
Comment #307080

does it bother you that Beck is making money. No this America you have the right to do almost anything. The man is dangerous somebody will take his comments out of context and somebody will be hurt. There are alot of unstable people out there.

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2010 8:13 PM
Comment #307081


“The park service estimated the crowed to be between 300,000 and 325,000”.

Eighty seven thousand at the Beck rally, the rest at the Sharpton rally.

Posted by: jlw at August 28, 2010 8:15 PM
Comment #307082

Beretta9,
There is a difference between faith and science, and there is a difference between the colloquial use of the word ‘theory’ and the scientific use; let’s leave it at that for now.

“Demagogue: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.”

The effective use of demagoguery distinguishes Beck and Limbaugh. The size of their following or the amount of money they make no more justifies the rightness of their claims than the size of the crowds at the Nuremburg rallies justified the rightness of the claims of nazism. History is full of examples of speakers who have appealed to prejudices, emotions, and false claims in order to persuade large numbers of people to pursue unwise paths.

This is what makes Beck and the extreme right wing in the United States so dangerous: their appeal to ultra-nationalism, xenophobia, homophobia, and militarism, all in the name of ‘patriotism’ or, in Beck’s case, ‘honor.’

And by the way, I find it alarming that Americans trust the military more than any other institution. Very alarming.

Posted by: phx8 at August 28, 2010 8:16 PM
Comment #307083

Rocky

I answered your email. It seemed to be the address I had. Hope it came through.

phx8

Assume the Greenspan quote was for me. You know I have explained many times that the war was about oil, because oil is what transformed an ordinary murderous despot (like Robert Mugabe) into a truly dangerous one (like Saddam). But it was not FOR oil in the sense that we were trying to seize the fields for our own benefit. That would be very easy, BTW. Most of the fields are located in easy to defend desert areas. If all you want is oil, you can grab it an keep out the resistance.

But the accusations are even more precise. They are that Bush created the war in order to enrich himself and his cronies. That is just a lie and has not been borne out by subsequent events. Those who truly believe it are - in a word - stupid. Those who use it w/o believing it are craven. There can be no comprise with such. We all know people believe lots of stupid things. A significant number believe the moon landing was a hoax. Some people believe the world is flat. We have the JFK conspiracy theories. Alien abductions, the list goes on. These theories have as much evidence as the one that Bush dragged the whole country into war to enrich himself and his friends.

I only wish that those who spread the Bush disinformation would be abducted by aliens and deeply probed.

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2010 8:18 PM
Comment #307085

jlw;

Are there any depths of depravity that liberals won’t go? Not only are these 300,000 plus conservatives in DC; idiots who can’t think for themselves, racists members of the KKK, angry white men, but now they are old rich angry white men who are members of the KKK. This is great.. I guess this explains why there have been threats made on the lives of tea partiers…

Let me quote a few sentences from the rally found on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/28/AR2010082801106_pf.html

“King’s niece Alveda King, an anti-abortion activist, addressed Beck’s rally with a plea for prayer “in the public squares of America and in our schools.” Referencing her “Uncle Martin,” King called for national unity by repeatedly declaring “I have a dream.”

“I have a dream that America will pray and God will forgive us our sins and revive us our land,” King said. “On that day, we will all be able to lift every voice and sing of the love and honor that God desires of all his children.”

The crowd was not visibly angry. Rather, people said they had come to express their fear that the country is at a perilous moment.

But the much-discussed anger did sometimes appear. A counter-protester, Ben Thielen, 32, a District public-policy worker, caused a stir with a sign that said “It’s because of the 1st Amendment that Glenn Beck can spew his filth on the steps.”

Isn’t it interesting, that the only one there who showed hatred and held an ugly sign, was a liberal…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 8:21 PM
Comment #307086

jlw

I thought the Park Service stopped estimating crowd sizes after they took so much PC heat for estimating that their were only a a few thousand at the million-man march.

Did Sharpton have a rally?

Not that guy is interesting. He certainly has a racist past, but he is very entertaining and may have moved beyond it.

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2010 8:22 PM
Comment #307087

I only wish that those who spread the Bush disinformation would be abducted by aliens and deeply probed. As do I except remove bush and add Obama.

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2010 8:23 PM
Comment #307089

The crowd I saw around Sharpton was very sparce. The crowd at the Beck rally was huge. What can I say…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 8:29 PM
Comment #307090

That’s easy Sharpton is an ass#ole.

Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2010 8:32 PM
Comment #307091

Finally somethingt we can agree on Jeff Sharpton is an A—hole.

Posted by: MAG at August 28, 2010 8:38 PM
Comment #307092

Sometimes Sharpton says something interesting. Most of the time, he is a jerk. Was he ever actually elected to anything? Why won’t he go away?

At least I’ve heard of Sharpton. Who is this niece of MLK? I’ve never heard of her, and suddenly she’s trotted out as a justification of racial equality for a nearly all white crowd, a crowd gathering on the steps on the Lincoln Memorial on the day an anniversary of the ‘I have a dream’ speech to listen to Glenn Beck, who famously said:

“This president has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people … this guy is, I believe, a racist.”

Posted by: phx8 at August 28, 2010 8:56 PM
Comment #307093

Beretta,

“RM, does it bother you that Beck is making money?”

Nope, not at all.

“I assume you can’t answer the questions? So you result to playground, “is not/ is to”.”

But I did answer the question. Apparently you feel that anyone that thinks to the left of you (and that’s a pretty big crowd), is a liberal.

Look pal, the First Amendment entitles you to your opinion, but it doesn’t make that opinion sacrosanct. It also entitles you to your religious beliefs, but it doesn’t make them the be all, end all, for everybody.

Glen Beck, et al treat the truth like a beach ball. It’s entertaining to bring out, and throw it around once in a while, but they don’t want you to have too much fun, or be spoiled by it.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2010 8:57 PM
Comment #307094

I like Sharpton. He is amusing. I don’t think anybody really takes him seriously anymore and he serves the good purpose as a caricature of the racial huckster.

People like Sharpton are like viruses. At first they are deadly, but after they have been around for awhile, they get to be more benign and can live in relative harmony with their hosts.

Posted by: C&J at August 28, 2010 9:10 PM
Comment #307098

Stephen:

The fact of the matter is the the Democratic House majority…in Congress TWO years before Barry was sworn in, most probably will swing to the GOP majority despite your most eloquent soliquy.
Glan Beck and Sarah (some lightweight, huh? eighteen months ago you smacked her around and now she puts dagers of fear in every liberal Democrat up for re-election) are the lighteng rods for a sea change that is coming.
Not only that, but the thinly veiled immigration issue (read: getting 12 million more democrats on the voting lists) will be addressed, as will a whole host of issues.
Two years ago, I said Barry was an empty suit. A slick talking con man that duped the electorate. Had Hillary snagged the nomination and been elected, this country would not be nearly as divided as it is.
Scott Brown taking Teddy’s seat was the precursor. Now, the tidal wave is in motion. The slepping giant is now awake and is very very angry.

Posted by: agentgibbs at August 28, 2010 10:38 PM
Comment #307099

agentgibbs,

You would be more understandable if you used ‘spell check’.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 28, 2010 11:18 PM
Comment #307100

C&J, Sharpton is more than a virus. He survives on racism. If it won’t for keeping racism alive, he nor Jessie Jackson would have any purpose for being…

RM; I would rather you didn’t address me as “pal”, that is reserved for friends.

I think the left on WB is starting to crack. I am hearing more and more anger in the responses. What’s the matter people, things not going so well?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 11:18 PM
Comment #307101

“I think the left on WB is starting to crack. I am hearing more and more anger in the responses. What’s the matter people, things not going so well?”

Trolling again Beretta?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2010 11:27 PM
Comment #307103

Beretta,

“I would rather you didn’t address me as “pal”, that is reserved for friends.”

Get over it.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2010 11:38 PM
Comment #307108

This is just kind of a kick to watch. The troglodytes are out en masse !
The more the nerves are touched, the more bad spelling, incoherent rants and vile-spewed idiocy abounds.

Posted by: jane doe at August 29, 2010 12:24 AM
Comment #307109

“One blogger asked how many liberal commentators could gather a group of 5,000? Could Olberman, Matthews, or Maddow, actually get anyone at all to show up.”

One can only hope not, especially for such a reason as the lost honor of the American military. Lets remember they are commentators, that’s all. What is it about Beck who the conservatives claim is just a commentator that would cause more than a handful of people who happened to be in the area anyway to show up for “a rally” of such a dubious nature?

How can we bring back the honor to the American solider that those on the right believe to be lost when the best we can do for leadership is someone that has to use such rallies for personal gain to the extent Beck does. Why on earth would Beck and his followers think that our military has lost it honor and by going to this rally this lost honor would be restored? I say a hex on those that went to this rally under the pretense of restoring this lost honor to our military.

What does it say about a group of people that would travel any distance to hear someone that doesn’t really have an iron in the fire, a dog in the hunt or any responsibility or actual decision making in real time? How can you be proud that thousands of your fellow Americans turned out to see a talk show commentator calling for a return to honor for our military, what does he know about honor? Do these people actual believe that by going and seeing the likes of Beck or Palin, who tarnished any “honor” she may have had by not completing her term as an elected official, will cause honor that is not lost to appear magically?

Isn’t there some point in time where those on the right can stop searching for something that is not lost?

BTW if Beck claims he didn’t know that this was the location and date of the MLK speech why would he have arranged for Dr. Alveda King to appear?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 29, 2010 12:41 AM
Comment #307111

“I have to believe the attacks on Beck, Rush, Hannity, or Palin are the result of jealousy. These people have a following of supporters and the left can produce NOBODY to equal conservatives.”

Beretta using your logic that bigger is always better sure explains why government grows so much under conservative/repub leadership despite so much lip service to the contrary. Is big always better no matter the circumstances?

When you include Palin are you doing so because you actually believe she has such a large following of supporters that nobody on the left can equal or are you hoping that to be true?

The difference between Beck Limbaugh and Hannity on the right and Shultz, Matthews and Maddow on the left is the voting population, as you have claimed previously, has considerably more conservatives than liberals so wouldn’t you expect the rating numbers to reflect this general trend?

It seems you are trying to equate more followers with better quality, is that correct? Perhaps it could be the excessive use of misinformation half truths and outright lies by the Beck’s Hannity’s and Limbaugh’s could generate larger audiences of people who do not have the depth of knowledge required to discern truth from fiction and just follow the crowd or what is popular at the time. I know my uber conservative Limbaugh listening brother in law actually believes the roughly 13 trillion national debt is the difference between what we owe to other countries and what is owed to us. When I tried to clarify what the debt is I was told “economics 101” the debt is the difference between what we owe and what is owed to us and Obama is the cause of the 13 trillion because we had a surplus before. To think that there is not a significant dumbing down going on in this Country due to these guys with the larger audiences and there misinformation is to neglect the reality of the situation. So what you may suspicion as jealousy could also be a true concern for the country, a desire to restore intelligence to the conservative followers of the TRC’s.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 29, 2010 1:23 AM
Comment #307114

You know when conservatives started caring about crowd size?

When Obama started getting big numbers. They had to show that they were comparable in size. They had to display that symptom of being well-liked.

To answer the questions?

On Sarah Palin, I think the right could do worse than a half term governor who couldn’t survive a softball interview with Katie Couric. But they’d really have to try.

On whether I watched it? No. I won’t insult your intelligence by critiquing a speech I never saw. Maybe I’ll have occasion to see it later, or reason to want to check it out.

What I am critiquing is his egotism. Folks fought and bled for the civil rights movement that King led, and King was fighting the comfortable of the time, the people who thought in terms of a society of entrenched inequalities, on behalf of the afflicted, those who that society discriminated against.

Beck? What is he fighting for? Glittering generalities slathered over a healthy helping of resentment at the Democrats for changing their nice perfect world, it seems to me. Only he seems to supercharge it with a healthy helping of some of the craziest **** I have ever heard.

I think Beck’s either a reckless provocateur, willing to say anything to get greater ratings, or a person who should be committed, rather than listened to. He doesn’t deserve my attention for his speech. I doubt he will gain the kind of historical respect he’s trying to leach off of Martin Luther King.

C&J-
People don’t like to believe they are wrong. Especially not people who have been flattered, cocooned, and generally talked into believing things that didn’t, in the end, turn out to be true. The unwillingness to admit a mistake, to admit you did harm to yourself or your country with your policies is a strong motivation for movements like these.

Of course, the price of that is, is that you have to tunnel yourself even deeper. That is what I fear is happening to supporters of the GOP, even as the consequences of their mistakes rain down.

As for Beck’s stance on civil rights? If its anything like yours, I don’t have any regrets missing the speech altogether. We are far from being in a position where we need to reclaim the initiative on the civil rights movement. Beck plays to what I consider one of the most pathetic cults of victimization in modern history, pathetic because the people involved are not the folks who are really hurting.

The White folks of this nation are in no danger of having to fight institutionalized racism against them any time soon.

Beretta9-

So Stephen, in your vast wisdom, your posts presume to know what Lincoln would think!!! How arrogant.

Well, to put it in modern terms, the Southern states said “kthxbai”, and Lincoln said, “Do Not Want!”

Seriously, though, he did fight the Civil War to preserve the union. The facts speak for themselves. Add to this the fact that the Democrats were pushing the concepts I mention, and I think it’s not too much of a leap to say that Lincoln would find this own party essentially playing the role of Democrats in the states of the Confederacy somewhat disturbing.

I don’t see what’s so arrogant about drawing obvious conclusions like Lincoln did not like Secession, or things like that.

Does Martin Luther King’s legacy belong to the Democratic Party? It was republicans who allowed Johnson’s civil rights to pass and it was democrats who filibustered the civil rights bill. What gives democrats the right to claim the civil rights movement? Stephen, perhaps you could provide some proof to for these accusations?

Did I ever mention party in terms of Beck’s actions? I merely compared the things that King stood for, espoused and believed, to what Beck has stood for, espoused and believed. I am aware of my party’s past, and aware of your party’s past, and find it sad that your party has essentially taken up the errors of my party in turn.

agentgibbs-
Fun with narratives. Get enough people repeating the same things, and you can influence their behavior.

But then we get to have fun with realities.

The Reason why Republicans could hold on for so long, and paradoxically why they couldn’t knock Clinton out of the game, is that times were good. Republicans didn’t have to offer solutions to people for national level problems, the system seemed to be taking care of itself.

But this time, people are going to want from the Republicans what they are ideologically opposed to giving to people: help from the government, as we face a vast problem.

Republicans are the true empty suits, reliant on negation of the Democrats to define them.

I don’t know what will happen in this election, but if Republicans think, whatever the results, that they can be as unhelpful as they were before, they’ve got another thing coming.

You want a sleeping dragon, try the majority of the country if your folks can’t replace Obama’s action with some of their own

Your folks, also, are ones to talk about slick talking Conmen. Do you know the story about beck and the Gold Coin investments he hawks?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2010 1:31 AM
Comment #307121

Stephen

I don’t care if Beck sells apples or pencils on the corner. He, and others, are lightening rods.

While Keith, Ed Schultz, and Racheal attack him, the recipients of the message of history are actually learning about the founding fathers a bit….something long overdue.

Glenn is an odd ball but guess what: his message isn’t odd after all.

The issue ,Stephen is mathematics. The Federal budget simply cannot be strapped on the backs of my children and grandchildren.

Health care is a great thing. However, California just approved a 20% Blue Cross increase this week. In four years, the rate will be 35% higher.

Let the market determine the outcome. Let’s secure the borders. Let’s enforce all laws. That would be a good start.

Let’s make the climate ammenable to small business, and for God’s sake, let not add further taxes in a depression.

BTW: I miss George W. A democracy was born in Iraq….a place where you said many times that we lost.

Posted by: agentgibbs at August 29, 2010 7:37 AM
Comment #307122

agentgibbs…Try using the internets and find the truth.

Posted by: Jeff at August 29, 2010 8:47 AM
Comment #307124

Stephen

Judge people by the content of their characters, not the colors of their skins. That is what MLK said. I agree with that. I have since I heard it and I believe I always will. It is interesting that liberal now evidently dismiss it as mere rhetoric that needs all sorts of interpretation.

It is simple and simply true. That is the MLK legacy that belongs to anybody who wants it. It is a shame that more don’t.

Posted by: C&J at August 29, 2010 9:16 AM
Comment #307125

C&J Your post suggest that you agree with this man? I thought better of you.

Posted by: Jeff at August 29, 2010 9:21 AM
Comment #307128

I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. … No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, ‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.’ And you know, well, I’m not sure.” –responding to the question “What would people do for $50 million?”, “The Glenn Beck Program,” May 17, 2005 (Source)

3. “When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, ‘Oh shut up’ I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining.” –”The Glenn Beck Program,” Sept. 9, 2005 (Source)

4. “The only [Katrina victims] we’re seeing on television are the scumbags.” –”The Glenn Beck Program,” Sept. 9, 2005 (Source)

5. “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 (Source)

6. “I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. … And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.” –interviewing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, Glen Beck’s show on CNN’s Headline News, Nov. 14, 2006 (Source)

7. “Al Gore’s not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization…And you must silence all dissenting voices. That’s what Hitler did. That’s what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing].” –”The Glenn Beck Program,” May 1, 2007 (Source)

8. “So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research. … Eugenics. In case you don’t know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. … The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening.” –”The Glenn Beck Program,” March 9, 2009 (Source)

9. “You have the artwork of Mussolini there, here in New York at Rockefeller Plaza.” –analyzing the artwork decorating Rockefeller Plaza, which he said contained a hammer and sickle, Glenn Beck show on FOX News Channel, Sept. 2, 2009 (Source)

10. “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 (Source)

Bonus Quote

“You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one – I can’t speak for you, but I’m on the verge of moral collapse at any time. It can happen by the end of the show.” –”The Glenn Beck Program,” Nov. 6, 2006 (Source)

Posted by: Jeff at August 29, 2010 9:39 AM
Comment #307129

So… How should we judge this mans content of character.

Posted by: Jeff at August 29, 2010 9:41 AM
Comment #307130

Having woke up yesterday early enough to watch part of Glen Beck speech I have to say from a strictly conservative point of view that he did a good job. None the less as by Self-Nature or Self-Teaching he forgot that not everyone in the village can be Mayor and Council. For who would pick the corps, sew the clothing, and attend to all the little jobs which allow Americans to enjoy a high standard of living.

No, I do believe the spiritual breakthrough needed by the Conservatives was open; however, like the Democrats and Liberals of the 80’s I do believe their Leadership has a long hard path in front of them especially if you think you can teach an American to fish.

So why both sides can spend their time blaning the other side for the short falls (Ignorance) of the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s, ask yourself if Glen Beck, Rush, Hammity, Shultz, Matthews and Maddow has the first clue in proving every American has the opportunity to become Economically Viable and Financially Independent. Create an Economy that does not exploit its Labor and Management. Develop an Energy Source that does not exploit Nature. And design an Environment where people can live in Peace instead of promoting the Criminal Mind of Man.

For why I doubt if I can find any Human who will allow me to build an Uncivilized World. Expanding upon the Deeds and Works of those who have changed the way Mankind operates his Government and Societies must remain more than just a Dream. Good Night.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 29, 2010 9:52 AM
Comment #307132
Stephen Daugherty wtote: Talk and rhetoric does not create good policy.
Neither does the endless, non-stop fueling and wallowing in the blind, circular partisan warfare.

How is the vitriol and ranting in this article (instead of solutions) any different?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress (who perpetuate these abuses) with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2010 10:32 AM
Comment #307133

If Glen Beck and the other talking heads (e.g. O’Reilly, Maddow, Oberman, etc.) were TRULY concerned about the nation more than their ratings, they would be talking more about several abuses, such as:

  • Lawlessness and Constitutional Violations (e.g. Article V);
  • Wars (some unnecessary?);
  • Plutocracy / Kleptocracy; the government is FOR-SALE;
  • Illegal Immigration , Illegal Employers , and Unfair Trade Practices;
  • Election Problems;
  • $13.5 Trillion National Debt, $57+ Trillion Nation-Wide Debt;
  • Inflation / Usury / the Monetary-System is a Pyramid-Scheme;
  • Regressive Taxation;
  • Insufficient / Inadequate Education (falling from 3rd in the 1960s to 18th today);
  • Dangerous Health Care (195,000 annual deaths);

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2010 10:48 AM
Comment #307136

agentgibbs-
I didn’t see so much interest in what would happen to our children when Republican were pushing one unpaid-for tax cut after another and spending recklessly in the last decade. You folks have a major blindspot for your own fiscal imprudence, and then having indulged that blindspot for the last decade, blame Obama for doing all the spending.

Yes, Beck is a lightning rod, but it’s been my experience that people do not have to be wise, intelligent, competent, compassionate or conscientious to be ambitious. Beck invites controversy, first and foremost, because he seeks ratings. Compare him to Obama, who has become a bit of a lightning rod, but whose far ranging programs have seen success that the Republicans never did.

Obama draws fire because he does things that are ambitious, that disrupt the status quo, and because the interests in Washington are scared.

And Beck? Beck’s movement began on Wall Street. Literally. It began with some CNBC guy named Rick Santelli, loudly complaining about the possiblity that people who were underwater on their mortgages might be helped out, and being cheered on by bond traders. It continued with a bunch of folks, many folks being men and women on government support themselves, going out their and deliberately invading and disrupting town halls to further controversy. And now, who do they raise up as leader of this group but a man who creates socialist/fascist/liberal conspiracies out of thin air and a chalkboard.

As for learning about the Founding Fathers, I would be quite embarrassed if the way people truly learned about them, after watching my show, was to hear factchecks about what I got wrong. No, Jefferson was not for the commingling of church and state. He was actually quite critical of beliefs in the supernatural, and said more or less than it did not break his leg, nor pick his pocket if a guy believed in no God, or twenty. No doubt, our country was founded by a mainly Christian culture.

However, they did not decide to make their governments religious in nature, instead they secularized them, taking government out of the religion business in America, and leaving it to be a private decision. Seeing the pluralism of churches, and the much higher attendance of them in this country than in Europe, we can only conclude that they did something right. This country doesn’t have to have a Christian Government for its society to be mainly, and comfortably Christian.

Folks are too fearful about things the constitution protects them from, and not fearful enough about the things that no constitution can protect them from.

You know, if Democrats had their druthers, they would have been able to include a Public Option, or a Medicare buy-in, so when insurance companies tried to squeeze customers, the customers could avail themselves of an alternative, punishing the other company for its gouging. But hey, we have to let the market determine things, don’t we?

The problem I have with the notion of letting the market determine everything is that without decent rules, fraud steals the market’s awareness and will from it. Only when the rules keep the deceptions and the failures to disclose to a minimum, can the market operate. And then there are other matters where I think folks have taken market thinking too far, forgetting that things have more than just a market side to them, that we can’t merely trust markets to run our lives. The rule of law must extend to our economy or it extends nowhere. The alternative is to let a class of people essentially get away with what we would traditionally not allow the average person to get away with, to create an aristocracy in all but name.

And you know what? I kind of like the notion that you don’t get to get away with murder just because you make a lot of money, that you can’t steal legally if you steal in the derivatives and credit markets instead of taking your money from a liquour store or a despository bank.

As for Bush and Iraq? Nobody should spend several years in combat for a war in one country, especially not given how easily we won the first battles. I do not share your illusions on how Democratic Iraq is. I may share hopes that the place shapes up, but if it does, it will do so on its own account, not ours.

C&J-
I know you folks say judge people by the content of their character, but you sorely underestimate and misjudge us all the time. I have heard so much bull**** directed at me from the right, so much venom and accusation because I don’t share a certain vision of the world.

It takes a forgiving, peacemaking sensibility, a compromising, give-and-take sort of attitude to make it possible to judge people appropriately. And I would say this to both sides. Republicans cannot boast that they judge people by the content of their character until their people stop the race-baiting, stop demonizing the poor as lazy and dim-witted opportunists, stop the constant attempts to scare people.

And most importantly, you folks have to stop with the lies, the libels and slanders about the loyalties and morality of one half of this country. Then you can appeal to folk’s sense of fairness. For now, folks like Glenn Beck only make people like me feel like there’s somebody out there whose words might one day land me in a re-education camp or a jail, simply for believing what I believe.

He’s not part of the solution of politics in these trying days, he is part of the problem. He gives people back their pride, but he feeds that pride on the bitter food of resentment and slakes its thirst on the the sour waters of fear.

If Glenn Beck truly wants to pick up on the legacy of MLK, he’s free to do so. But to do so, he must renounce pitting people against each other, spreading fear, trying to force others to his ideology. MLK’s movement was truly one of courage, where people were expected to meet violence with peace, hatred with love, injustice with justice. It was a movement not far from the beatitudes, from Christ’s exhortations about those who make peace, those who seek justice, those who show others love and mercy.

As much as he clings to the idea of a Christian-founded nation, Beck’s ideas and ideology hew closer to a more worldly philosophy, one that values dividing people and pulling down enemies over treating them fairly and showing love even to those who hate you. The truly radical thing about real Christianity is that it is a sort of realism that some outside the religion might consider naivete.

If Beck wants to fully comprehend the message of MLK, he has to push reconciliation and cooperation with Democrats and liberals, not a fear-driven agenda of division and disdain and contempt for us and what we believe.

You can’t just appeal to MLK as a symbol, you must understand his teachings.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2010 11:27 AM
Comment #307139

jeff


“So… How should we judge this mans content of character.”

i don’t know jeff, but taking statements out of context is an easy way to paint them as something they’re not. my guess is when surrounded by the rest of the coversation a completely different picture will come into view. one that probably won’t support your argument. BTW did you actually find those on the glenn beck/fox news archives, or from some left wing rag like the kos. what was your source? link please.

Posted by: dbs at August 29, 2010 12:12 PM
Comment #307140

The statements are not out of context. The man is a kook I glad he belongs to you we have plenty of our own. I did not go to fox I been there it’s pretty scary for us free thinkers I got the quotes from about.com.

Posted by: Jeff at August 29, 2010 12:27 PM
Comment #307141

Here’s some more Glenn Beck gems.
But all of this still does not prove that only Democrats know best, or are any better than Republicans, since the fact is, too many of BOTH don’t get.

  • At this, Glenn Beck goes on a lengthy tyrade against Malia Obama, imitating her, questioning her intelligence, in addition to making other racial remarks:
  • BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy? Daddy? Daddy, did you plug the hole yet? Daddy?
  • PAT GRAY (co-host): (imitating Obama) No I didn’t, honey.
  • BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy, I know you’re better than [unintelligible]
  • GRAY: (imitating Obama) Mm-hmm, big country.
  • BECK: (imitating Malia) And I was wondering if you’ve plugged that hole yet.
  • GRAY: (imitating Obama) Honey, not yet.
  • BECK: (imitating Malia) Why not, daddy? But daddy—
  • GRAY: (imitating Obama) Not time yet, honey. Hasn’t done enough damage.
  • BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?
  • GRAY: (imitating Obama) Not enough damage yet, honey.
  • BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?
  • GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah?
  • BECK: (imitating Malia) Why do you hate black people so much?
  • GRAY: (imitating Obama) I’m part white, honey.
  • BECK: (imitating Malia) What?
  • GRAY: (imitating Obama) What?
  • BECK: (imitating Malia) What’d you say?
  • GRAY: (imitating Obama) Excuse me?
  • BECK: (laughing) This is such a ridiculous — this is such a ridiculous thing that his daughter— (imitating Malia) Daddy?
  • GRAY: It’s so stupid.
  • BECK: How old is his daughter? Like, thirteen?
  • GRAY: Well, one of them’s, I think, thirteen, one’s eleven, or something.
  • BECK: “Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?” Is that’s their — that’s the level of their education, that they’re coming to — they’re coming to daddy and saying ‘Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?’ ” Plug the hole!
  • GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yes, I was doing some deep-sea diving yesterday, and—
  • BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?
  • GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, I was doing—
  • BECK: (imitating Malia) Why—
  • GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah, honey, I’m—
  • BECK (imitating Malia) Why, why, why, why, do you still let the polar bears die? Daddy, why do you still let Sarah Palin destroy the environment? Why are — Daddy, why don’t you just put her in some sort of a camp?

  • ”When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, ‘Oh shut up’ I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining.” —Glenn Beck on his radio show, Sept. 9, 2005
  • ”This president [Obama] 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.” —Glenn Beck, on President Obama, sparking an advertiser exodus from his FOX News show, July 28, 2009
  • ”Because if you are a white human that loves America and happens to be a Christian, forget about it, Jack.” —Glenn Beck, whining about how everyone hates him, April 2, 2007
  • ”I haven’t seen Jesus and what he would do on a talk show on Fox, but I’m going to try.” —Glenn Beck, FOX News Channel’s Glenn Beck show, April 21, 2010
  • ”I fear a Reichstag moment. God forbid, another 9/11. Something that will turn this machine on, and power will be seized and voices will be silenced.” —Glenn Beck, comparing actions by Washington elitists to the 1933 burning of Germany’s parliament building in Berlin, which the Nazis blamed on communists and Hitler used as an excuse to suspend constitutional liberties and consolidate power, Newsmax interview, Sept. 29, 2009
  • ”You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler’s plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore’s enemy, the U.N.’s enemy: global warming. Then you get the scientists — eugenics. You get the scientists — global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, ‘That’s not right.’ And you must silence all dissenting voices. That’s what Hitler did.” —Glenn Beck, linking Al Gore’s campaign against global warming to Hitler’s campaign against the Jews, ‘The Glenn Beck Program,’ April 30, 2007
  • ”This is fascism. This is what happens when you merge special interests, corporations, and the government. This is what happens. And if people like you don’t take a stand…at some point, you know what poem keeps going through my mind is ‘First they came for the Jews.’ People, all of us are like, well, this news doesn’t really affect me. Well, I’m not a bondholder. Well, I’m not in the banking industry. Well, I’m not a big CEO. Well, I’m not on Wall Street. Well, I’m not a car dealer. I’m not an autoworker. Gang, at some point they’re going to come for you.”—Glenn Beck, on closures of auto dealerships under the bankruptcy deals of GM and Chrysler, ”The Glenn Beck Program,” June 10, 2009
  • ”I am not saying that Barack Obama is a fascist. If I’m not mistaken, in the early days of Adolf Hitler, they were very happy to line up for help there as well. I mean, the companies were like, ‘Hey, wait a minute. We can get, you know, we can get out of trouble here. They can help, et cetera, et cetera.”’ —Glenn Beck, comparing government bailouts of auto companies to actions of German companies during the rise of Hitler, Fox News’ Glenn Beck show, April 1, 2009
  • ”The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be ‘What the hell you mean we’re out of missiles?”’ —Glenn Beck, Jan. 2009
  • ”African-American is a bogus, PC, made-up term. I mean, that’s not a race. Your ancestry is from Africa and now you live in America.” —Glenn Beck, on his radio show, Jan. 7, 201
  • ”If you log onto this (Cars.gov) at your home, everything in your home is now theirs.” —Glenn Beck, arguing that the Cash for Clunkers program was nothing more than a secret government plot to gain access over your computer, July 2009
  • ”I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. … And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.”—Glenn Beck, interviewing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, Glen Beck’s show on CNN’s Headline News, Nov. 14, 2006
  • ”Barack Obama … chose to use his name Barack for a reason — to identify, not with America — you don’t take the name Barack to identify with America. You take the name Barack to identify with what? Your heritage? The heritage, maybe, of your father in Kenya, who is a radical? Is — really? Searching for something to give him any kind of meaning, just as he was searching later in life for religion.”—Glenn Beck, ”The Glenn Beck Program,” Feb. 4, 2010
  • ”I want a chastity belt on this man. I want his every move watched in Washington. I don’t trust this guy…This one could end with a dead intern. I’m just saying, it could end with a dead intern!”—Glenn Beck, on Sen. Scott Brown saying his daughters are ”available” during his election victory speech
  • ”God is giving a plan I think to me that is not really a plan. … The problem is that I think the plan that the Lord would have us follow is hard for people to understand. … Because of my track record with you who have been here for a long time. Because of my track record with you, I beg of you to help me get this message out, and I beg of you to pray for clarity on my part.” —Glenn Beck, ”The Glenn Beck Program,” April 20, 201
  • ”I could give a flying crap about the political process … We’re an entertainment company.” —Glen Beck, Forbes interview; April, 2010
  • ”I am not a polarizing guy.” —Glenn Beck, to Jay Leno
  • ”Fall to your knees and thank God for Fox News. Pray for Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. Pray for them. Pray for strength and spine, and pray that everybody involved has chicken salad for lunch so it doesn’t clog anybody’s arteries. Keep them going.” —Glenn Beck, asking listeners to pray for Ailes and Murdoch because they protect Fox from ”the outside world,” The Glenn Beck Program, May 27, 2010

It’s a mistake to put too much store or faith in most (if any) of the talking heads on TV, radio, etc. (e.g. Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Maddow, Oberman, Matthews, Cavuto, etc.).
The moment one starts to idolize them, they’re in danger of starting to excuse and rationalize much of what they do and say.
That then often embrazens them to become more extreme.
While some of what they say may be true, that is merely a common tactic to lure others into their circular pattern of thought.
Glen Beck, and the other talking heads too, are eventually going to go too far some day (if he hasn’t already), because few people are corrupted by power, no matter how puny that power is.

The problem with Stephen Daugherty’s article (and many like it), and comments, is that he implies that many (or most, if not all) Republicans are similar, and uses it to fuel the partisan warfare. There are extremists on both sides:

  • Extreme # 1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).
  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; tries to disguise envy and jealousy as demands for equality; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

Give ‘em enough rope, and most (if not all) will eventually hang themselves with it. And that includes the cheaters who use it to fuel the circular partisan warfare.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2010 12:49 PM
Comment #307144

jeff

“free thinkers” now that’s funny. earlier you stated:

“I don’t need to watch him I have seen and heard enough of him to know that he is just a wind bag appealing to a crowd of unstable people.”

so you haven’t actually seen it for yourself. what a enlightened way to pass judgement.

tell me jeff as a “free thinker” you are given a set of statements (taken out of context} posted on a web site, and then don’t bother to actually watch the show, or view the entire context of the show segment. hardly the way a “free thinker” would go about evaluating information to check its accuracy. i would suggest getting it straight from the source would give you a much more accurate picture in which to base your opinion. BTW about.com is a large site. a link to the page you’re refering to would be helpful.

Posted by: dbs at August 29, 2010 1:00 PM
Comment #307147

Stephen

Let’s remember that the Dems controlled Congress TWO years before Barry became prisident.

Let’s also remember that corruption,not the Iraq war, was the event that caused the Republican Party to lose control. (Source: CNN).

Nothing has changed. Now, its the Dems who are corrupt (Rangel, Frank, Dodd et al).

That’s what the Tea Paarty movement is about. Americans standing up for basic rights.

Santilli, BTW, merely used the word Tea Party while he was talkng about the housing crisis.He had nothing to do with anything. He’s a commentator, a business commentator.

If you want to talk blatheing idiots, look no further than Ed Schultz. Now there’s a dork.

Makes no matter. The die is cast. The Repubs will either re-claim or come close to taking back control but will be subject to severe scrutiny this time by the Tea Party movement (a movement, btw, that I view from afar but kinda like).

My view: Bary is a one termer. If Hillary decided to challenge him, she will be the next president. If she doesn’t, well Mitt is warming up in the bullpen.

Posted by: agentgibbs at August 29, 2010 1:40 PM
Comment #307148

dbs..you can find the video on fox I did but you have to do alot of digging. The internets is pretty easy to use go to the google type in glenn beck quotes its all there. I think you might be amazed at what you might find. Might I also recommend fact check.org

Posted by: Jeff at August 29, 2010 1:41 PM
Comment #307149

dbs-
If his words are taken out of context, then, by all means, provide it, so we can see whether the context actually changes the meaning of what is said any.

To say his words are taken out of context is to claim two things, one of which is a kind of admission:

1) That what’s quoted sounds bad.

2) That there is information we do not know which would or could effect the overall judgment of what he said.

Since you’ve implicitly acknowledged the first point, please exposite and explain number two, so we can at least move the debate on what he said to a more substantive level.

Dan-
If you’re going to argue that the Democrats don’t get it, argue why and how. Show us the Left-Wing Pundits who are like beck, so we can see where the balance of truth falls, not merely where it is asserted.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2010 1:45 PM
Comment #307150

agentgibbs..nice try dividing the party ain’t happening. We don’t walk lock step like republicans but we will not divide the party. And republicans will not nominate mitt the magic underware thing won’t fly in your party.

Posted by: Jeff at August 29, 2010 1:48 PM
Comment #307153

Stephen, Another Question, Did you ever watch Beck? I’ve watched Shultz, Olberman and Maddow and I’d take Beck over any of them.

Posted by: MAG at August 29, 2010 2:37 PM
Comment #307157

Of course you would Mag, because you’d have a tough time keeping up with any of the three others you noted.
Watching Beck was a real eye-opener. He was beyond pathetic and pitiful….if there is anything that far out. His melodramatic preparation to one of his phony “crying” sequences was nauseating.

Beck struggled with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse, and went through recovery in the mid 1990s
Beck moved to Bellingham, where he attended high school. After graduation, he worked at radio stations in Provo, Utah.

On the other hand, here is Rachel Maddow’s scholastic history:
A graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994.[14] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she earned a Doctorate in Philosophy (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University.[15] Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons. She was the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship.

If you don’t want to be serious in regards to who is smarter, then by all means, disregard. (Per Wikipedia).

Posted by: jane doe at August 29, 2010 3:19 PM
Comment #307158

And here for you, Mag, is Olbermann’s info: too long to “paste” here, but you’ll no doubt want to rush here and see for yourself.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0646021/bio

Posted by: jane doe at August 29, 2010 3:24 PM
Comment #307159

Mag, either one of those would overwhelm Beck without the big guns of Fox backing him up. It would probably bring real tears to his eyes after suffering the humiliation of a meeting with “real” minds.

Posted by: jane doe at August 29, 2010 3:28 PM
Comment #307161

No jane, Shultz an ex Jock, Olberman a sport caster turned polital comentator and Maddow the only one who has smarts but all are liberaly biased. I’ve read the bio’s of all of them Jane. By the way Beck has very little college under his belt. I’ve watched Shultz when he had guest on that had to correct him and made him look stupid with his wrong info. Maddow is arrogant and biased. Olberman about the same as Maddow. Like I said to you in another colunm if you want a liberal view on politics watch Shultz, Olberman, and Maddow If you want a conservative view watch Beck, Oriely, and Hannity and if you want the truth find out for yourself. Me I prefer a little mix of liberal and conservative, then I find out for myself who is factual.

Posted by: MAG at August 29, 2010 4:05 PM
Comment #307164

jane doe;

Why would you want to brag about Maddow and Olbermann’s educations? This is typical liberal arrogance to suggest they are more qualified than Beck, simply because they have more education. Why does the left depend on degrees to prove their points? Beck is the first to say he as had very little college, and is basically self-taught. You know, kind of like Abe Lincoln. If old Abe were alive today, the left would be trying to impress him with their degrees. These statements are continuing proof of my thoughts that liberals are like the Pharisees of Christ’s day. The more I study the Bible, the more similarities I see.

Concerning the implication that Beck would be nothing without Fox backing him; you do realize he is very successful on the radio as well? With no help from Fox…

The left can attack, smear, and ridicule all they want, but from all estimates, the Beck rally was a huge success. Beck had a great interview with Chris Wallace today on Fox. Beck is a very personable fellow, and acts upon his convictions. Stephen likes to point out his substance abuse history, and I might add alcohol abuse and suicidal tendencies, but these are things Beck has exposed about himself. He says he has peace with God over these things because he has sought God’s forgiveness and help. The way I feel about, if God has restored his life and forgiven him, who am I to condemn? Stephen is very fond of telling everyone he is a Christian and many times has said we must first cast the beam out of our own eye, before worrying about the splinter in another’s eye. I guess Stephen has removed the beam from his own eye, and that qualifies him to condemn someone else…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 29, 2010 4:24 PM
Comment #307165

MAG, I prefer a mix as well, but many practice pidgon-hole politics. If you don’t agree with a Democratic, you are a Republican. If you counter to say you are not a Republican you’re labeled a damned-Republican. That’s why we only have a two-party system. The two partys won’t recognize any others.
I’ve been called ignorant and rightly so on some issues, but the ignorance I’ve witnessed on this thread is stark and vivid. It’s no wonder many cannot see the value of Glenn Beck’s Honor Rally. They don’t want to. They can’t. Their mind is closed to an alternative to their ways of thinking.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 29, 2010 4:28 PM
Comment #307167

W.W. Well said.

Posted by: MAG at August 29, 2010 4:34 PM
Comment #307168

So many words, so little communication.

Posted by: Old Grouch at August 29, 2010 4:41 PM
Comment #307170

Jeff

We can judge character only indirectly by what they do. That is what I (and I hope you and others) do in our daily lives.

Which man?

I agree with that sentiment by Martin Luther King.

Stephen

“underestimate and misjudge us all the time.” The only things I know about you comes from what you write. That is how I judge the content of your character. You seem a decent character to my, BTW, although I don’t understand how you come up with some of those ideas.

As I wrote to Jeff, I use behavior as a proxy for character. It is the best we can hope for.

Beck is not my hero. I don’t listen to him very much and I don’t have to defend everything he says. I speak for myself and have written enough that you can figure out where I stand on issues.

As I have said on many occasions, no politicians completely represent my goals or views. I go with those who come closest, which tend to be Republicans. I assume you do the same with Democrats.

The person who best represents me is me. I prefer that most things be left out of politics entirely. I prefer to make as few decisions as possible politically. I want government to set general rules and then leave me alone as much as possible. NO politician promises that. There is a bit of a contradiction with trying to use politics to avoid politics.

Unfortunately, I know that even if I try to ignore politics, politics won’t ignore me.


Posted by: C&J at August 29, 2010 4:51 PM
Comment #307171

You guys are so funny…..and do you think that smearing a legitimate education justifies the dog and pony acts you prefer?
And WW…..using honor and Beck in the same time zone is absolutely oxymoronic!

Posted by: jane doe at August 29, 2010 4:54 PM
Comment #307173

I would also say, well said Weary Willie.

Earlier in the post, jlw made this response to my statement:

“The park service estimated the crowed to be between 300,000 and 325,000”.

Eighty seven thousand at the Beck rally, the rest at the Sharpton rally.

Posted by: jlw at August 28, 2010 08:15 PM”

I’m not sure where jlw got his figures, but it was reported in the NYT, that NBC News estimated the crowd at 300,000 and that the Sharpton rally was but a few thousand, mainly blacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/us/politics/29beck.html

If jlw has the numbers to prove that Beck only had 87,000, I invite him to post it, if not, then I will just assume it was another blatant lie that was pulled out of thin air and just thrown out like horse crap, to see where it sticks.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 29, 2010 4:57 PM
Comment #307174

You’ve belittled yourself, jane doe.
I hope your foot didn’t kick over something you’d expect someone else to pay for when your knee jerked.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 29, 2010 4:58 PM
Comment #307176

Does it take a Bachelor’s degree in liberal arts, or a Master’s, to use a big word like “oxymoronic”?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 29, 2010 5:01 PM
Comment #307177

TCM recently played A Face in the Crowd with Andy Griffith. If you’ve never watched this 50’s movie, you should. It’s a marvelous performance by Griffith, before he was type cast as Opie’s dad or that Lawyer guy.

I can’t help but wonder if the timing of the movie has something to do with Beck’s speech. Griffith played a yokel huckster devoid of anything but pure narcissism. It describes Beck to a tea, and reminds me of him in so many ways.

Posted by: gergle at August 29, 2010 5:05 PM
Comment #307182
You would be more understandable if you used ‘spell check’.
Posted by: Marysdude at August 28, 2010 11:18 PM


.. to a tea,

Posted by: gergle at August 29, 2010 05:05 PM

gergle, I don’t know if the spellchick is still on duty so I took the liberty of denegrating your post by calling out your spelling. I’m sure it’s allowed here at WatchBlog.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 29, 2010 5:21 PM
Comment #307183
This is just kind of a kick to watch. The troglodytes are out en masse ! The more the nerves are touched, the more bad spelling, incoherent rants and vile-spewed idiocy abounds.

Posted by: jane doe at August 29, 2010 12:24 AM

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 29, 2010 5:27 PM
Comment #307185

Does it take a Bachelor’s degree in liberal arts, or a Master’s, to use a big word like “troglodytes” and “vile-spewed idiocy”?


Jane, are you sure it’s not liberal’s nerves being touched?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 29, 2010 5:38 PM
Comment #307187


Beretta9, are you sure you are not being deceived?

Posted by: jlw at August 29, 2010 5:52 PM
Comment #307188

Glenn Beck often points out how these howlings dominated the political landscape before the internet/tv came into existance. One newspaper turned a weed into a deadly drug that haunts us to this day! Many who think weed is a deadly drug can only site the effects of chemical drugs as a reason weed was banned. The military found no harmfull effects in their tests but the one newspaper is what the people believed. Mostly because the one newspaper didn’t report the military findings.

The internet will allow a judgement to be placed on tv news broadcasting just as conservative radio brought justice and equality to the broadcast radio medium. Newspapers aren’t much more that a flier with coupons to make them worth something. A true progressive would allow radio and tv and the internet to exchange ideas, not find ways to limit and tax them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 29, 2010 5:58 PM
Comment #307194

All this discussion about a serial conspiracy theorist. Normally, such a person would be dismissed after the third or fourth “discovery” of another fantastic plot by the left or right to take over the US and the world. The fact that he has any following at all is puzzling. The fact that he has a large audience is disturbing.

Posted by: Rich at August 29, 2010 7:23 PM
Comment #307195

Why?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 29, 2010 7:29 PM
Comment #307198

Rich Most of the conservative media has a larger audience then the liberal media. I guess I’d be disturbed to if I were a liberal and nobody was listening to me. Maybe you should ask yourself why is the liberal audience so small.

Posted by: MAG at August 29, 2010 8:29 PM
Comment #307199

MAG,

Well, maybe because the liberal media concentrates on dull facts and real issues rather than fantasy. That is exactly what Beck does. He weaves endless conspiracy fantasies for his audience. A liberal or conservative fantasizing is not my cup of tea.

Posted by: Rich at August 29, 2010 9:06 PM
Comment #307200

The last stats I saw; the top 6 cable news shows are on Fox.

It is estimated that Rush Limbaugh reaches somewhere between 20 an 50 million listeners each week: in 2008 there were 132+ million voters. His audience numbers seem reasonable, because there were 55 million who voted Republican in 2008. Overall, Republicans and Independents tend to pay more attention to political issues than democrats. The conservatives (Republican and Independents)are much more fired up in this election cycle.

There is a good web site that predicts elections:

http://electoralmap.net/2010/house_seats.php

It has Republicans with a 45 seat pickup in the house, which is up 5 in the last 2 days. And gives republicans an 8 seat pickup in the senate, that’s a 1 seat increase in the past 2 days.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 29, 2010 9:12 PM
Comment #307201

Rich The liberal media I’ve seen is consentrated on Republican bashing which IMO is a detriment to the Democrats. I very rarely watch Beck, Mathews is on in the same time slot so I tend to watch him for the liberal outlook then switch to the more conservative news.

Posted by: MAG at August 29, 2010 9:25 PM
Comment #307203

Jane

You know if you have to mention your superior eduction it probably (excuse the vulgarism) ain’t.

I spent way to many years in formal education to be impressed by it.

I have what I call the “Gold’s Gym Standard”. If you go to Gold’s Gym and ask someone how much he can lift, you don’t really care if he tells you that he spends many hours there every week. Either he can pick up the heavy weight or not. Nothing else matters. The same goes for eduction. What you know should be evident in what you write and the credentials that come with it are meaningless.

Personally, I like the word troglodyte. You should have left it at that.

Posted by: C&J at August 29, 2010 10:07 PM
Comment #307205

C&J, Unless you’re doing it too, the fueling and wallowing in the circular partisan warfare is your strongest case.

Please don’t be like those that fuel and wallow in the mindless, blind, circular partisan warfare.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2010 10:14 PM
Comment #307208

Who is talking about credentials, jack???
And since when should it be an embarrassment to be able to spell? Writing on here is just a projection of ourselves, and I’m not ashamed of being literate.
Running with a pack only means that one can’t fend for himself ….

Posted by: jane doe at August 29, 2010 10:53 PM
Comment #307209

Jane doe,

“Running with a pack only means that one can’t fend for himself”

Unless you’re in the lead, it also means the view never changes.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 29, 2010 10:59 PM
Comment #307211

Rocky………… LMAO ! Thanks…

Posted by: jane doe at August 29, 2010 11:21 PM
Comment #307212

Jane, “Running with a pack only means that one can’t fend for … themselves” … so you must be able to spell on a blog, and if you are poor you don’t need government assistance because you can’t fend for yourself. Just suck it up, and fend for yourself? Jane you seem to like to sweep in an needle not contribute. Of course that is what I am doing myself.

Posted by: Edge at August 30, 2010 12:19 AM
Comment #307213

Weary,

Thanks for the spelling lesson. I might draw your attention to the fact that tea is correctly spelled, it’s just a misuse of a phrase. I haven’t played golf in a while. My thousands of years of education taught me that, but fortunately, I don’t give a crab. :)

Posted by: gergle at August 30, 2010 1:45 AM
Comment #307216

Edge,
“if you are poor you don’t need government assistance because you can’t fend for yourself. Just suck it up, and fend for yourself”

Well, does that mean you don’t need a doctor, a lawyer, or a candle stick maker? For unless you are wealthy enough to have a PhD on the Learned and Unlearned side of the the subjects of Man than we can claim you are poor and thus do not deserve help.

In fact, that is one of the biggest dlaws the Conservatives and Republicans have in their Ideology, but blame Liberals for their short comings. Besides, if you can understand what someone is talking about even with bad spelling than who is to say it is spelled wrong for we are no longer in the 5th grade.

Posted by: Henry Schlayman at August 30, 2010 2:27 AM
Comment #307219

jeff

you said:

“I got the quotes from about.com.”

please provide the link.or tell me the section where i can find them.

you then say:

“you can find the video on fox I did but you have to do alot of digging.”

where did you copy and paste the quotes from, that’s the page i would like to see.

take the time to actually watch the show once or twice, and you’ll see the statements he makes when viewed in the context of the entire show are not what you, and the left wing bomb throwers are making them out to be. context is everything.

Posted by: dbs at August 30, 2010 5:55 AM
Comment #307220

Does it take a Bachelor’s degree in liberal arts, or a Master’s, to use a big words like “Running with a pack only means that one can’t fend for … themselves”?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 30, 2010 8:16 AM
Comment #307221

I find it fun to come here and read the initial topic and then go to the end and see how far the conversation has strayed.

My comments: 1) NPR has more listeners than Rush Limbaugh, 2)political polls are only as good as the person doing the polls and one’s political leanings and the phrasing of questions impacts the outcome of the polls. 3) Being able to spell or not has nothing to do with intellect. Poor spelling is the sign of either a blip in the brain or a poor educational foundation. I am a poor speller with a masters degree. The content of what someone is trying to say should not be judged on their ability to spell. If someone had a speech impediment and was trying to verbally share their ideas would it be fair to judge their debate, thoughts and ideas on their ability to articulate. Difficulty spelling can be a learning disability and years of research has shown us that a learning disability does not necessarily correlate with IQ. 4)I always find it interesting when the party of supposed family values and christian ideology show no compassion for the poor and less fortunate. As a current nonbeliever, I was raised in the church on the principles of Jesus and I think we all know where he would stand on helping the poor and less fortunate. Interesting how I demonstrate more of the supposed christian values: love thy neighbor, do unto others…., paraphasing here-what you have done to the least of my brothers you have done unto me and so forth.
5) The fact that Glenn Beck isn’t as educated as Rachel Maddow (PHD) or Keith Olbermann in the grand scheme of things isn’t that important. Many educated people are as stupid as he is. It isn’t his education that impacts his message-it is the message itself. It lacks facts, intelligence, consistency, and clearness of thought. Above that I have issues with his lying, fearmongering, narcissism, lack of empathy, god complex, and his vision that he is the second coming. He is a mentally sick and pathological person. I also believe that in a few years we will all being saying, “whatever happened to Glenn Beck wasn’t he a wackjob”. and young people will be asking “Glenn who” unfortunately in the short run the damage he is causing to our country will take years to mend.

Posted by: Carolina at August 30, 2010 8:53 AM
Comment #307222
MAG wrote: Like I said to you in another colunm if you want a liberal view on politics watch Shultz, Olberman, and Maddow If you want a conservative view watch Beck, O’Rielly, and Hannity and if you want the truth find out for yourself. Me I prefer a little mix of liberal and conservative, then I find out for myself who is factual.
Right.

Because few (if any) of them won’t miss the chance to put their extremist spin on things.
Especially when the talking heads start taking jabs at each other:

Trying to defend one of those talking heads is likely to thoroughly frustrate themself, and turn themself into a pretzel, because a lot of what they do and say is indefensible. That doesn’t mean everything they say is a lie. They’re not that dumb. What they do is mix truths and lies, that appeal to their base which is one of the extremes:

  • Extreme # 1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).
  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged, abused, and pilfered) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress (who perpetuate these with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 30, 2010 8:57 AM
Comment #307223

MAG-
Good for you. If you enjoy watching Beck better, I can’t stop you.

But here’s the thing: people can be compelling, and can throw stuff at us that sounds very convincing and plausible, and still have it be complete bunk.

The way we construct our perceptions and understanding is decidedly imperfect. It is not built to scientific precision. That kind of discipline, that kind of skepticism is something we must learn, and learning, apply conscientiously.

We always got an idea in our head about the way the world works, and when confronted by compelling events in front of us, we are naturally drawn to write a story in our head about what’s going on. And naturally, when somebody tells us a rich, complex story, or relates something to us with seemingly sincere emotion, we can be drawn to imagine what they imagine, or at least some close approximation.

But you know, there are such things as good liars, as incompetent and uninformed people who nonetheless have the charisma or the force of personality to push their BS. If we simply deal with these people with just our feelings, with just our normal partisan idea of things, we will of course, be taken for a ride or misled by fools.

We have to realize that the best way to be truly free is to rely on more than just what captivates us emotionally, what fits into what we already know. It’s important to understand and realize where there are logical holes in somebody’s claims, or factual disparities.

When we can perceive those, charlatans like Glenn Beck will not have the hold on us that they do.

I don’t watch Glenn Beck for the same reason I don’t watch Rush Limbaugh or FOXNews. They are not reliable sources, and I have enough problems in my life without having to suffer through hours worth of people putting down liberals and alleging they’re evil and diseased fifth column enthusiasts.

For my part, its interesting that the folks hyping up this thing don’t quote his speech, but rather his attendance numbers. Republicans have been obsessed with attendance numbers since Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, where he regularly drew tens of thousands to McCain’s hundreds. Oh, and of course, they had to hype the tea party numbers when they marched on Washington so they could match Obama’s millions back in the day.

Republicans are trying to hype their way back into power, and one way to do that is to draw attention to how popular they are. The question is, why didn’t Beck choose some other day, some other place? Obama could gain such numbers, during the 2008 election, where ever he went. He didn’t have to announce the location months in advance. People wanted to see him, found his rhetoric compelling in its own right

Beck? Beck’s having to lean on all kinds of historical figures to support himself. He had pictures of Lincoln besides him. He was hyping up his connection to MLK, and pretty much doing his speech in the same place on the anniversary of that great protest they did.

Beck is like a Kardashian. Those girls are famous, not because they truly achieved anything, but because others help them achieve noteriety. They are not underdog victors in some contest, they are not great actresses or comedians or singers or whatever.

Without FOXNews, would Beck have his following? Without his antics, would anybody really care about his message. He has to make a screaming sobbing mess of himself on every show.

The Republicans have to rely on people like him because they’ve basically kicked out of their mainstream any Republican who had enough ability to form an opinion to disagree with the party line.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2010 9:05 AM
Comment #307225

Carolina:

You were doing a great job until you came to point #5:

“5) The fact that Glenn Beck isn’t as educated as Rachel Maddow (PHD) or Keith Olbermann in the grand scheme of things isn’t that important. Many educated people are as stupid as he is. It isn’t his education that impacts his message-it is the message itself. It lacks facts, intelligence, consistency, and clearness of thought. Above that I have issues with his lying, fearmongering, narcissism, lack of empathy, god complex, and his vision that he is the second coming. He is a mentally sick and pathological person. I also believe that in a few years we will all being saying, “whatever happened to Glenn Beck wasn’t he a wackjob”. and young people will be asking “Glenn who” unfortunately in the short run the damage he is causing to our country will take years to mend.”

At this point you just became another liberal hack, who has resulted to personal insults and personal attacks. It’s a shame. I would have to put you in the same category as Stephen; we can read these same things on the DK, or hear them from Maddow, Olbermann, or Matthews.

Evidently a Masters Degree is not enough to prevent a person from diving to the bottom of the barrel…

Stephen:

“I don’t watch Glenn Beck for the same reason I don’t watch Rush Limbaugh or FOXNews. They are not reliable sources, and I have enough problems in my life without having to suffer through hours worth of people putting down liberals and alleging they’re evil and diseased fifth column enthusiasts.”

So you get your info from, whom??? Oh yeah, DK, Maddow, Olbermann, and Matthews… Well, I must say, they are factual and non-partisan.

“Without FOXNews, would Beck have his following?”

Guess what Stephen; without Fox News, America would still be in the position of being spoon-fed socialism by the big 3 networks. I call this the “Dark Ages” of America. I think the left loves the Internet because they can get their 5 minutes of fame posted on websites, but I think they HATE conservative’s use of cable, radio, and Internet, because it allows the truth to get out. This is why there has been an ongoing attempt by liberals to control the radio (by shutting down conservatives), and be taking control of the Internet (through FCC rules). The old, “good for the goose, but not the gander” senerio…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 30, 2010 9:43 AM
Comment #307226

Here is Glen’s honesty:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/aug/27/glenn-beck-faces-truth-o-meter/


Here is his integrity:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21589

How many people at that rally belive Obama is Muslim? How many think he’s not a US citizen? How many think his polocies are socialist?

The fact that so many people follow this guy is proof that Americans generally are fools.

Posted by: 037 at August 30, 2010 9:51 AM
Comment #307227

Since the main thought of this post is Glenn Beck’s rally, I would like to include this link, that shows a real cross view of the Tea Party, and the Beck rally:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/30/political-wisdom-glenn-becks-rally/

There is all kinds of hate and personal attacks on WB about Beck, the Rally, and the people who attended, but several articles have been written in major news papers, by conservatives and liberals. Even the NYT said there was nothing political of racist about the rally. For those who just want to comment and not really read a link, I will add this quote from Clive Cook of the Atlantic:

“At The Atlantic, avowed atheist Clive Crook writes that he finds Beck’s popularity “very hard to understand.”

As I say, I find Beck a tragi-comic figure. And as an atheist (I didn’t deny being godless) I do not thrill when a speaker says, “America today begins to turn back to God”. Quite a claim, that: Beck’s signature modesty again. At the same time, though, this gathering — as it turned out, far more of a religious revival than a political rally — was completely unsinister. No anger, so far as one could see; no racism. Beck says his choice of date and venue was initially a coincidence, then an act of God; either way, he meant no disrespect to Martin Luther King. I had thought Beck did not believe in coincidences: arrows connect everything to everything else in his mental world. On the other hand, at the event, he praised King effusively as an American hero and sounded as though he meant it. Perhaps he was insincere; even so, an odd thing to say if you are addressing a quarter of a million bigots.

The truth is, it was an enormously friendly, good-natured event. There were families with children everywhere, all smiles. “The event had the feeling of a large church picnic,” said the NYT. The most political statement was on the T-shirts that said, “I can see November from my house.”

These comments by a liberal athiest, kind of flies in the face of the racist, bigoted, hateful and personal attacks on this site.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 30, 2010 10:06 AM
Comment #307229

Stephen;

Let’s see…about 300,000 people, give or take, went to the Becck rally.

Today, each one of them will be back home re-energized.

Meanwhile, Barry is peeling his birth certificate off his forehead and preparing for a victory speech on a war that he voted against.

I went back and read your early stuff “What the hell are we doing there…”

Seems like you were wrong.

I like you anyway though. Just wish George W. gave that speech.

Posted by: agentgibbs at August 30, 2010 10:11 AM
Comment #307230

“Even the NYT said there was nothing political or racist about the rally”

You may be able to fool the NYT, but not the conservative Newsmax. They know damn well it was political:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-DC-Rally-Democrats/2010/08/29/id/368649

Posted by: 037 at August 30, 2010 10:17 AM
Comment #307231

037 said”

“Here is Glen’s honesty:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/aug/27/glenn-beck-faces-truth-o-meter/

Here is his integrity:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/21589
How many people at that rally belive Obama is Muslim? How many think he’s not a US citizen? How many think his polocies are socialist?
The fact that so many people follow this guy is proof that Americans generally are fools.”

This really great 037, how about this one:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

Your attack on Goldline, is nothing more than an attempt by the left to cause him to loose a sponsor. So it means nothing… If there were something illegal, don’t you think Obama’s AG Holder would have gone after him?

Q: How many people at the rally believe Obama is a Muslim?
A: Polls say 20%

Q: How many think he’s not a US citizen?
A: Same poll, 20%

Q: How many think his policies are socialist?
A: Polls say 55%,

http://the-new-american-republic.blogspot.com/2010/07/obama-socialist-fascist-communist.html

Any more questions?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 30, 2010 10:23 AM
Comment #307232

“Even the NYT said there was nothing political or racist about the rally”

You may be able to fool the NYT, but not the conservative Newsmax. They know damn well it was political:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-DC-Rally-Democrats/2010/08/29/id/368649

Posted by: 037 at August 30, 2010 10:17 AM

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you posted this link.

It says:

1. The democrats are in trouble.

2. The tea party is going to be a force to recon with.

3. The rally had religious overtones.

You have a point???

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 30, 2010 10:33 AM
Comment #307233

Beretta9:

“The road to socialism? Where have these people been for the last 75 years? America has been a socialist – as well as fascist – nation for many decades,”

That is the second paragraph from the article you referenced about socialism. Just a bit well….. NUTS

20 percent believe Obama is a not a citizen. Well at least 20% then are fools.

As for Goldline you really don’t know the difference between legal and moral???

Nice try to deflect talking abot Obama. I believe the article is focused on Glen though.

Posted by: 037 at August 30, 2010 10:36 AM
Comment #307234


That oh so socialist USA

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/06/now-that-the-government-owns-general-motors/18555/

Posted by: 037 at August 30, 2010 10:46 AM
Comment #307235

Stephen You blew it again if you would have read what I wrote to Rich in post #307201 you would have seen that I watch Beck RARELY but Matthews is in the same time slot so I watch him. If I had a choice between Beck, Olberman, Maddow or Shultz I would watch Beck #307153. Shultz, Olberman and Maddow IMO are paid liberal Republican Bashers and are a detriment to the Democratic party. I know your going to say the same for Beck but Beck is NOT a Republican.

Posted by: MAG at August 30, 2010 10:48 AM
Comment #307236

Berreta9

Now this is getting to easy:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/who-is-more-conservative-ronald-reagan-or-barack-obama

Posted by: 037 at August 30, 2010 10:49 AM
Comment #307239

Beretta9-
You guys keep insisting that we’d like these people more if we simply devoted the time you devote to watching their programs.

Right.

Or you insist we’re merely hiding the fact that we secretly agree with you.

Right.

You know what? I don’t go out of my way to watch Olbermann or Maddow, either. Why? Because I don’t need to be told my opinion. I don’t need to spend an hour being harangued by a paranoid schizophrenic, or a smug, venomous hatemonger who makes his contempt for me and mine obvious all the time. You might find it easy to watch hours of them, but I’d probably end up Jon Stewart in this clip.

I prefer to watch and read actual reporting, to be closer to sources. I prefer sources that rather than simply just analyze a mountain out of a molehill, tell me meaningful information about serious questions that I might have.

If I find Maddow and Olbermann mostly unnecessary, most of the time, why shouldn’t I find Beck and Limbaugh worse than useless, given how much they bash people like me, and what we believe?

If I don’t want to be spoon-fed my opinion by those I like, I certainly won’t spend hours a week being spoon-fed it by people who are d***s to me.

And I certainly won’t watch one of those guys indulge his delusions of grandeur, by trying to hijack the legacy of somebody who did some genuine good for this society, who helped heal it and unite it in a way it hadn’t been before, rather than doing his absolute square best to yell fire in the theater of the public forum.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2010 12:11 PM
Comment #307243

Well Stephen, I guess your actual reporting and sources are the same as Maddow’s, Olbermann’s, and the DK. OR, they are reading your posts and learning from you…

To the rest of what you and 037 say, I respond with blah, blah, blah; same ol same ol…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 30, 2010 2:24 PM
Comment #307247

Glenn Beck (along with Fox News in general) sells overwrought emotions and fear of many things. Accordingly, both emotionalism and fear were clearly reflected in why the themes of religion and patriotic militarism were used for his big rally.

Since times are so tough in America, I expect Beck’s popularity can only continue to grow…

Posted by: Adrienne at August 30, 2010 3:31 PM
Comment #307250

Adrienne:

And exactly what is wrong with religion and patriotism of any sort? And why do you expect Beck’s popularity to grow?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 30, 2010 4:03 PM
Comment #307253

To the rest of what you and 037 say, I respond with blah, blah, blah; same ol same ol…

and I transalte that into…”your right and I can’t put up an intelligent defense…….

So how’s that being apart of the 55% morons workin’ for ya breretta9?

Posted by: 037 at August 30, 2010 4:18 PM
Comment #307254

Henry

dlaws? Did you misspell something? I don’t know what that is short for on watchblog.

I have always enjoyed watchblog BECAUSE I don’t see people worry about spelling I see them worry about the topic. In fact I admire those posters that routinely correct themselves. The misspelling comments on this post are unusual and worthless.

Who said I was a conservative or representing them?

I don’t understand your middle statement could you restate it more specifically?

Posted by: Edge at August 30, 2010 4:23 PM
Comment #307258

Stop with the spelling complaints. Let’s concentrate on what people say. I too like it better when words are spelled right and arranged in good order, but we are not composition class here.

Re Glen Beck - there are lots of estimates of his crowd size. I looked at the pictures. His rally lay across some of my favorite running trails. If you were to run around where the crowd was thick, it would take around fifteen minutes at a good speed. For comparison, if you run around that front of the Capitol to 14th Street, about how far the Obama crowd reached, it takes around twenty to twenty five minutes. So from the running point of view, the biggest crowd I ever saw was the Obama inauguration crowd. The second biggest was Glen Beck. None of the others come close. I ran around the big Code Pink rally (when it was actually going on) in about four minutes

Posted by: C&J at August 30, 2010 5:39 PM
Comment #307259

Beretta:

And exactly what is wrong with religion and patriotism of any sort?

I actually said patriotic militarism.
But to answer your question, in my view the sort definitely matters a great deal.

For instance the sort of religion and patriotism displayed by the words and actions of Dr. King stand in stark opposition to the sort displayed by people like Beck and other Fox News mouthpieces.
For instance, Dr. King was a staunch proponent of rational and respectful discourse, equal rights, equal justice, and nonviolence. He didn’t go around trying to divide Americans by propagating misinformation, fear, overwrought emotion and intolerance.

And why do you expect Beck’s popularity to grow?

Because throughout the history of the world it’s proven very easy, especially in tough times, to divide and rile people up the way that Beck does.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 30, 2010 5:42 PM
Comment #307260

Beretta9-
You guess? Perhaps we’re looking at some of the same papers. But why should that be a problem for me, unless those sources related false information?

That seems to be the whole thing you’re losing in this bias argument you’re trying here: bias and being in error are two different things.

You’re trying to hang this general cloud of suspicion on what they and I said, but you have yet to really prove anything wrong. And if you haven’t proven anything wrong, who knows, being liberally biased might tend to insulate you from error! We might tend to handle our facts better than you do.

The quality of our facts should matter most, both for assessing the sources, and assessing our claims, not the political association. You’re using the tactics better suited for some soviet apparatchik who can bully people into agreement than an American Citizen who our founders would have rely more on the powers of reason.

C&J-
You folks would ironically be more popular if you were less concerned about short term manipulation of public support and more concerned about long range policy.

The funny thing about measuring popular support for things is that you often end up having to explain away or rationalize your opponents popularity, before you engineer your own, in order to justify your actions.

And really, you still are facing that dilemma.

Look at the Bush Tax Cuts. They poll terribly. Yet your people and some centrist Democrats are still pursuing their renewal. What’s wrong with this picture?

There’s a reason that argument by popularity is considered fallacious. You can sure convince people that public support is the most important part, politically, but really, what’s more important? Policy that’s popular, or policy that keeps our fat out of the fire? Folks went for our kind of Democracy because society can get caught up in its own emotions, and folks don’t always have time to really think about what they’re asking. Having a Republic gives our politicians the space to take political risks, which are essential to the preservation of a nation like ours. Sometimes people have to do the right thing and take the political hit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2010 6:05 PM
Comment #307261

Edge,
Call if fat fingers, but it should read flaws not dlaws.

On the middle part, I do believe you are your own doctor, lawyer, and candle stick maker; however, without government assistance (the establishment of principles and standards) you cannot prescrbe medicine, represent others, or or even sale candles. So, do you think we should make you fend for yourself because you lack Mans’Documents of Teachings?

No, government by itself is not the answer; however, at the same time the Private Sector is not the answer to the problems faced by Humans. Nevertheless, designed to keep the Wolves at Bay I do believe they are the best at educating and enlighting the Individual to the Unknown & Unspoken Universe of Mankind.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 30, 2010 6:33 PM
Comment #307263

Stephen, Do you really think it would be a wise thing to raise taxes now? As far as popularity goes I listened to a little of Ed Shultz till I got sick of the BS. I guess he was jealous of Beck because he had a bigger crowd then Sharpton and he was one of the speakers. He claimed Beck had a crowd of old white people, I guess he considers MLK’s niece white, from what I saw there were Blacks in the crowd, not many but they were there. I wonder some time how MSNBC stays in business, hell they don’t even have news programs on the weekend. Maybe they don’t think news happens on the weekend. Now Matthews was civil about the Beck rally, I waiting to see Olberman and Maddow’s comments.

Posted by: MAG at August 30, 2010 6:43 PM
Comment #307265

MAG,

” I guess he considers MLK’s niece white, from what I saw there were Blacks in the crowd, not many but they were there.”

So in having MLK’s niece there to speak it was merely serendipitous that this happened at the same venue, on the anniversary of the MLK speech…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 30, 2010 7:19 PM
Comment #307266

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” This insightful quote is from a book written in 1935 by Sinclair Lewis titled “It Can’t Happen Here.”

Posted by: Jeff at August 30, 2010 7:21 PM
Comment #307267

Stephen

I am not sure what you mean by “you folks”. As I have explained on many occasions, I believe we need less governments spending, more reliance on market forces and efficient, but limited government. I prefer if lots of people agreed with me and voted that way. But I cannot change to fit the current winds of popularity. I vote for and support those politicians that fit my desires as closely as possible. None really do.

I would prefer to keep most things OUT of politics altogether and just not be much bothered. But we cannot ignore politics because politics won’t ignore us.

Posted by: C&J at August 30, 2010 7:36 PM
Comment #307271

She CHOSE to be there, Rocky. I just repeated what Shultz said Only OLD white people attended so I guess he considers her white and the Blacks that did attend. The thing is Rocky guys like Shultz give liberals a bad name and I’m not leaving out some of the conservative commentators either like Rush or on a smaller scale Beck.

Posted by: MAG at August 30, 2010 7:51 PM
Comment #307276

Henry, I think we agree. A modern democracy has the obligation to help people regardless of education, IQ, etc.

I don’t like the politics of 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. I think it is a disincentive to go back to work. I believe WSJ had a good OpEd today that said we have gone as far as 39 weeks. At some point a capable citizen of working age has an obligation to get back into the workforce at some level. And support those that are incapacitated. Those that truly need the support of their fellow citizens. I worry that we will have slower decline of unemployed and underemployed because of the precedent set. I hope I am wrong, but can’t you hear someone saying that back in 2010 we went 99 weeks, why not all that time?

The government plays an important role, and I appreciate and like your use of the word “assistance” rather than support. To me it implies you and I are thinking alike. That there should be help, then there should eventually be a swift kick in the arse. I don’t support that coming at 99 weeks, much sooner.

On the point, I think Beck has promoted a message of self dependence. Self reliance. Limited but helpful government. It is here where I agree with C&J’s thankful redundancy (The joke goes: from the Department of Redundancy Department). Less government, reasonable regulation, less spending, more effort to push people to succeed.

Posted by: Edge at August 30, 2010 8:01 PM
Comment #307278

MAG-
So magically, by being there, she can cast an magic MLK aura over Beck and the event? No. Consistency of principle is more important than the sharing of DNA by one of the attendees.

As for taxes? Learn basic accounting. Learn economics. You are making a Keynesian argument when you say that taxes should not go up. A real fiscal conservative would want taxes to go up to soak up all the spending, and if that meant too much taxes, lower spending to suit.

Republicans are just doing the supply side of what Democrats are doing, and history has proven that the Demand Side approach works better than the supply side.

Now, the Obama folks are prepared to preserve the tax breaks for most Americans remain, while letting taxes go up on the richest among us. They’re not spending all their money the way those less well of than they are doing.

Anyways, if Obama merely does nothing, his tax policy will have nothing to do with why the tax cuts are ending now. That was a decision by a Republican Congress and a Republican President, when they had control. The only reason you’re having problems now is that you used a reconciliation procedure to pass the tax cut, thereby making it both filibuster-proof, and unable to last longer than a certain period of years.

C&J-
By what measure would the tax cuts prove successful, if it’s all about doing the right thing?. There’s not much to show for that tax cut. The economy, in real, non-bubble inflated terms, went downhill. Jobs were lost faster than before. Inflation was starting to become a problem.

And really, it was never targetted to the folks who actually use, or would actually spend the money.

And if you guys (meaning Republicans and those on the Right) were to succeed in getting any such measure passed, you would double the size of the eventual deficit.

If it’s all about doing the right thing, how is this the right thing to do?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2010 8:19 PM
Comment #307280

Stephen, I DID NOT SAY taxes should not go up, I said is it wise to raise taxes NOW with the economy the way it is. As far as MLK’s niece Why did she choose Beck over Sharpton? And by the way it was by HER choise

Posted by: MAG at August 30, 2010 8:27 PM
Comment #307281

Stephen

I want government to spend less and to become less intrusive.

I am very moderate on this. I ask only that we return spending (as % of GDP) back to the levels of 2000. Bush grew government too much. Obama is growing it even more. Let’s just stop the growth and go back to what we had at a time when we all agree that things were okay.

If we spent at the 2000 levels, we would have no deficit once the economy improves. We had record levels of revenue in 2006-7. Record levels, BTW, means we had never before collected so much in Federal taxes. If spending had not increased so much, we would have had surpluses in those years.

My problem is the growing size of Federal spending. My proposal to you would be that if we get spending down to 2000 levels, I would be perfectly happy to tax up to that point to meet it so that the budget was balanced. But I don’t trust politicians to keep spending under control. They will usually spend as much as they can … and then a little more.

Posted by: C&J at August 30, 2010 8:36 PM
Comment #307282

MAG,

“She CHOSE to be there, Rocky.”

My point is did she ask to be there, or was she asked to be there.
If she asked to be there fine, I don’t have a problem with that.
If she was asked to be there, then the choice of the venue and the date of this shindig weren’t as spontaneous as we have been led to believe.

I don’t have a problem with her choices. I have a problem with Mr. Divine Providence, and his typical line of BS.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 30, 2010 8:37 PM
Comment #307284

Rocky I’m sure it was her choise. NAACP had contacted members of the MLK family for Sharpton’s rally but NONE accepted. Alveda was the only one to commit even stating that her uncle would have choosen Beck’s rally over Sharpton’s.

Posted by: MAG at August 30, 2010 9:27 PM
Comment #307285

Edge,

“I don’t like the politics of 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. I think it is a disincentive to go back to work.”

You are just wrong. In this economy there are not enough jobs for those seeking work. That is a fact. My brother, today, found a full time job after a year and a half of unemployment. A part time job and unemployment benefits (adjusted for part time income) got him through his period of unemployment. The unemployment benefits were literally his life line. They were not a disincentive to work. He took what work was available and sought full time employment throughout his period of unemployment. He is no different than the vast majority of those without work. It is truly insulting to imply that the umemployed are lazy or gaming the system. You don’t get rich on unemployment benefits. You survive.

Posted by: Rich at August 30, 2010 9:45 PM
Comment #307288

MAG:

NAACP had contacted members of the MLK family for Sharpton’s rally but NONE accepted.

Is this what Fox News reported? It’s wrong. Martin Luther King’s son was indeed at Sharpton’s rally, and he spoke at the site of the planned memorial for his father.

Alveda was the only one to commit even stating that her uncle would have choosen Beck’s rally over Sharpton’s.

Martin Luther King III strongly disagrees with his cousin.

Quote from the link:

Vast numbers of Americans know of my father’s leadership in opposing segregation. Yet too many believe that his dream was limited to achieving racial equality. Certainly he sought that objective, but his vision was about more than expanding rights for a single race. He hoped that even in the direst circumstances, we could overcome our differences and replace bitter conflicts with greater understanding, reconciliation and cooperation.

My father championed free speech. He would be the first to say that those participating in Beck’s rally have the right to express their views. But his dream rejected hateful rhetoric and all forms of bigotry or discrimination, whether directed at race, faith, nationality, sexual orientation or political beliefs. He envisioned a world where all people would recognize one another as sisters and brothers in the human family. Throughout his life he advocated compassion for the poor, nonviolence, respect for the dignity of all people and peace for humanity.

Although he was a profoundly religious man, my father did not claim to have an exclusionary “plan” that laid out God’s word for only one group or ideology. He marched side by side with members of every religious faith. Like Abraham Lincoln, my father did not claim that God was on his side; he prayed humbly that he was on God’s side.


Posted by: Adrienne at August 30, 2010 10:19 PM
Comment #307289

I would venture to say, there is not one single liberal on this site who has even bothered to find out what the rally was about, or what they said, or who was there. Concerning it being made up of old white rich people, which is a lie straight from the pits of hell. There were whites, blacks, Muslims, Indians; they brought their kids, which meant they were young enough to have kids; there were teenagers. There were religious leaders who spoke; they were Catholic, Church of God, Muslim Imams, Baptist, and non-denominational. There were close to 500,000 people there and they started gathering as early as Wednesday, so they could get good seats. They never spoke about politics, they never bashed obama, they carried no signs, and there was no hate speech. The rally was not about the Tea Party. And everything I just said can be read in liberal and conservative newspapers. Everything that was predicted before the rally by the left never came to pass. Evidently the left on WB never got the memo, because you all are stil spouting the same hate speech.

From Adrienne:

“Beretta:
And exactly what is wrong with religion and patriotism of any sort?

I actually said patriotic militarism.
But to answer your question, in my view the sort definitely matters a great deal.

For instance the sort of religion and patriotism displayed by the words and actions of Dr. King stand in stark opposition to the sort displayed by people like Beck and other Fox News mouthpieces.
For instance, Dr. King was a staunch proponent of rational and respectful discourse, equal rights, equal justice, and nonviolence. He didn’t go around trying to divide Americans by propagating misinformation, fear, overwrought emotion and intolerance.
And why do you expect Beck’s popularity to grow?
Because throughout the history of the world it’s proven very easy, especially in tough times, to divide and rile people up the way that Beck does.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 30, 2010 05:42 PM”

Sorry Adrienne, but you have no idea what you are talking about. The speeches that took place on 8/28 are exactly the sort of speeches that Martin Luther King would have given. And 70% of America believe the same way as these rally people, that is why they will listen to Beck.

MAG said:

“Rocky I’m sure it was her choise. NAACP had contacted members of the MLK family for Sharpton’s rally but NONE accepted. Alveda was the only one to commit even stating that her uncle would have choosen Beck’s rally over Sharpton’s.
Posted by: MAG at August 30, 2010 09:27 PM

Alveda King spoke at the rally and not one of the King family agreed to speak for Al Sharpton. Why is that, if the real King rally was taking place under Sharpton’s leadership? I’ll tell you why; Al Sharpton is a bigoted racist, and when racism is gone, so is Al’s purpose for being. Him and Jessie Jackson survive as long as they can stir up racism. The left, for years, has been doing the same race baiting. Always the dividers, never the uniters. America is getting wise to your tricks.

The people on the left are disgusting. They attack anyone who does not fit their mold. I will be glad when the left is booted out of congress. How many of you guys have attacked Alveda because she spoke at this rally. One liberal writer said, “he could not understand the religious aspect of the rally”, and guess what, you will never be able to understand what those 500,000 people were doing in DC. Because you live in this little world of your own and are absolutely blind to what 70% of America believes. There is 70% of America that is fed up with your socialist ideas and you will hear from them in two months.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 30, 2010 10:27 PM
Comment #307290

Adrienne, perhaps you could give us one of those hate filled quotes that MLK III talked about. Your the one who gave us his quote. I want to see a hate filled remark that was said on 8/28.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 30, 2010 10:32 PM
Comment #307291

Adrienne, No it was not fox infact it was from a liberal news paper I googled.

Posted by: MAG at August 30, 2010 10:35 PM
Comment #307293

Adrienne

What MLK III said and advocated is almost exactly what Beck did, so I guess MRK III would be a Beck supporter if he actually knew what Beck said on Saturday.

The entire Beck rally is available on Internet. I am sure that his detractors have been looking carefully for something they could call bigoted or hateful. Since they have not found anything, we know that there is nothing to be found except in the fevered imaginations of liberals who are unhappy that they are not fighting the stereotype they have created.

Posted by: C&J at August 30, 2010 10:47 PM
Comment #307294

Rich, I am not wrong, I have an opinion that you can’t disprove. That your brother is “not” the norm. Let me be more specific and less general like you. I think that there is a health portion, not majority, of unemployed that deserve the help. I don’t think 99 weeks is realistic. I don’t think it is governments role to carry someone that far. But there is, which you don’t seem to acknowledge, a healthy segment of the unemployed that are opportunistic. Not like your family. I wish more were like your family. Since there is no means testing, I could only hope that most are like your brother. You are clearly left and right on this topic to think it is all and none. That is silly.

And if you are insulted because I suggest that there are some that will game the system then good. That is what I intended because it is less than honest to believe that a government system is not gamed. So meet me in-between. Acknowledge that the system is gamed, that 99 weeks encourages more gaming, and that there are those like your brother that hate gaming and work hard to find work and sustain themselves, but just fall on bad luck. I’d would much rather keep more of my money, and help your brother through charity (where I give a lot of my money because I have a stronger sense of means testing). The government does a piss poor job of determining who is gaming the system.

Do you think your brother, after all this effort would be happy to know that when he does find full employment, that a portion of that paycheck goes to people that are not looking for work and are on week 120 of unemployment? Let me answer that, just taking from your own statement of what he has done to help himself … he’d be freaking pissed.

Posted by: Edge at August 30, 2010 10:48 PM
Comment #307298

MAG:

He claimed Beck had a crowd of old white people

I’ve been looking at a bunch of the photos taken of the crowds at Beck’s rally — and there clearly was an enormous number of old white people there. Made me wonder how many of them were supporters of the civil rights movement in the 1960’s — or fought against it as the case may be.

I get the feeling that a lot of the people at the ‘Restoring’ rally were expecting at least a little of the usual red-meat speeches from Beck and Palin and had to go away a bit disappointed. Maybe that’s because the event couldn’t be a strictly political one due to the involvement of the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, so Beck and company figured they had to tone things down and decided to make like televangelists for the afternoon.

from what I saw there were Blacks in the crowd, not many but they were there.

I’m actually surprised that there were any black folks there at all.
When you think about it, there is Beck who has said that Obama hates white people and called him a racist, and now he’s currently railing against Obama’s supposed “liberation theology.” And certainly Palin’s made no bones about exactly who qualifies as a “real American” to her, spoke out against the mosque in NYC, and is a recent defender of Laura Schlessinger’s hate speech on the radio. And finally, there was even Ted Nugent — a guy whose hate has been spewing for years. Most recently, this story out of Dubuque Iowa is notable for it’s display of Nugent’s racism.

Aside from the speakers, think of all this “constitutional originalist” talk the tea party crowd is always promoting so heavily. If that comes to fruition, it will automatically repeal the civil rights legislation that Dr. King fought so hard and long for, and yes, even died for.

So, yeah. I’m really surprised there were any black folks at the rally all — including Dr. King’s niece.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 30, 2010 11:27 PM
Comment #307299

I suggest you look at some more pictures and not just those from some liberal site Adrienne because the ones I saw prople from all age groups were there. Don’t you think there are any conservative blacks? Beck did appoligize for saying that BHO was a racist. I wouldn’t know about Ted Nugent, I don’t like his music. I’d speak out about the Mosque or community center near ground zero to. If that Imam really wanted to promote healing he would move the location.

Posted by: MAG at August 30, 2010 11:49 PM
Comment #307300

C&J,


“I am sure that his detractors have been looking carefully for something they could call bigoted or hateful.”

I surely am a detractor of Beck, not because he is necessarily bigoted or hateful, though the quotes from his program pretty much speak for themselves. I am a detractor of Beck because he is a bulls**t artist that wouldn’t know MLK if he bit him on the a**.

This an excerpt from “A Testament of Hope the essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther King” published in 1986.

I want to hear these words come out of Beck’s mouth, and have him mean it, without his hair catching on fire. Only then will I believe that Beck truly wants to regain Dr. King’s civil rights legacy.

“We need an economic bill of rights. This would guarantee a job to all people who want to work and are able to work. It would also guarantee an income for all who are not able to work.”

As I said before, the truth to Glen Beck is like a beach ball…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 31, 2010 12:06 AM
Comment #307301
Sorry Adrienne, but you have no idea what you are talking about. The speeches that took place on 8/28 are exactly the sort of speeches that Martin Luther King would have given.

One rally doesn’t cancel out all of the other speeches that Glenn Beck and other Fox News performers have given on television for years on end.

And 70% of America believe the same way as these rally people, that is why they will listen to Beck.

If that’s true, I consider it a tragic state of affairs for this country. But I don’t think that this is actually the case — because if they did, McCain and Palin would have won the last election by a landslide, no?

As for Beck, well I for one don’t enjoy listening to the overwrought ramblings of fearmongers and madmen, so I guess you can count me in with that 30% minority.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 31, 2010 12:09 AM
Comment #307302

Adrienne;

I have not been to Beck’s site, but I understand there are many pictures there of the rally. He actually had a photographer to take pictures of the whole event. You can look at them; that is, if you really want to know who was there.

You said:

“I get the feeling that a lot of the people at the ‘Restoring’ rally were expecting at least a little of the usual red-meat speeches from Beck and Palin and had to go away a bit disappointed. Maybe that’s because the event couldn’t be a strictly political one due to the involvement of the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, so Beck and company figured they had to tone things down and decided to make like televangelists for the afternoon.”

The rally was never advertised as a political event. It was always advertised as an American religious awakening event. You misrepresent the truth. Perhaps you could offer some proof about this statement, “I get the feeling that a lot of the people at the ‘Restoring’ rally were expecting at least a little of the usual red-meat speeches from Beck and Palin and had to go away a bit disappointed.”

Your statements are conjecture and an attempt to vilify the organizers and the American people.

Why would you be surprised that any blacks would attend? Are blacks not allowed to think outside the liberal box of government servitude? And that is exactly what the democratic party has done to blacks: placed them in servitude to government handouts. I believe there are some liberals who have real physcological problems.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 12:14 AM
Comment #307303

C&J:

I suggest you look at some more pictures and not just those from some liberal site Adrienne

These are the photos I was looking at. Would YahooNews be considered too liberal a site?

Posted by: Adrienne at August 31, 2010 12:22 AM
Comment #307304

I have a feeling Adrienne has no idea waht he is talking about.

“One rally doesn’t cancel out all of the other speeches that Glenn Beck and other Fox News performers have given on television for years on end.”

This post is about the Beck rally, it is not about Beck’s history!!!

“If that’s true, I consider it a tragic state of affairs for this country. But I don’t think that this is actually the case — because if they did, McCain and Palin would have won the last election by a landslide, no?”

You will see how true it is in November. Obama won the election because he promised to move the country in a new direction. But the American people have found out that he is not doing what he promised and that he is just another lying politician, out to serve himself.

I know the left never pays any attention to polls, unless it benefits them, but you might want to start looking. There is a consistant 65-70% of Americans who don’t like where we are going and who are fed up with liberalism. I realize the left is not able to get their minds wrapped around this rejection, but it’s true.

Furthermore, my conversation with Adrienne is finished. He offers absolutly no logic to his arguements. We have come to the point where it is just a waste of time talking.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 12:28 AM
Comment #307305

For any liberal who is actually interested in who attended the Beck rally, here is a link:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44980/

Of course, if you just want to continue speading lies, don’t go there…But you will notice a mixed group of people.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 12:35 AM
Comment #307306

Since liberals are so prone to blame everything on Glenn Beck, this is a great post from Power Line, about what America believes concerning Obama’s Christianity:

Glenn Beck nails it
August 30, 2010 Posted by Paul Mirengoff at 8:57 PM

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/027120.php

“As John has noted, America remains unclear about President Obama’s religious affiliation. Thus, in a Pew Research survey, 43 percent (a plurality) said they don’t know which religion Obama practices.
John has offered some good explanations for this uncertainty, especially the misperception that Obama is a Muslim. But I think it is Glenn Beck who has the best explanation for why so many Americans don’t identify Obama as a Christian. Beck told Fox News that, “Obama is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology, which is oppressor-and-victim” and “people aren’t recognizing his version of Christianity.”
I take Beck to be using the word “recognize” in its ordinary “perceptive” sense (as in, he didn’t recognize his long-lost childhood friend). This is to be distinguished from “recognizing” in the sense of formal acknowledgement (as in, the U.S. refused to recognize the new, breakaway Republic in Central Africa).
Obama’s problem is that the Christianity of Rev. Wright, whose congregation he attended for 20 years, and of less abrasive liberation theologists as well, just isn’t recognizable to a great many Americans as Christianity because it doesn’t much resemble the Christianity they are familiar with. If Obama lived in El Salvador, where liberation theology is more common, his Christianity would be less in doubt.
Beck himself, I believe, stands in a slightly different position than most Americans who can’t say Obama is a Christian. Beck recognizes Obama’s religion as a set of beliefs whose adherents call themselves Christians. But Beck does not acknowledge that this belief set actually is Christian. Accordingly, Beck isn’t scratching his head about Obama’s religious stance, but many Americans are.
I’ll leave to others the debate about whether liberation theology should be considered Christian. But I think Beck has put his finger on the reason why so many Americans don’t perceive Obama to be a Christian.”

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 12:53 AM
Comment #307307

Ha. Just from the responses I’ve gotten here I can see just how much that Beck Rally spread pure love into the hearts of his followers!

Posted by: Adrienne at August 31, 2010 12:54 AM
Comment #307308

Beretta,

“Of course, if you just want to continue speading lies, don’t go there…But you will notice a mixed group of people.”

Um, really, not so much.

I looked at all of the pictures at the link you provided, and if the photographer was attempting to show a mix of races at the event he/she failed miserably.

I saw a few Blacks in the “onstage” photos, 4 Blacks in the “people” photos, and 1 or 2 in the “crowd” photos.
Where were the Asians?

Now for a rally that claimed it’s purpose was to “reclaim the civil rights movement” the pictures didn’t show much to make me believe that the people whose civil rights were the basis for the term, were much interested in this rally.

BTW, if it is the same Adrienne I think it is, she’s a lady.

Hey Adrienne.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 31, 2010 1:04 AM
Comment #307309

Beretta,

“Since liberals are so prone to blame everything on Glenn Beck, this is a great post from Power Line, about what America believes concerning Obama’s Christianity…”

What’s really sad is that you guys think it is necessary for Obama to be a Christian to be President. It shouldn’t matter what religion he is.

He claims to be a Christian, that should be good enough.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 31, 2010 1:08 AM
Comment #307311

Edge,
Old enough to remember when unemployment was first inacted in the 70’s as part Of the “Better World” I do believe the Private Sector should have learned by now that they cannot maintain 100% employment. And why Government and the Tax Payer must cover the difference like Welfare vs. Work Fare I do believe Employment and Unemployment should not rest in the hands of the few on Wall Street.

For example; House sales have been making a sready comeback provided that the Government and Taxpayer was given away an $8,000.00 rebate; however, over the past month sales have fallen 27% and everyone wants to blame President Obama. Yet, were is the Indutry Leaders and why can’t they provide an $8,000.00 rebate on their own. Or hook up with some bamker and promote a $10,000.00 rebate on the purchase of a home.

Yes, unemployment should not be a give away program nor should it be so hard to get assistance that crinimal activities sound like a better deal. Nevertheless, the cycle of employment in almost ever walk of life will always create a demand and overstock of Labor and Management. Thus, IMHO the Children of the 70’s and 21st Century can either maintian the current system or they can work on allowing Employees to have a seperate income to meet their basic needs. Than working for the Corporation will no longer be a necessity and 99 weeks of unemployment will not matter.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2010 1:13 AM
Comment #307314

Yo Rocky! How are you my friend? Yeah, it’s me — just here for a day. These posts may eventually disappear…

You wrote:

What’s really sad is that you guys think it is necessary for Obama to be a Christian to be President. It shouldn’t matter what religion he is.

He claims to be a Christian, that should be good enough.

Exactly. But the fact is, nothing about Obama — nothing about him personally, and nothing he does or says will ever be considered good enough for these tea party people. He was thoroughly demonized within this crowd long before he even won the election.

This Powerline stuff absolutely kills me:

Beck recognizes Obama’s religion as a set of beliefs whose adherents call themselves Christians. But Beck does not acknowledge that this belief set actually is Christian. Accordingly, Beck isn’t scratching his head about Obama’s religious stance, but many Americans are. I’ll leave to others the debate about whether liberation theology should be considered Christian. But I think Beck has put his finger on the reason why so many Americans don’t perceive Obama to be a Christian.”

These folks have set themselves up as the religious police, and it’s disgusting.

Earlier in this thread someone named Jeff referenced Sinclair Lewis’ ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ — a book about how populism coming on the heels of economic distress can be transformed into fascism — and I think it seems so appropriate. When Lewis wrote that book in the 1930’s, Father Coughlin was his inspiration for the character of Bishop Prang. Personally, ever since the first time I heard the overly emotionalized crazy-talk come out of his mouth, I thought that Glenn Beck had the potential to become our modern day Father Coughlin/Bishop Prang; and for me, this rally really seals the deal.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 31, 2010 3:08 AM
Comment #307316

Who really gives a damn about what Glen Beck, Rausch, Hannity, Maddow, Olberman, or Schultz say within the topic of politics?

In the end, Americans have the greatest tool: the vote. And Americans will use it and will continue to. We Americans have different views, and can express them freely without fear of a government agency jailing us or worse. Big deal if Mr. Beck had 87, 87000, 500000, 87 million people in his crowd. More power to him and those who share or, at least/most, listen to his views. Should an event like that sway voters in a specific direction, well, that’s what Americans signed up for. Freedom of choice.

I would rather see the President host a massive gathering, to truly face the nation, a lot of us, to update us on pertinent domestic and foreign issues and maybe a little of the hope he posited during his campaign. In the open, unafraid, giving us more than a sound bite. He’s the guy we’re paying to run the country, not Fox or MSNBC personalities.

If the Fox or MSNBC or any other media crowd cause a shift in the next presidential (and shorter term, congressional) election, so be it. For those inspired by the TV and Radio talk show host/other media crowd, have at it.

You have to admit though, some of those guys are pretty funny and hard to take seriously. Beck and his chalk board (OK, I’m three years old, please teach me Mr. Beck), Olberman reading stories on Friday night (I appreciate his tribute to his father, but. . .). And nothing can be more hilarious than when Schultz or Rausch go off on a tantrum. Makes John Stewart have to work harder.

Sorry if my spell check failed.

Posted by: mulpartisan at August 31, 2010 4:52 AM
Comment #307319

“SOMETHING IN THE AIR

Glenn Beck crowd: Not so white as advertised
Many creeds, colors in attendance refute charges of racism against rally”

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=197029

“The crowd itself included veterans, parents, disabled Americans, people of all ages and – contrary to some criticism leveled against the rally – attendees of many races and ethnicities.

Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union based in Washington, D.C., for example, stood on the platform with Alveda King as she recalled her uncle Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech.

Before the multitudes assembled Alveda King proclaimed, “If Uncle Martin could be here today … he would surely remind us that as brothers and sisters, united by one blood in one single race, the human race, we are called to honor God and to love each other.”

Praising the entire rally, Gardner exclaimed, “It was phenomenal!

“It felt great to be up there with all these wonderful leaders, the black pro-life leaders from all over the country,” Gardner said. “I was extremely proud of my sister in Christ and my dear friend, Dr. Alveda King. … Seeing her walk out where her uncle and her father were 47 years ago – my eyes welled up, and I had a lump in my throat, because we have come a really long way.”

Ron Miller enjoyed the rally with friends from his home state of Maryland.

“I’ve attended and spoken at several tea party rallies, but Glenn Beck’s rally exceeded my expectations,” observed Miller. “The others were like pep rallies to fire up the team before it takes the field. Restoring Honor was a revival, calling us to honor those men and women who gave everything they had, including their lives, to defend us. Beck got it right when he asked us to get down on our knees and repent to God for the salvation of our nation.”

Miller, a black Christian and author of “Sellout: Musings from Uncle Tom’s Porch,” told WND he’s been outraged by claims reported in the media that the tea parties are racist and that Beck’s rally was somehow a slap against Martin Luther King Jr.

“Those naysayers who compare us to the Ku Klux Klan are despicable,” Miller said. “By making such a ludicrous comparison, they have revealed themselves to be morally bankrupt, so they no longer warrant a hearing from Americans of good will.”

Posted by: Kathy at August 31, 2010 8:35 AM
Comment #307321
mulpartisan wrote: Who really gives a damn about what Glen Beck, Rausch, Hannity, Maddow, Olberman, or Schultz say within the topic of politics? | In the end, Americans have the greatest tool: the vote.
Right!

In fact, the talking-heads are probably tickled to death that so many partisan loyalists are so riled up, and that some people are using him to fuel and wallow in the blind, circular partisan warfare?

If anyone wants to truly frustrate themself and turn themself into a raving pretzel, then simply put one of the talking heads up on a pedestal, and then try to defend the strange, racist, hateful, and false things they say.

mulpartisan wrote:I would rather see the President host a massive gathering, to truly face the nation, a lot of us, to update us on pertinent domestic and foreign issues and maybe a little of the hope he posited during his campaign. In the open, unafraid, giving us more than a sound bite. He’s the guy we’re paying to run the country, not Fox or MSNBC personalities.
That would be great, wouldn’t it?

However, don’t hold your breath, because that would require telling the truth, and far, far, far too many lies have already been told.
If any of them were truly concerned about the nation more than THEIR own party, they would address some of these most obvious and damaging abuses, which continue to go ignored decade-after-decade.
But they don’t.
Statements like “We’re on the right track” and “Things are getting better” do not seem to be resonating with the majority of people?
Why?
It’s not only because the previous administration dug a very deep hole (which they did).
It’s because BOTH parties, and many previous administrations, and Congresses, and their blind loyalists dug a very, very deep hole, all with the voters help in the form of 85%-to-90% re-election rates (87% in the last election of Nov-2008)!
The voters are culpable too, and fueling and wallowing in the blind, hate-filled, circular partisan warfare is a supreme distraction from their politicians’ and their [the majority of voters] own malfeasance, negligence, and general fiscal and moral bankruptcy.

The majority of voters, who evidently prefer to fuel and wallow in the circular partisan warfare are starting to feel the painful consequences of their own making, and they are eager to find someone else to blame for all of it (because it’s easier to blame someone else, rather than ever admit that THEIR own party is no better the the OTHER party).

mulpartisan wrote: In the end, Americans have the greatest tool: the vote.
While the extremists on the left and right hog the stage (who blindly pull the party-lever), a large number of apathetic, complacent, disinterested voters (45% of which don’t even bother to vote) foolishly allow the extremists to run things. Now that they are starting to feel the painful consequences of 30+ years of bloat, waste, corruption, and fiscal and moral bankruptcy, too many refuse to admit that they have exactly what they deserve, since they foolishly squandered their vote.

As Tom Humes wisely wrote:

Tom Humes wrote: G0 GREEN-RECYCLE CONGRESS IN 2010

That’s the best advice voters.
That is, unless anyone can list 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are not FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and/or corrupt, and deserve to be re-electied.

So, what’s more important:

  • (a) love of party?
  • (b) or love of country?

Keep right on pullin’ that party lever, and idolizing the talking-heads (e.g. Beck, O’Reilly, Maddow, Matthews, Olbermann, Limbaugh, etc.) and see if it doesn’t lead to more pain and misery for the majority of voters.
Like Forrest Gump’s mother told him: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding their FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 31, 2010 8:57 AM
Comment #307322

“These folks have set themselves up as the religious police, and it’s disgusting.”

It is also antithetical to our very concept of religious freedom. Would Abraham Lincoln have passed the “Christian religion” test? What about George Washington? He was criticized during his time by the Christian clergy for his failure to explicitly express his personal belief in traditional Christianity. The following is an entry in from Thomas Jefferson’s journal shortly after Washington’s death:

“Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed Genl. Washington on his departure from the govmt, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Xn religion and they thot they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However he observed the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice…”I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system [Christianity] than he himself did.”
(The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 1, p. 284.)

Posted by: Rich at August 31, 2010 9:03 AM
Comment #307323

Henry, we agree. We can never maintain 100% unemployment, but how about maintaining an average time out of work of under 1/2 a year. Average. My understanding is that we are above that now in this unique economic cycle. In my 25 years in credit unions (an honest man’s bank) I have never seen a recession coupled with such a dramatic drop in real estate. As financial institutions we were far to used to recessions being a time to use equity to borrow against. Possibly equity and revolving credit on credit cards. But this is unique. Don’t you think that prices already reflect a discount? I know I took a job in February 2008 did not sell my house in Chicago until July 2009, sold it for $100,000 less than I paid, and lost my equity. That buyer got a $100,000 discount in theory, that is a pretty nice rebate. But perhaps you mean a tax incentive, like the builder offers to pay one years property tax.

Posted by: Edge at August 31, 2010 9:08 AM
Comment #307324

MAG-
Why are you badmouthing Obama’s stimulus, then? If your notion is that we need to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy by running more of a deficit, how are you any different, or any more responsible, given your opinion on the stimulus, than Obama is?

As for the MLK family, I think you should not that only one member, a cousin, not even the child or wife of MLK accepted, and none of the others showed up for Glenn’s rally.

To Beck and you, MLK’s just some symbol. I suggest you look at what he actually stood for, who he actually stood against, and then ask who MLK would show up for today, if he showed up for anybody at all. He was called a socialist and a communist in his day. What makes you think folks like Glenn Beck would be any kinder to him today?

Beck and you just want to picture MLK as some sort of distilled essence of freedom and piety, which you can appeal to without concerns for the details and underlying themes of what he actually fought for and believed.

Doesn’t work that way. And why would you think that Martin Luther King III would agree? Do you have any record at all of him pushing conservative policies or causes?

C&J-
What’s bizarre about what you say is that you don’t even register the impact of Bush’s tax cuts or his wars in that deficit. Two of the biggest causes of excessive spending, and/or insufficient revenue, and you don’t even address it.

Republicans are blind to the fiscal big picture.

Beretta9-
Liberation theology is a Jesuit, CATHOLIC theology. Obama is Church of Christ.

This is just an attempt to identify him with yet another religious tradition the Republicans treat as heretical.

The reason why people are so uncertain about what religion Obama has is that politicians on the right have been lying their asses off about what religion he has. I mean, hell, if you accused him of being a renegade catholic on one hand, a secret muslim on the other hand, or a member of a bigoted Church of Christ congregation on the other, well, of course people would get confused.

Why? Because folks like you don’t have your story straight. You throw crap at the wall and see what sticks.

As for this notion that it wasn’t a political event?

Why do you endeavor to insult our intelligence?

This man is a political commentator. Not a preacher. Not a Priest, not even a layperson who just gives out his opinion. He is a pundit.

Now, where did he choose to have his rally, and when? He chose to have his rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial, even putting pictures of Lincoln, a political, not religious leader, on the artwork.

And why did he chose it? It was the MLK anniversary, the anniversary of one of the most important social and political speechs in the last century, a touchstone for an entire political movement, an essential element of the liberal ideology in its vision of radical equality and love between all the races and creeds.

This was explicitly promoted as being about taking something back for conservatives, MLK’s legacy basically being that. They even invited one relative of MLK, whose views don’t exactly sync up with his, to be part of the event.

If this is not a political move, I don’t know what is. It’s nakedly aimed at getting a piece of the MLK legacy, and even more cynically, trying to avoid actually having to follow through on the truly liberal, leftward policies that MLK favored.

You guys just don’t want to have to pay the political piper for the support you seek. Instead, you try and just say whatever you think is necessary, expedient to get what you want. the Right in this country, in its effort to shake off the negative reputation it gained from Bush’s monumental mistakes and incompetence, has essentially decided that it if it has no shame, if it doesn’t admit to anything, or let the truth get in the way of its good stories, then it can win.

You might win one election doing that, but eventually, you have to set policy. When that happens, it will be just like what happened with the derivatives market. Where Martin Luther King said, “I have Dream”, you folks seem to be saying to each other “We have a dreamworld, and we’re not coming out.”

Reality has a way of intruding.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2010 9:14 AM
Comment #307325

Edge,

I see from your response to Henry Schlactman that you recognize that this recession is unique in its depth and longevity.

With that perspective, I don’t understand your philisophical concerns about extensions of unemployment benefits. They were passed in response to the unique employment circumstances resulting from this deep recession. If there is a precedent being set, it is that the federal government will not turn a blind eye to those most directly impacted by a unique, severe and lengthy downturn in the economy.

You might also consider the equity issue of bailing out the capitalist segment of our society and letting the labor segment flounder with its own means.

Certainly, there are those who will take improper advantage of unemployment benefits. However, there is no evidence that the vast majority have or are doing so in this recession. There is a real problem with the supply of jobs. There is a real gap between output capacity and demand (70% capacity). That translates into real systemic unemployment. The unemployed today are not taking a vacation on society.

Posted by: Rich at August 31, 2010 10:10 AM
Comment #307326

As usual Stephen, you quote liberal talking points and you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to black liberation theology:

you say:

“Liberation theology is a Jesuit, CATHOLIC theology. Obama is Church of Christ.”

You should have googled it…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology

“Modern American origins of contemporary black liberation theology can be traced to July 31, 1966, when an ad hoc group of 51 black pastors, calling themselves the National Committee of Negro Churchmen (NCNC), bought a full page ad in the New York Times to publish their “Black Power Statement,” which proposed a more aggressive approach to combating racism using the Bible for inspiration.”

“James Cone first addressed this theology after Malcolm X’s proclamation in the 1950s against Christianity being taught as “a white man’s religion”.[8] According to Black religion expert Jonathan Walton:
“James Cone believed that the New Testament revealed Jesus as one who identified with those suffering under oppression, the socially marginalized and the cultural outcasts. And since the socially constructed categories of race in America (i.e., whiteness and blackness) had come to culturally signify dominance (whiteness) and oppression (blackness), from a theological perspective, Cone argued that Jesus reveals himself as black in order to disrupt and dismantle white oppression.”

Black Liberation Theology contends that dominant cultures have corrupted Christianity, and the result is a mainstream faith-based empire that serves its own interests, not God’s. Black Liberation Theology asks whose side should God be on - the side of the oppressed or the side of the oppressors. If God values justice over victimization, then God desires that all oppressed people should be liberated. According to Cone, if God is not just, if God does not desire justice, then God needs to be done away with. Liberation from a false god who privileges whites, and the realization of an alternative and true God who desires the empowerment of the oppressed through self-definition, self-affirmation, and self-determination is the core of Black Liberation Theology.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354158,00.html

“REV. BOB SCHENCK, NATIONAL CLERGY COUNCIL: Reverend Wright is absolutely committed to what he calls “black liberation theology.” Well, “liberation theology” has its roots in Latin American liberation theology.

And if you ask the average Christian leader in this country, it is way, way outside the mainstream of Christian belief, and, in fact, it’s based in Marxism. At the core of his theology is really an anti-Christian understanding of God, and as part of a long history of individuals who actually advocate using violence in overthrowing those they perceive to be oppressing them, even acts of murder have been defended by followers of liberation theology. That’s very, very dangerous.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88512189

“March 18, 2008 Presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) defended his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, on Tuesday, even as he repudiated some of the pastor’s inflammatory sermons. But Wright’s comments likely come as no surprise to those familiar with black liberation theology, a religious philosophy that emerged during the 1960s.

Black liberation theology originated on July 31, 1966, when 51 black pastors bought a full page ad in the New York Times and demanded a more aggressive approach to eradicating racism. They echoed the demands of the black power movement, but the new crusade found its source of inspiration in the Bible…Obama presents himself as uniquely situated to bridge those two cultures because of his biracial heritage. In his speech on race Tuesday, the presidential hopeful said he could no more disown his controversial pastor than he could disown his white grandmother.

“These people are a part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love,” Obama said.

He denounced the harshness of Wright’s words — not because they were false, he said, but because they did not acknowledge the strides that the U.S. has made in the fight against racism. Obama said his own candidacy shows how far the country has come.”


Stephen, Jeremiah Wright is a follower of Liberation Theology; Obama sat in the pew and listened to this message for 20 years, and as the article in NPR said, he never said Wright’s words were false. I don’t think you have a leg to stand… You are again defending the indefensible…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 10:23 AM
Comment #307327

Hey Rocky, I’ve been wondering, too, if that was our friend back. Glad to see that it is, and hope the visit isn’t too short!! Nice to see another left coast dweller (re)join the mix.

Posted by: jane doe at August 31, 2010 10:27 AM
Comment #307329

Stephen, Get a grip. Where did I badmouth the stimulus? IMO I don’t think it is working the way it was billed to work. You are reading things that aren’t there. It’s not my fault the Democrats can’t get it together. Republicans ain’t got it together yet either.

Posted by: MAG at August 31, 2010 11:01 AM
Comment #307330

Stephen, MLK sure wouldn’t show up for that bigited racist Sharpton. Sharpton stands for everything MLK was against. That I Have a Dream speech was for everyone not just Blacks.

Posted by: MAG at August 31, 2010 11:51 AM
Comment #307334

Glen Beck is an insignificant, but world class huckster. He has made and continues to acquire wealth. His time will pass in shameful way, but he’ll still be rich.

Posted by: gergle at August 31, 2010 12:11 PM
Comment #307335

MAG, my wife was reading a story out of a local newspaper, about a guy who was headed to the Beck rally and somehow ended up going to the Al Sharpton rally. He said he was able to walk right up to the platform, in front of the very stage Sharpton was speaking from. In contrast, there were people who arrived at the Beck rally 3 days early, in order to get a position next to the stage. Conclusion: Sharpton didn’t have many at his rally and Beck’s was packed with people. Also might note, the Smithsonian contacted the Beck rally organizers in order to get memorabilia to be place in the museum, due to it’s historical significance. I’m sure this will cause a stir…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 12:15 PM
Comment #307336

gergle, they said the same thing about Rush 20 some years ago. Don’t hold your breath on that…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 12:18 PM
Comment #307337

Baretta9 Maybe those on the left should take note of that fact. I bet the turnout would be the same for one of their left wing commentators as was for Sharpton.

Posted by: MAG at August 31, 2010 12:22 PM
Comment #307338

hahaha, yea I bet..

They can’t even keep Air America on the air and I don’t know of even one nationally syndicated liberal radio talk show host. The cable liberals are dropping like a rock in the polls, but liberals don’t pay any attention to polls, lol.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 12:31 PM
Comment #307341

I wonder if the “Summer of Recovery” tour touted by obama/biden drew a crowd in excess of 1/2 million there would be excitement among the dem/libs?

That Americans are very angry is obvious to all, even the libs. Despite all the actions taken by obama and the dem/lib congress they are not working to the satisfaction of the public. And, we are not buying their worthless promises as too many have been proven to be just more hyperbole.

The dem/libs have either; 1) enacted restorative legislation that is taking too long to work, or won’t work, or 2) made promises based soley on wishful thinking, or 3) can’t find the words to convince the public that their programs will work now or ever.

Regardless of the reason for widespread voter anger, the dem/libs hold the power and all the government strings. Despite whatever political baggage may be conjoured up to explain the history behind the mess we are in, the fact remains that American’s are hurting TODAY, in huge numbers. And, that is why so many showed up in DC to protest.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 1:43 PM
Comment #307342

mulpartisan:

We Americans have different views, and can express them freely without fear of a government agency jailing us or worse.

How I wish, but this is simply not true at all. I’m aware that tea partiers might be able to congregate and scream their heads off while heavily armed to the teeth, but go stand inside a “Free Speech Zone” to express certain specific viewpoints, and then see how free you feel with expressing yourself. The sad reality is, those of us who do hold certain views most definitely need to fear all kinds of harsh treatment by various police and intelligence authorities. The powers of the Patriot Act(s) really have ramped up extreme government agency all over this country.

This is not mere opinion. I’ve seen with my own eyes how protesters are now automatically in danger of being roughed up, often clubbed and/or tased, and taken off to jail — sometimes simply for standing in the wrong place.

If the Fox or MSNBC or any other media crowd cause a shift in the next presidential (and shorter term, congressional) election, so be it. For those inspired by the TV and Radio talk show host/other media crowd, have at it.

Personally, I can’t be this light-hearted about the inherent power of television and radio to influence public opinion. Because if one looks back on history it’s very easy to grasp how dangerous misinformation and propaganda/hate campaigns can be.

You have to admit though, some of those guys are pretty funny and hard to take seriously.

I agree that it can be totally hilarious, however I do take what they do very, very seriously.

Kathy:

contrary to some criticism leveled against the rally – attendees of many races and ethnicities

Sorry, but a picture paints a thousand words. That rally was a big sea of white people. If you look at photos of Obama’s inauguration on the other hand, now that looked like a cross section of the country.

Rich,
Well said, and quoted. I agree.

Stephen:

To Beck and you, MLK’s just some symbol. I suggest you look at what he actually stood for, who he actually stood against, and then ask who MLK would show up for today, if he showed up for anybody at all. He was called a socialist and a communist in his day. What makes you think folks like Glenn Beck would be any kinder to him today?

Beck and you just want to picture MLK as some sort of distilled essence of freedom and piety, which you can appeal to without concerns for the details and underlying themes of what he actually fought for and believed.

You nailed it completely with these comments. There is no doubt in my mind that if he didn’t make such a convenient symbol to be utilized for their own purposes the image of MLK would be likely be just another target up on Glenn Beck’s chalkboard.

Jane Doe,
Nice to see you here too my friend! However, I’m not going to stick around. This will be my final comment.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 31, 2010 1:55 PM
Comment #307346

I woner if Barry will acknowledge Bush’s surge strategy tonite.

He wasn’t in favor of it now, was he? Neither was Stephen Daughtery as I recall.

Neither was Adrienne.

Gosh, I missed her. I splattered her windshield once.

Posted by: agentgibbs at August 31, 2010 2:36 PM
Comment #307348


The one thing that both sides should be able to agree on is that Beck deserves every penny of the millions he is making off of his loyal followers.

Posted by: jlw at August 31, 2010 3:02 PM
Comment #307349

MAG-
Where did you badmouth the stimulus?

Well let’s see:

Stephen, Get a grip. Where did I badmouth the stimulus? IMO I don’t think it is working the way it was billed to work.

You’re not even damning it with faint praise. You’re saying its not working.

You know, I think the folks on the right here should recall that a good argument isn’t necessarily reflexive contradiction of the other person’s claims.

Beretta9-
See, this is where you get into trouble. Your source clearly references Central America, and that would specifically reference this brand of Catholic Theology.

Black Liberation Theology is something different, and not altogether evil, as some would claim.

You have to demonize anything your opponents might be connected with, whether it’s a harmless Community Organizing organization (ACORN) or the preacher he went with. Facts be damned, you need to portray us as evil so you can point at us as enemy who cannot be compromised with.

Ironically, you do most of the work necessary to inspire the kinds of folks you demonize. You show them they’re not wanted, they’re not accorded equal status, so they act to stand up for themselves, and you just demonize them further.

Nice how that works out. Well, facts not being damned, these are two different movements from two different parts of the world. The liberation they’re speaking of is different.

One theology is a Catholic theology that responds to the Right Wing Dictatorships of the late seventies and early to mid-eighties, the other is a Black Protestant and evangelical movement that confronts perceived and real racism of the fifties and sixties. They are not one and the same, and that lack of perspective cripples your argument’s connection with the real world.

The founder of the latter movement is quoted as saying:

“It’s very important because you’ve got a lot of white images of Christ. In reality, Christ was not white, not European. That’s important to the psychic and to the spiritual consciousness of black people who live in a ghetto and in a white society in which their lord and savior looks just like people who victimize them. God is whatever color God needs to be in order to let people know they’re not nobodies, they’re somebodies.

It sounds harsh, and is harsh, but it’s born of an experience of race in this country that was harsh. At the same time, he’s not so much saying that God or Jesus was black as saying that it was crucial that people identify with a Christ that could be one of them. That they could be part of that humanity.

But I have yet to hear Obama publically take things that far, and even Wright’s outbursts were comparably rare.

At issue here, I believe, is your Party and political movement’s marginalization of others. The irony is, your party would have a much easier time on the playing field of politics if it didn’t make such divisive issues their centerpiece. You could make movements like Black Liberation Theology a thing of the past, if folks no longer felt it necessary to so emphasize it. Ironically, by trying to turn people against him based on that, you only serve to make it more attractive to people who feel the breath of past generation’s racism in your efforts to marginalize them.

I do not agree entirely with them, but how can I? I am a product of many generations worth of social advantage, on the basis of what we call race. I never have had to feel the sting on my back of that chastisement.

It is up to a person like me to practice the forgiveness and maturity necessary to bring such people in, and setting them as my equals justify a common standard of speech and behavior. You cannot force people to share your identity, you can only invite that.

For far too long, Republicans have worked with those who act to force an identity on people, and ironically enough have merely created a situation where folks feel more encouraged to take a harsh stance in return.

You can either choose to calm people’s anxieties, or you can choose to justify them. It is not necessarily easy, but do you think the Blacks who see the way that Republicans are trying to turn Obama into the scary negro see reason to give up historical greivances when you do so? Or do they tell themselves that if you don’t hit back, you might end up suffering his fate?

On the subject of Air America, we didn’t need Air America to take back Congress. We found our home on the internet. You know, the way evolution works sometimes is that instead of trying to compete with somebody in an established niche, you compete by taking up another niche entirely.

Instead of trying to push past the Republican Occupation of Talk Radio, Democrats took to the internet, and now have an established movement there.

We don’t have to copy the Republican’s success to defeat it.

As for Sharpton? His rally was a footnote. But it was a footnote to a footnote, and that’s what makes it truly minor. As a Democrat, I have Martin Luther King’s vision to follow, and I don’t have to reinterpret it to follow it. I don’t have to ignore King’s politics and my own to make the connection. I don’t need Sharpton’s rally Saturday, I can hold MLK’s rally 47 years ago as my touchstone.

I don’t have to oversimplify his vision to the point of vagueness and cariacture.

Royal Flush-
If you look at the polls, you find that people hate everybody in Congress. Republicans have about a quarter of the population on their side, and most against them.

They are not mad at liberals in particular. They are mad at Wall Street. They are mad at a healthcare system that only gets more expensive as time goes on, without attendant rise in value for the cost. They are mad at the inequality between the rich and powerful and themselves.

The question that you have to ask is this: Can Republicans quell that anger? Can they do better? Can they restore trust in the government?

Oh, but there’s the rub, isn’t it. You can’t restore that trust. You can’t expand government in any way , shape, or form, even if its necessary. The best you can do is go back to Bush policies. There will not, though, be anything like the effect that the dropping of interests rates had on the economy in Reagan’s times. The way this economy got ****ed up doesn’t get solved that easy, and you folks are opposed to the very measures that would protect us against another big crash.

You have no hope of quelling their anger, not unless your party takes a radical change in policy to do it.

Do you understand that? Has it registered that there’s something that comes after winning an election, if that indeed is what happens?

You cannot win without taken on the burden of the expectations that were placed on us. Unfortunately, you are even less prepared, as a party, as a whole to take on that burden, because you are committed to doing nothing more than what you were doing when you lost power.

agentgibbs-
The name of our President is Barack Obama. Surely you’re not such a poor arguer that you have to resort to false familiarity to put him in his place.

About the Surge? Why do you expect him to do your party’s work for you? You want to brag about the Surge, but you do realize that the popularity of the war never rebounded, don’t you? Obama will likely be more popular for ending the war than Bush was for starting it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2010 3:10 PM
Comment #307353

Stephen. All because I don’t think the stimulus is working up to all that is expected dosen’t mean I’m bad mouthing it. It was one of the first things passed when BHO took office and our economy is still in the S—T hole. You can think what you want Stephen, but I don’t think the stimulus is being used the way it should be used, with 9.5% unemployment, no jobs unless you get one in the government sector, it could have been used to offset unemployment benefits, but I know you Democrats have something special for it, RIGHT.

Posted by: MAG at August 31, 2010 3:30 PM
Comment #307357

agentgibbs:

Barry is ok, he used to be known as Barry.

Stephen, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My first mention of liberation theology was in a quote from PowerLine.com. It referred to liberation theology in reference to Jeremiah Wright, which IS speaking of black liberation theology.

The actual statement was, “Obama’s problem is that the Christianity of Rev. Wright, whose congregation he attended for 20 years, and of less abrasive liberation theologists as well, just isn’t recognizable to a great many Americans as Christianity because it doesn’t much resemble the Christianity they are familiar with.”

From that, you somehow managed to tie this in with Catholic liberation theology, when you make this statement, “Liberation theology is a Jesuit, CATHOLIC theology. Obama is Church of Christ.
This is just an attempt to identify him with yet another religious tradition the Republicans treat as heretical.”

I came back with a response and the links tying not only Jeremiah Wright to preaching liberation theology, but also Obama with being influenced by liberation theology.

Then you come back with this statement, “See, this is where you get into trouble. Your source clearly references Central America, and that would specifically reference this brand of Catholic Theology.
Black Liberation Theology is something different, and not altogether evil, as some would claim.”

My references never referred to Central America; they always referred to black liberation theology and how hard it was for traditional American evangelical Christians to understand how Obama could be a Christian, when his believes were so different from main stream Christian teachings. This is not hard to understand, but you are so confrontational, that you cannot understand what is being written. There have been several writers on here that have complained about your inability to ever concede that a democrat has done something wrong. You can’t say that about most of us conservatives. We will willingly admit that republicans have not listened to us. But not you, even when presented with the evidence that Obama was subjected to this type of teaching, you completely deny it. Why do you even post on this site, if you are not even willing to listen to what is being said. The reference I made was completely taken out of context and changed to something else when you got done with it. What is your problem? I don’t mind talking to someone when they show a little intelligence, but there are some on WB who act like 7th graders, who just want to rant…

Posted by: Berett9 at August 31, 2010 4:00 PM
Comment #307360

Mr. Daugherty writes; “You cannot win without taken on the burden of the expectations that were placed on us. Unfortunately, you are even less prepared, as a party, as a whole to take on that burden, because you are committed to doing nothing more than what you were doing when you lost power.”

It’s not the “burden of expectations” that have lead to the dem/lib poor showing in the polls, but rather how they hyped, addressed, and continue to call for more of their failed solutions. obama and this congress rammed thru legislation that was vehemently opposed by a majority of the electorate. They expected obama and congress to listen to and address their expectations and got more crappy big government entitlements and spending instead.

It is obvious by his comments that Mr. Daugherty knows nothing of the plans of conservatives should they be given the reins of power. He is referring to the tired old Rep party politics that I just hate.

Mr. Daugherty would do well to spend a little time studying conservative positions which can be found easily at; www.heritage.org. He knows the dem/lib positons on everything, and has been lulled into believeing that they are popular.

Frequently in his comments Mr. Daugherty declares his devotion to facts and reality. The fact is, if the election were held today the dem/libs would suffer an historic defeat. The reality is that American’s don’t care for the obama,dem/lib solutions that are not working, and will not work.

The political pendumum has swung very far to the left in the past few years and Americans now know just what their policies and beliefs consist of. Rather than lofty rehtoric the dem/libs have had the chance to put into practice what they have preached. Now, not even the choir is listening and the pews are nearly empty.

Incumbents of both parties will be unemployed come November and if we are lucky, conservatives from R, D, and I will take their place. The new congress will first take aim at undoing much of the damage wrought by obama and this congress. That alone will instill confidence in American’s and business. Then, conservative policies will be implemented and this country will recover.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 4:20 PM
Comment #307363

RF;

For months Rasmussen has been reporting the republicans ahead in the generic congressional ballot by 7-9 points. Of course, the libs were in complete denial, “it don’t mean anything, generic ballot is stupid, Rasmussen is a con/poll and can’t be believed”. Well guess what, today Gallop has come out with another generic congressional ballot poll and republicans have a 10 point lead.

I fear we are looking at possible suicide watches for some liberals on WB. It will certainly be silent in the blue column on Nov. 3rd. hahaha

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 4:43 PM
Comment #307367

B9, good heads up about suicide watches for libs. I am available for consultation and consolation should any wish to avail themselves of my conservative Christian offer.

Let the conversions begin…

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 5:13 PM
Comment #307369

Stephen

Ya, Barry is his name. The next thing you will tell me is that he is the first black president when in reality he is the first mixed race president. That’s the biggest con of all. 50% white, 50% black, born of a 100% Muslim father. Born a Muslin. He is a converted Muslim. Just the facts.

Those are the facts. Facts. Just the facts.

Posted by: agentgibbs at August 31, 2010 5:30 PM
Comment #307370

Glenn Beck had a great show yesterday and today’s show is even better. The predictions that were made by the left before the rally and what actually happened are completely opposite. Beck is playing clips form NPR, Matthews, Sharpton, Shultz and then he plays the clips of the actual event. I believe the left is completely bamboozled. They have absolutely no idea what conservative Americans believe or how they think. The liberals on WB are still proclaiming the same things about the rally, which were predicted by the left. Evidently, they didn’t get the memo that the predictions failed. David Remer is in the middle column, as I speak, writing the same hate speech, about conservatives. The left is beside themselves. They are going to loose so bad in November, and there is nothing they can do to stop it. The rally was a great event, and Americans are learning who the liars are. Blacks are being drawn into this conservative movement and are finding a home among Americans who love their country.

The rally can be summed up in this article in yesterday’s WSJ. Pay special attention to the article by Clive Crook of The Atlantic:

“And as an atheist (I didn’t deny being godless) I do not thrill when a speaker says, “America today begins to turn back to God”. Quite a claim, that: Beck’s signature modesty again. At the same time, though, this gathering — as it turned out, far more of a religious revival than a political rally — was completely unsinister. No anger, so far as one could see; no racism…The truth is, it was an enormously friendly, good-natured event. There were families with children everywhere, all smiles. “The event had the feeling of a large church picnic,” said the NYT. The most political statement was on the T-shirts that said, “I can see November from my house.”

I have to conclude by saying; I have been fighting back tears while listening to the testimonies of those who were at the rally…

Liberals truly have no idea what is happening in America.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 5:51 PM
Comment #307371

Sory, I forgot to add the link:

http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2010/08/30/political-wisdom-glenn-becks-rally/

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 5:54 PM
Comment #307373

Liberals truly have no idea what is happening in America.
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31

Very true B9. I have noticed recently that the tone of the dem/libs writing here has changed in a subtle way. Most no longer refute that the dems are going to take a beating at the polls come November. Rather, they say 1) The reps/cons will have to continue the dem/lib policies or will be booted out in the next election…2) people are just ignorant and will elect rep/cons because they just bad mouth the dem/libs…3) the American people just don’t understand and appreciate how much the dem/libs have done to save the country….4) obama and company just aren’t getting their message of change out and understood.

There is an underlining theme to what I perceive as their capitulation messages, that being, it’s not our fault that the voters are too dumb to understand how great our policies are.

And what is even more astonishing, I think most of them beleive that baloney.

Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 6:21 PM
Comment #307375

berreta9,

gergle, they said the same thing about Rush 20 some years ago. Don’t hold your breath on that…

So you look up to drug addled hypocrites? No shame there, huh? Oops, forgot who I was asking.

Posted by: gergle at August 31, 2010 6:24 PM
Comment #307377

Your 4 points are dead on…This is the belief behind the elitism of the left, that American conservatives are just too ignorant to know what is best for them.

Remember the old “man on the street” on the sitcom when people on the street would be asked political questions? I would be willing to bet, if I did bet, that if you asked Tea Party conservatives and the everyday liberals the same political questions, the coservatives would do a better job of answering.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 6:31 PM
Comment #307379

gergle;

Rush Limbaugh: 20-50 million listeners each week and gergle has? Oops, forgot who I was asking.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 6:34 PM
Comment #307380

MAG-
To bad-mouth something is to criticize it. I don’t know why you’re trying to run from that.

The CBO recently came out with a Report that says our economy is doing about 4.5% better because of the stimulus than it otherwise would be. If you were to take issue with the stimulus by saying it wasn’t sufficient, that would be one thing, but to say it hasn’t had a profound effect on our economy is to ignore the evidence.

Of course, acknowledging its profound impact might just force you to say more is needed, by logical necessity. If you can say it did nothing (false), or that it caused harm (badly false), you can argue otherwise.

Republicans therefore either say it did nothing, or did worse than nothing. Your assumptions are servants of your agenda. You have to make people believe that even an emergency intervention like the Stimulus will end in failure, else what use would the public have for Republicans in its time of need, with their policy of non-intervention for those who don’t make more than 200,000 a year.

We plan to end the tax cuts only for those making that much, and they’ll only be taxed as much as they were taxed in the 1990s, which wasn’t a disastrous period for the rich.

Beretta9-

Stephen, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My first mention of liberation theology was in a quote from PowerLine.com. It referred to liberation theology in reference to Jeremiah Wright, which IS speaking of black liberation theology.

From your quoted material above:

“REV. BOB SCHENCK, NATIONAL CLERGY COUNCIL: Reverend Wright is absolutely committed to what he calls “black liberation theology.” Well, “liberation theology” has its roots in Latin American liberation theology.

There you go. Direct reference. Now you tell me: What’s the connection?

But not you, even when presented with the evidence that Obama was subjected to this type of teaching, you completely deny it. Why do you even post on this site, if you are not even willing to listen to what is being said. The reference I made was completely taken out of context and changed to something else when you got done with it. What is your problem? I don’t mind talking to someone when they show a little intelligence, but there are some on WB who act like 7th graders, who just want to rant…

I do read, and read rather closely. You trust your sources too much, and fail to verify your facts.

Your interpretations strike me as fairly superficial. I was taught by a man who worked with Rev. Jerry Falwell. Yet I’m not a baptist, nor am I a conservative. We can be taught by people for a significant part of our lives, have significant and good influence from them, yet have different points of view. Should we expect Obama to be as bombastic as Wright? As Afro-centric?

Screw me having to prove differently, why don’t you prove yourself right in the first place! Come on, I could agree with the proposition that Professor Gates shouldn’t have been arrested for trying to get into his own house. Obama didn’t have to be racist to consider that foolish. What if it were just some White Professor? Nobody would dispute that point.

You want to turn this into guilt by association, require Obama to simply adopt a milquetoasty sort of attitude towards any racial controversies. Obama’s never been as confrontational on the racial issues as his opponents have been.

If you want to call me a thirteen year old for not being intimidated by Republican’s antics, you go right ahead. But when people look between our posts, they will see who writes with greater eye for the details that count, and who just simply repeats what he is told.

Royal Flush-

The fact is, if the election were held today the dem/libs would suffer an historic defeat.

Well, in my devotion to facts, I would have to point out to you that a hypothetical doesn’t amount to a fact. We can argue anything from a hypothetical.

But you come up with a better explanation for why Republicans haven’t benefited from their obstruction. The fact that people voice strong opinions against the way Washington operates, and today, Republicans are gridlocking Washington to get it the way it is, especially on bills concerning jobs. Republicans won’t let a second stimulus through, and hammered the first pretty mercilessly. They’re hampering small business aid and jobs bills, when indeed those could be of great help.

These are exactly the priorities your people could be benefitting from, if they did work on them, but they’re not doing anything themselves, at least nothing that doesn’t stick huge tax cuts or all kinds of pork and garbage onto the bill. So you tell me, what makes you think your sides actions are not part of what people hate about Washington?

The political pendulum might swing pretty quickly between parties under certain circumstances, but the tensions arising from people’s political needs is another story.

If Republicans don’t start getting people jobs, and getting them quick, they’re as screwed as anybody else would be in such an environment. The same pressures that are on us, will be on you folks.

Why you think your folks will get a pass on all this is beyond me.

agentgibbs-
Let me tell you a little secret: race is not a biological thing. You talk as if its a straight percentage. Well, in real terms, geography has more to do with genetic heritage. A man in South Africa has less in common genetically with our president, than a man in Saudi Arabia. Arabs are considered Caucasian, did you know that?

Of course, that’s defining things mainly on the surface. Obama’s half white, but he certainly looks like a Black Man. That said, he was raised by a white family. What is he then?

Well, he certainly doesn’t look like anybody else that’s been in that Oval Office, and because of him, others who look the same won’t have so much of an uphill battle to fight.

His name is not Barry. Yes, he was called that in earlier years. By Friends and Family. Now he has people call him Barack. Friends and family call him that now. You are neither.

As for Barack being a Muslim? His Father was not a practicing Muslim. And note for the record, his father was Barack Obama. Conservaepedia calls Lolo Soetoro his father, for some inane reason. He spent only four years in Indonesia, and was raised the majority of the rest of the time by his Mother’s family. Neither of them were Muslims.

But damn it, wouldn’t it be shocking? Wouldn’t it appeal to those bigots you want to get up in arms? Calling him that is not about facts, because none support it. Calling him a Muslim, calling him Barry Soetoro decades after his mother’s divorce from his stepfather is about enraging a whole bunch of yahoos who need some more reasons to keep their fires of hatred burning.

You talk of cons. You’re just peddling the dark cons of the cons here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2010 6:38 PM
Comment #307383

Stephen

Profoundly weak arguement. I expect better from you. You dancewhat he is: a mixed race president. Biological. No wiggle room.

In any case, the issues that Glenn has been hammering…since when Barry was way up there in the polls…have, as someone said, come home to roost.

He’s a one termer, and will be the mixed-race version of Jimmy Carter by the time he is done.

I told you years ago, he is an empty suit; a snake oil salesman. A likeable snake oils salesman.

Posted by: agentgibbs at August 31, 2010 6:50 PM
Comment #307384

Stephen, TO BAD MOUTN SOMETHING IS TO CRITIZE IT, Then your the biggest bad mouther on this blog. You do nothing but critize.

Posted by: MAG at August 31, 2010 6:58 PM
Comment #307387

Everyone that keeps boting that the liberal talk show hosts ignore polls,you do realize that these guys are just commentators, the only poll they are REALLY interested in is Nielsens…

Posted by: john in napa at August 31, 2010 7:11 PM
Comment #307389

the little guns shootin blanks again!

Posted by: Jeff at August 31, 2010 7:18 PM
Comment #307391

I see the peanut gallery is back with the ignorant comments.

Posted by: MAG at August 31, 2010 7:23 PM
Comment #307392

I like pesnuts

Posted by: Jeff at August 31, 2010 7:26 PM
Comment #307393

Jack Murtha. Harry is Reid. Nancy Pelosi. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd. Charles Rangel, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy.

The management team that sank this country.

Reminder: The Democratic folks listed above ran the House and Senate two years before Barry got eley.cted.

The Repubs lost becasue of corruption issues, not Iraq.

History will show that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd singularily torpeoded the banking industry.

Facts.

Posted by: agentgibbs at August 31, 2010 7:35 PM
Comment #307394

Usually I try to avoid threads like these that are filled with more vitriol than rational discussion, but I wanted to provide my opinions in light of what MAG, RF, B9 and other conservative commentators recently wrote.

I don’t think anyone on the left will honestly discount the vast numbers of people who are very excited to shift this country in a rightward direction. The main motivator for this is that the stimulus is generally viewed as being ineffective. This is at least partly the result of it being oversold (remember those predictions that unemployment would be 9% without the stimulus). Much of the stimulus money has not yet been spent (and consequently has not yet had an impact on the economy). Nevertheless, even I am somewhat disappointed by the rate at which the economy is recovering. Economists will probably debate the merits of the ARRA for years including the decision to bail out state governments (something that is not usually thought of as a Keynesian Stimulus). However, I think it’s pretty evident that there are many ways we could have done it better.

In any case, I feel that the GOP’s proposals will only make our situation worse. I’ll probably vote for neither my incumbent Democratic Congresswoman nor her Republican opponent; I’ll research the third party candidates, but none of them are to my liking, I’ll write-in the name of my state senator (who I support very much).

The Democrats will get pounded in November, but I think it’s a good thing. It’ll provide them with a little introspective time to refocus their efforts. Also, the new healthcare law will probably have it’s popularity skyrocket when it comes into effect and people realize that there won’t be any death panels or any of the other junk dreamed up by the right. If the GOP tries to repeal the thing in 2011, they will have an awfully hard time coming with up a way to offset the law’s deficit reductions.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 31, 2010 7:41 PM
Comment #307396

Adrienne, it would seem you’re wise to go away again. What we used to fear has manifested itself to a great degree. The asylum is being taken over by the patients and there is no way that logic, intelligence, reasoned insight or even common sense can prevail.
What is even more frightening is that such devastation as will become rampant, will take years again to heal.
I’ve come back “home” to Calif….and am only a couple hours away from you and yours. With big trees and the lake surrounding me, I can just sit here and hope that the country finds its’ sanity again soon!!! If not, the results will be like nothing we have seen, or can remember.
Be well!!

Posted by: jane doe at August 31, 2010 8:45 PM
Comment #307397

Ok Stephen, let’s try to make this simple. So simple even a liberal can understand. I think we might be able to boil this down to 3 easy questions, but it will require 3 easy answers. I’m taking a big chance here because I don’t really think you can answer 3 easy questions. Here goes:

1. Does the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preach black liberation theology?

2. Did Obama sit under the teaching of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years?

3. Was Obama subjected to the teaching of black liberation theology?

Once you answer these 3 questions we will move on to further discussions; if not, the discussion stops here and you can go back to quoting liberal talking points.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 8:51 PM
Comment #307398

jane doe: one can only hope.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 8:54 PM
Comment #307400

Beretta9,

Rush Limbaugh: 20-50 million listeners each week and gergle has?

Morals? Integrity? No need for Hillbilly Heroin to assuage my guilty conscience?

As I stated, since you seem to forget what I said, Beck will still be rich, so will Rush. Rush is a shamed addict. He will fall further. He hasn’t hit rock bottom. Beck is a supposed reformed drunk. He will fall. They have addiction and abuse as common traits. They also share shameless huckstering. Addiction and mood altering are often shame based obsession/compulsion/neuroses. It isn’t that hard to predict human behavior. Lacking boundaries can make one successful, and can also lead to legal/social problems.

I find it laughable when people use financial success as a indication of moral integrity. Only in America. What is even more laughable is when guys like Joel Osteen use religion to sell their wares. People that follow these guys scare me and make me sad at the same time.

Tell me, do you contribute to their wealth? Has it begun to dawn upon you what their real goal is? Lonesome Rhodes?

Posted by: gergle at August 31, 2010 9:00 PM
Comment #307403

The “summer of recovery” reminds me of the “summer of George” which Seinfeld fans will recognize.

Stephen

Bring spending back down to the 2000 level. The impact of the tax cuts doesn’t matter for spending. The impact of war spending is a relatively small expense compared to the other, but presumably we can soon cut that too anyway.

Posted by: C&J at August 31, 2010 9:14 PM
Comment #307412

Berreta 9

some simple questions

1. Do you know Glen beck is a Mormon?
2. Do you know Mormons prey wearing special “holy” underpants (w/ padded knees of course)?

Glen thinks we should prey so that our children can watch.

3. DO YOU THINK ITS AT ALL CREEPY FOR GLEN TO BE TELLING US TO HAVE OUR KIDS WATCH US PREY IN OUR UNDIES, WEARING KNEE PADS?

Now what were you saying about the presidents religious views?

Posted by: 037 at August 31, 2010 10:28 PM
Comment #307415

Edge and Rich,
Unemployment Insurance in its current form IMHO is taking the easy way out by Corporations and Elected Officials. And why that is not to say Citizens do not need protection from the mistakes made by the Powers-that-Be, I do not believe the Elders and Taxpayers should carry the burden without getting something in return.

For why this lastest round of job lose is due to the inability of the Oil Companies to supply the world with cheap fuel. I find it insulating to the rest of the Corporations that some of Americas’ Elected Officials would rather take the donations from Special Interest Groups than provide the incentives to Americans using Renewable Energy Farms to become economically and energy independent.

Yes 30 years of Washington controling supply and demand while Labor and Management suffered untold loses might be ok for those citizens wealthy enough to weather the up and downs of a Trickledown Economy; however, looking forward to the next 30 years I wonder if if an Unemployment Insurance program should not include a 20 hour per week community service clause plus the 2 job seeking opportunities. For than not only can the person take pride in doing something good for their neighbors, but depending upon the needs of the population more and more citizens will look for personal business opportunities.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2010 11:15 PM
Comment #307424

Henry, I can’t disagree. Oil is a commodity so much so that anytime we come up with an alternative they can just increase supply, lower demand and change the immediate behavior of Americans. We have some of the best, most Green vehicles we have ever seen. I am hopeful that this will continue. But the final part is energy independence 1st. We need to drill off our own coast, stop screwing around with the mantra that it is all about the environment. Taking the long view, I think that we can more easily move to a better fuel source. Until we use our own oil, we will be captive. The interim steps is not solar, hyrdo, et al. The interim step is regional oil, then indepdendence, then pursue the eco friendly alternatives.

Stephen, do you think this post reflects something more than what you intended? Do you think this post possibly reflects the debate between now and the election? Rather than Glenn Beck?

Posted by: Edge at September 1, 2010 1:06 AM
Comment #307426

… conservatives from R, D, and I will take their place.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 04:20 PM

Are you running for an elected office?

if we are lucky, conservatives from R, D, and I will take their place.

It sounds like you’re running for an elected office!


So you look up to drug addled hypocrites? No shame there, huh? Oops, forgot who I was asking.

Posted by: gergle at August 31, 2010 06:24 PM

There’s no hope of redemption in that statement is there, gergle? Have you ever considered listening to a guy I know? He’s an uplifting guy. He doesn’t focus on the negative aspects of life. He knows it’s difficult, but he chooses to focus on the positive side. He would rather make things look more inviting.



The political pendulum might swing pretty quickly between parties under certain circumstances, but the tensions arising from people’s political needs is another story.
If Republicans don’t start getting people jobs, and getting them quick, they’re as screwed as anybody else would be in such an environment. The same pressures that are on us, will be on you folks.
Why you think your folks will get a pass on all this is beyond me.


Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2010 06:38 PM


Stephen Daugherty is grabbing the first life vest he sees on this Democratic Titanic. Just months before this election Stephen Daugherty is trying to mount the offensive against this libertarian landslide that’s already grinding his political bones into the dirt we call America. Adios, Mr. Politics!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 1, 2010 2:12 AM
Comment #307428

Interviews from the Beck Rally with typical tea party types

Posted by: Adrienne at September 1, 2010 2:40 AM
Comment #307429

Weary,

If you think Rush is an uplifting guy as opposed to a serial abuser and bigot, then I have no idea what you’re point is. Some of us engage our brains in evaluating who we listen to.
Joel Osteen is an uplifting guy, but he’s still a con-man in my eyes. You want to buy into his nonsense, more power to you and more wealth to Joel.

All roads are not equal. Many people with podiums are not wise. Life is a choice. Critical thinking is a skill one must develop.

Posted by: gergle at September 1, 2010 3:01 AM
Comment #307430

Weary,

If you think Rush is an uplifting guy as opposed to a serial abuser and bigot, then I have no idea what you’re point is. Some of us engage our brains in evaluating who we listen to.
Joel Osteen is an uplifting guy, but he’s still a con-man in my eyes. You want to buy into his nonsense, more power to you and more wealth to Joel.

All roads are not equal. Many people with podiums are not wise. Life is a choice. Critical thinking is a skill one must develop.

Posted by: gergle at September 1, 2010 3:01 AM
Comment #307432

Edge,
If I may be so Bold this is a case where the Democratic and Republican Leadership of the 60’s and 70’s expose their Ignorance of Labor and Management.

For why the Billionaries in Washington will soon turn to the Millionaries on Wall Street for their revenue and taxes since the Poor and Middle Class are tapped out. I do believe both will be shocked when thet learn Energy Independence is the Key to Economic Viability and Financially Independence.

Yes, hydro and solar are limited in use and capacity; however, as long as there is air Man has the ability to create wind. And why it will take an Enterprising Privateer to design and prove a wind tunnel can power several wind mills with existing off the selve parts, I wonder grandmas and house wifes will allow one of their bedrooms (8X12) to be turned into the family power room?

No, the folks on Wall Street and Washington might believe they have overcome the Argument of Parents because the Democratic and Republican Pundits have done a good job avoiding the Issues of the 20th Century. Nevertheless, understanding that with a few inventions and innovations of the systems built during the last generational change will collapse many of the myths held by the Learned and Unlearned of Society. Are the Elders of the 21st Century ready for the Children of the 21st Century to show their Parents and Grandparents the difference between being an Adult and a Child in Politics. For how many people over the age of 30 can tell the difference between You the Citizen and You the Human?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 1, 2010 3:45 AM
Comment #307433
Critical thinking is a skill one must develop.

Posted by: gergle at September 1, 2010 03:01 AM

I think I have one up on you, gergle.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 1, 2010 4:05 AM
Comment #307434

Got to this party late.

liberals and southpaws above: attack, attack, attack and say nothing in rebuttal. For instance many above called Beck a liar, but did not offer one single proof of a lie.

I read every post above and found that the hate and misinformation from the southpaws was so thick you would face a challenge of enormous size to see any value present.

OK, next. Get to know who Dr. Aveta King is before you continue to cast dirt on her. She is a great American lady.

Lastly, Dr. Martin Luther King was a republican. I found it so can you.

Posted by: tom humes at September 1, 2010 5:07 AM
Comment #307435

stephen

you said:
“The fact that people voice strong opinions against the way Washington operates, and today, Republicans are gridlocking Washington to get it the way it is, especially on bills concerning jobs. Republicans won’t let a second stimulus through, and hammered the first pretty mercilessly.”

ya stephen you’re right. after all the first stimulus worked so well. why not spend another trillion we don’t have, and hire more gov’t employees. a trillion here, a trillion there. what’s the big deal. LOL!!!!! yeeeeee haaaaa, the summer of recovery ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Posted by: dbs at September 1, 2010 5:46 AM
Comment #307438

tom humes, Dr. King’s father was a Republican not Martin Luther King, Jr.

I would think that most southern blacks would have been so in King’s father’s time. The Democratic party was not exactly the party that looked out for the interests of black people in the early 20th century when King Sr. was growing up. Abe Lincoln had only been dead less than 40 years at the time of his birth. When King Jr. was 19 Strom Thrumond was making incredibly racist speeches in his quest to become president. How could any black man support a party that hid these rats amongst their ranks? Jackie Robinson was a Republican too.

The party of Lincoln is dead. All that remains of that is a name it is folly to think otherwise. They stand for nothing other than corporate interests, aggressive foreign policy, and using social issues like gay marriage and anti-Islamic stands to drive a wedge between Americans hardly they legacy of Lincoln or Dr. King.

I’m a little late in weighing in about Glen Beck, but I have to say this man either has a delusional messiah complex, is completely insane, or is using misinformation and hate to sway the gullible to enrich himself. You pick.

Posted by: tcsned at September 1, 2010 8:51 AM
Comment #307439

Henry,

The current administration is moving in the right direction toward energy independence. The stimulus package contained substantial funding for the development of a wide array of renewable energy sources as well as energy efficiency. Obama has also provided funding and regulatory assistance for the construction of new nuclear plants and lifted a moratorium on off shore drilling along the east coast.

In my opinion, the approach is correct. For the short term, increase the use of proven available technology (nuclear) and further exploit available natural resources (native oil, natural gas). For the long term, provide subsidies for the development and production of efficient renewable energy sources and technology for more efficient use of energy (battery development, etc.).

The real question is not whether the nation can become energy independent, it is whether we have the political will to do so. I suspect that it will take another oil shock to stimulate that will. However, it is not an impossible goal. When faced with almost complete dependence on foreign sources for oil some nations have begun to act in their self interests. Portugal is a recent example. That country has increased the share of energy used from renewable sources from 17% to 45% in a few short years. See, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/earth/10portugal.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hpw

Posted by: Rich at September 1, 2010 9:07 AM
Comment #307440

Adrienne:

The link you posted are a couple of liberal political hacks who lied to interviews with people at the rally. They tricked people into believing they were conservatives, so in my opinions, they are not worth viewing. The opening statement under the video was their warped liberal position and nothing people said backed up their hate filled ideas.

Gergle:

Your hate filled speech toward conservatives betrays your real feelings. The liberal left will always tell you who they fear the most, by who they attack the most.

Why do I always get the idea that Henry Schlatman took too much drugs in the 60’s?

Tom Humes:

The reason MLK was a republican, was because the Democratic Party was still burning black churches and denying civil rights to blacks. But it is a case of they were AGAINST blacks and civil rights; before they were FOR blacks and civil rights. I know this is what the left believes, because I have had several of them try to convince me: today’s republicans used to be democrats and yesterday’s democrats used to be republicans. I know it sounds confusing, and it is, but it must be true, because democrats say it, and we all know liberals are the smartest people in the world.

Good grief, I’m a prophet; I just read down the post and came to the tcsned post. Honestly, I had never read tcsned’s post until after I responded to Tom Humes. In any case, tcsned’s post is proof that liberals are smarter than conservatives, hahahahah.

Rich:

“The current administration is moving in the right direction toward energy independence. The stimulus package contained substantial funding for the development of a wide array of renewable energy sources as well as energy efficiency. Obama has also provided funding and regulatory assistance for the construction of new nuclear plants and lifted a moratorium on off shore drilling along the east coast.”

1. Independence: you mean like when Obama stabbed the American coal miners and oil workers in the back?

2. So how many nuclear plants and oil rigs along the east coast have we started? It’s been 2 years now…

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 1, 2010 9:56 AM
Comment #307441

Grasping those liberal straws again Adrienne?

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 9:58 AM
Comment #307442

tcsned:

“I’m a little late in weighing in about Glen Beck, but I have to say this man either has a delusional messiah complex, is completely insane, or is using misinformation and hate to sway the gullible to enrich himself. You pick.”

Well, we on the right are really glad you were able to make it and provide your thoughts on the subject. But evidently you didn’t get the memo either. All the liberal prophets on the left who predicted armegeddon in Washington DC were wrong and the liberal press have said there was no hate speeches, no bashing Obama or the dems, no hate signs, no call for a revolution; in fact the liberal press has said on several occasions, it was more like a church picnic. So I guess your liberal talking points means that you didn’t actually listen to the speeches given at the rally.

Tell me tcsned, did you listen to the speakers at the rally? I did, and didn’t get the same take as you.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 1, 2010 10:12 AM
Comment #307443

And some on this site are grasping at reality.

Posted by: Jeff at September 1, 2010 10:29 AM
Comment #307445

Baretta9,

You don’t build a nuclear power plant in a year. The administration awarded loan guarantees for the building of a new nuclear power plant in Georgia this past February. It will be the first built in the US since 1990. The funds came from a large appropriation for support of nuclear power. It was the first award from that fund. It is a start toward revitalizing nuclear power in the US. Do you disagree that nuclear will be needed, at least in the foreseeabel future, as a supplement to fossil fuel power generation?

The administration has tried to make it very clear that exploration and exploitation of oil and gas reserves in the US will be required to meet the energy needs of the US. However, that process must be accomplished in a safe manner. The six month moratorium on deep water drilling is designed to answer the question as to whether such drilling can be accomplished safely. Considering the consequences of inadequate safety provisions, illustrated by the BP spill, is such a review inappropriate? Certainly, oil workers are impacted by the moratorium. But it seems to me that it is a prudent measure, particularly if our policy is for an expansion of drilling in deep water.

With regards to the coal miners, you say Obama stabbed them in the back by not allowing funds left over for mining mitigation to be used for support of union pension funds. The administration argued that deficit reduction was a greater need. Do you disagree?

Posted by: Rich at September 1, 2010 10:46 AM
Comment #307446

Jeff

Are you prepared to be the leader of those seeking reality?

original thought, out the window
charges of being a liar, no proof
notes on the rally, from unreliable sources
conservatives are stupid, revelation
liberals are intelligent, lol

This is fun to watch so many comments from the left that say nothing of wisdom, knowledge or intelligence. You lefties are so out of it you even on occasion took un-Rev. Al Sharpton to to shed. I’ll give you credit for takin him to the shed, but the purpose in taking him to the shed was to correct him; ya didn’t do it. Ya slapped his wrist and said don’t do that again.

Here is my challenge to the left. Being honest in your approach why are you afraid of Glenn Beck? Remember be honest. From the above loggings, it appears you will have to back track and start all over again. But the last time I saw a liberal/lefty back track was never.

Where is your protest when the New Black Panther Party tried to keep people out of the voting booth, or Acorn doing their pro-Obama neighborhood organizing using our money to do the dirt and getting rich doing it.

Above there were concerns that Glenn Beck is getting rich. George Soros is rich. Warren Buffett is rich. Bill Gates is rich. All three contribute well to the left/liberal establishment.

So the skin on the left is surely showing to be thin. To observe truth really does hurt from time to time. Be adults and take the hurt and grow in all ways of living.

God Bless America

Posted by: tom humes at September 1, 2010 10:59 AM
Comment #307447

Keep trying to grasp Jeff you might find reality someday out of the liberal fantacyland.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 11:01 AM
Comment #307448

Yes I am scared of glenn beck. There are way too many fools that listen to his chalkboard rants.

Posted by: Jeff at September 1, 2010 11:09 AM
Comment #307449

Did you ever listen to his chalk board rants, Jeff? Once in a while I will listen, when Matthews gets to liberal.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 11:17 AM
Comment #307450

I think he wears magic underwear just more scary stuff.

Posted by: Jeff at September 1, 2010 11:18 AM
Comment #307451

Yes as a matter of fact I do. I watch fox from time to time.

Posted by: Jeff at September 1, 2010 11:21 AM
Comment #307453

“liberals and southpaws above: attack, attack, attack and say nothing in rebuttal. For instance many above called Beck a liar, but did not offer one single proof of a lie.”

ummm yes I did. But i’ll add them again:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/aug/27/glenn-beck-faces-truth-o-meter/

Posted by: 037 at September 1, 2010 11:36 AM
Comment #307454

037 You can’t offer up the truth.

Posted by: Jeff at September 1, 2010 11:42 AM
Comment #307455

Tom Humes,

Proof of a lie: On his speech at the Capital, he noted the change in color of the blocks. He stated it was caused by the Civil War. That was a lie. It was caused by idiots in the Know Nothing’s party obstructing funding. Sort of like Republicans and “Conservatives” of today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Monument

Beck lies vrtually every time he opens his mouth, but Know Nothings never check his “facts”. They are smug and happy with their deep “critical thinking” skills, and snappy replies.

Posted by: gergle at September 1, 2010 11:51 AM
Comment #307456

Beretta9,

I’d love for you to point out my hate filled speech. Give it a shot.

As to whether I agree with idiotic posts from people claiming to be conservatives, without any real knowledge of what the history of conservatism is, well gee, you found me out. And here I thought I hid it so well, because I was really trying to convince everyone I love idiotic arguments.

Perhaps you’ve noted, I’ve called my self both progressive and conservative. It must be my self loathing that confuses you:) ( I know sometimes sarcasm doesn’t get through- so for those inclined not to see sarcasm….THAT was sarcasm.)

Posted by: gergle at September 1, 2010 12:00 PM
Comment #307458

Well it’s been fun but I have to go to work. Somebody has to pay for the tax cuts for the top 2%.

Posted by: Jeff at September 1, 2010 12:29 PM
Comment #307459

Gergle it also says after the know nothing party, LACK OF FUNDS and the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 12:29 PM
Comment #307462

Stephen,
I don’t usually have the time to respond to your very lengthy posts, but today I am going to take make an exception. The simple reason, where you used to at least attempt to understand, relate, or empathize with those you are debating with, lately you seemed to have turned a corner where your lack of understanding or contempt for their viewpoint has made that no longer willing or able to do this. Both your posts and rebuttals have become so condescending that they truly verge on what others have described as “hate filled, vitriol rhetoric.”
So, maybe I can at least point out some of your logical shortcomings, and hopefully open your mind to the idea that the our conservative viewpoint could possibly have come about from logical, rational thought processes, rather than just blindly following the heard that you attempt to depict us as.
Let’s begin:

1. Badmouthing the stimulus- aside from the exaggerative rhetoric you want to use to describe MAG’s post, it doesn’t “damn” anything. It also doesn’t say it is not working. It simply states that it is not living up to its touted expectations. According to what she wrote (since I can’t actually speak for what she believes) she took ideas such as “unemployment would be about eight percent” to heart. That doesn’t mean she is arguing against your idea that the stimulus is currently one of the only things keeping unemployment at 9.4 rather than soaring into the mid teens. It is simply a statement (a true one at that) that the rhetoric originally used to sell the stimulus bill was more optimistic than reality has proven to be. *statistics and quote came from here*
When you take such simple positions, then bend and stretch them to make them easier to refute, it shows a intrinsic weakness in your own argument. This should have been an easy concession , where you could have presented the argument of how much worse the economy would have been… Instead you chose the same easy/lazy way you condemn people like Beck for doing.

2. Black Liberation theology- The one reference to Central American Liberation Theology aside, you completely ignored most of his argument. Picking one point and trying to use it to simply dismiss the entire claim is about as weak of an argument as you can make. In essence you are saying that irrelevant of the logic. Aside from the legitimacy of the claim. You had a spelling error and your entire work is illegitimate. Beside that very weak jump, your only additional point is that “Black Liberation Theology is something different, and not altogether evil, as some would claim.” Without any reasoning or support for your claim to contradict what the others are saying. More to the point, I would agree that Black Liberation Theology is not all “altogether” evil. But that being said, it is just as susceptible to misinterpretation as any other religion. Be it some form of traditional Christianity, Muslim, etc. Preachers and followers can distort any message to arrive at a call to arms (another thing you think that Beck’s rhetoric is guilty of). Then, when you take that possibility of misinterpretation and group it with the preachers such as Reverand Wright (we all know his most notable quotes), or even the more notable Black Liberation Theologist James Cone –the one you were quoting- who went on to support “complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary,” as a justification for his own support of Malcolm X and the Black Panther movement—very similar to those military groups from Central America you are trying so hard to distance yourself from. You can understand where people would get the idea that Black Liberation Theology might be something that has the propensity to be abused. Thus while his article might mention Central America, the reasoning and step by step logic he used was much more substantiated and credible than anything you posted. You continue, and bring up a few points of Black Liberation Theology that have true merit. I’m also sure there are many more. The question isn’t if there are some good points to the belief system. The question is how many bad apples does it take to poison the well?

3. “You have to demonize anything your opponents might be connected with, whether it’s a harmless Community Organizing organization (ACORN) or the preacher he went with. Facts be damned, you need to portray us as evil so you can point at us as enemy who cannot be compromised with”- Wow. I’m actually not sure where to start with just these two sentences. I guess the easy stuff should come first. You start with ad hominem attacks against the blogger, but even those have to rely on the inflammatory postulates addressed above. Without the “demonizing” of Black Liberal Theology, even your attack against Beretta are pretty weak. Then, as you move on, simply inserting the “harmless” in front of ACORN and Reverand Wright. This form of fallacy, known as “begging the question” simply asserts the premise that the facts support your later claim the “facts be damned, you need to portray us a evil…” The entire weight of your argument throughout this sentence relies entirely upon the acceptance, without reason or logical justification, of the adjective “harmless.”
This is where I’m going to take an aside. The above mentioned method of using slide of hand adjective based arguments to dismiss, refute, or even diminish the conservative point of view are prevalent throughout mainstream media. In general any network news show, any Hollywood produced movie, and the majority of major print publications present the news with this very same solicitously inconspicuous logic buried throughout. Nothing with huge amounts of spin or prejudice, just incremental (barely noticeable) bits of it at a time. The problem develops when the tiny increments, like a grain of white sand, begin to gather in such numbers that they fill the beach! The conservative viewpoint, call it the black sand, gets completely drowned out. At this point, when the beach has gone from multi-toned to solid white, one person adding black sand will not even make an impact to the beach as a whole. That sole purveyor of dissent resorts to rocks. That is my understanding to the justification for the very extremist personalities and rhetoric on conservative talk and television. They know they are outnumbered in the media and news world. They only recourse is to move away from small amounts of spin and prejudice, to larger more direct approaches. Hoping against hope that these much larger portions can amass at somewhere near the same speed as the sand.

4. “At issue here, I believe, is your Party and political movement’s marginalization of others. The irony is, your party would have a much easier time on the playing field of politics if it didn’t make such divisive issues their centerpiece. You could make movements like Black Liberation Theology a thing of the past, if folks no longer felt it necessary to so emphasize it.”- Did I miss the part where you showed RNC to be guilty or marginalizing others? Did I at least miss the rationalization for you belief in this? Would an appropriate response be that I believe they don’t marginalize others? That has the exact same amount of support as your supposition. Additionally, I believe the RNC has actually tried to become racially indifferent. There has never been anyone of note from the RNC whose has condemned Black Liberation Theology. They have condemned the message of one preacher, but just as adamantly, they condemn the messege of Westboro Baptist Church (whose pastor and congregation are predominantly white). (Did you see that, when I posted what I believe, I actually took the time to include points of reason which lead me to that conclusion, you might take not of that) You accuse them of continually “race-baiting,” but I have never heard the discussion of race, or the protest to it come from anyone but a liberal. In fact, it seems to me, that is one of the RNC’s biggest problems. They don’t reach out to blacks, or Hispanics, or any other minority. They simply speak their messege, and hope that everyone-irrelevant of skin tone-accepts it. The idea is good, truly being color blind, but with the DNC continually pointing out the low turnout of all minorities, it makes is seem as if something conspiratorial is going on. They can look forward to the days of a truly color blind society, but with democrats continually rehashing the issue it will not allow “folks [to] no longer [feel] it necessary.” It is apparent with the Arizona law issue as well. The RNC wants to look at the issue as if racial inequalities don’t, and never did, exist. In this prism of perception, an act as simple as asking for an immigrants papers would not be an issue. However, after rehashing past issues, indescrations, etc. the act begins to scare people with old memories of racial profiling. Even you have said that the issue isn’t the law so much as how it will be enforced. The law (on paper) is good, but once you look at through the prism of our historical racial struggle-which the Democrats are holding onto like a winning lottery ticket-then concerns over individual enforcement take center stage.

5. You can either choose to calm people’s anxieties, or you can choose to justify them. It is not necessarily easy, but do you think the Blacks who see the way that Republicans are trying to turn Obama into the scary negro see reason to give up historical greivances when you do so? Or do they tell themselves that if you don’t hit back, you might end up suffering his fate?-Yet again, did I miss the part where you showed Republican trying to turn Obama into the “scary negro?” You love calling people on their argument’s lack of substance, but you then turn around and post this, without even a hint of support. Maybe that’s the problem, you are a good “arguer,” as you put it, but when it really comes down to it, you don’t know the points of a good argument. An argument should be made up of premises, claims, and conclusions. Each one of these components can, and more than likely, will be points of contentions within a debate. Many different methods can be used to support these components-ranging from logic and reasoning to external support. The problem you have is that you rely heavily on postulating conclusions, working very hard to support those conclusions, but basing everything on weak premises such as “Republicans are trying to turn Obama into the scary negro.” Why you would spend time supporting the thought processes that might, or could come from this, when the weakest part of the argument is still the premise, which has no justification or reason why someone like myself would agree with it.

6. People are mad- I will grant you that people hate congress. Not everyone in congress, but congress as a whole. But why? They are mad at democrats because with the promise of “change” every person had in mind a different kind of “change.” The glory of such an ambiguous term is also its downfall. On the other hand, they are mad at Republicans. Not for becoming the party of no, that you would presume. But for the same reason they were looking for change last time. The republicans in congress strayed away from their philosophy. The Bush policies are not what they were sent there for. Bush virtually became a liberal with his spending. Those republicans that went along with him are fighting tooth a nail to reframe themselves back into a conservative light. Now, I can’t speak for everyone, but this issue of the government under BOTH Barack Obama and George W. Bush grew out of control. This is why people hate congress. If this were America’s most wanted, no one from wall street/healthcare/etc would be in the top ten. Just congress. Once congress is taken care of, then those other issues might have a chance of rising to the top.

7. Can Repubs quell that anger- Yes. Return to conservative, small (in terms of scope not size) government. Very simple. Reduce spending, reduce spending, and oh yeah, reduce spending. I know they are going to have to make some concessions to get things under control, and I don’t know how they will do when they are forced to cope with altering Social Security, and cutting defense spending, but as a whole, this election has shown them that a republican that is liberal with the purse strings is no more protected than a democrat. They are take that message to heart, and run with it, or not and have a very short career. This alone will restore trust. This alone quell that anger. Growing government in any way, in any form will not address this. Shrink it, and it disappears.

Over all Stephen, the point of this post was not to persuade you. I didn’t try to refute or wholeheartedly commit to proving your presumption wrong. The idea here was to give you a little perspective. An understanding that you are no different from those you continue to talk down to. The people you treat with disdain people their arguments are not fully developed due to time constraints, ignorance, preconceptions, whatever. Either way, you, and more specifically your arguments, fall victim to same lack of support, fallacies, and ineptitude as those around you. Keep that in mind the next time you want to make condescending comments like “surely your not such a poor arguer that you have to….” You are not in a position to critique any one. Instead, maybe you should save the time you spent on the critique, and use that to support your own arguments…

Posted by: firstpost at September 1, 2010 12:35 PM
Comment #307465

firstpost,

All that is required to permit evil to rise to power is for good rational people to remain silent. There is a backlash due toward the hateful cowardly crazies on the Right BEFORE they acquire any power over the good and sane people. If the experience of Nazi Germany taught humanity nothing else, it certainly proffered that lesson, which must be observed by all good and rational people.

Enlightened self-interest demands the light be shone upon the miscreants seeking to elect their own to power over all others. Cowardly fear, irrational fear, bigotry, and racial and religious hatred must be exposed for what they are, regardless of the expertise at sophistry and veiled political correctness, or, flags and patriotic slogans they hide their hate and cowardice and bigotry behind.

These growing acts of violence against innocent American Muslims are perpetrated by such miscreants at the direction of political leaders and infotainers, using them as foot soldiers for their own political or financial gains. Beck, Boehner, McConnell, Bachman, Freedom Works, Horowitz and a host of others are stoking the fires of hate, and prejudice in their undereducated and fearful following, for nothing more than their own selfish and self-centered gains. Stephen is taking the appropriate action in calling them out on their deceptions and destructive actions, as I and a growing throng of sane and rational Americans are starting to. We want not cowardice, prejudice, and hate electing our nation’s leaders.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 1:27 PM
Comment #307468

firstpost

Thank you for your response.

I don’t agree with a couple of points, but by and large you wrote what my sentiments are. I envy people who can put together clear logical statements to make their point. I prefer to be somewhat aserbic half the time. The other half I try to be precise in what I try to say in print. Many on this blog site refuse to accept documentation that is direct and truthful. They instead would prefer to lazily project a thought process into the argument that is more just a character belief rather than fact. Too often they mix grapefruit and oranges and end up with cumquats. Anyway have a great day.

Posted by: tom humes at September 1, 2010 1:39 PM
Comment #307473

agent gibbs-

Profoundly weak arguement. I expect better from you. You dancewhat he is: a mixed race president. Biological. No wiggle room.

Screw that, I know the science. I know he’s mixed race, but you want to see whether you can determine what an average American is? How many people have native American ancestors? How many black people have genetic contributions from white ancestors, given with or without their black ancestors’s consent?

How about folks from the Mediterranean region, where the moors once dominated Sicily and other places, leaving descendants with dark hair, skin and eyes? Or folks from the Middle East, who sit at the confluence of Asia, Europe, and Africa?

You’re the one on thin ice here, biologically speaking. Science Fiction in the past played with the idea that we might find clear genetic distinctions between races, but those distinctions haven’t been found. Instead, something far more simpler has been discovered: people screw whoever is close by. Those people have children. Those children, so long as they look a certain way, have a decent chance to have more children.

As for being a snake oil salesman? He’s done a lot of what he said he would do. But admitting that would put Republicans at a disadvantage, so they don’t admit such things. It’s not politically correct, in the old Maoist sense of having to kiss up to a party line.

Jack Murtha. Harry is Reid. Nancy Pelosi. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd. Charles Rangel, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy. The management team that sank this country.

Oh, right. You got the RNC memo.

You guys didn’t legislate to keep the OTC Derivatives market, source of most of the toxic assets that sank the big banks and dropped the bottom out of the economy, from being regulated?

Let’s be frank with each other. I’ll admit Democrats jumped on the free market bandwagon in many cases, and helped Republicans push this kind of ultimately harmful legislation, if you’ll admit that these policy were largely what Republicans enthusiastically campaign and spoke in favor of, what they nearly alway voted on a party line to support themselves.

See, we’re all to blame here. The question is who’s going to recognize their mistake, and stop making it. The Republicans are sticking with their original agenda, despite all that came of it.

Those are the facts. I know, they don’t come from party approved sources, and therefore aren’t maoistically politically correct, as the GOP demands it, but those derivatives, and the complex financial obligations they represent are what we are fighting now, what really keeps the banks from operating robustly.

The Repubs lost becasue of corruption issues, not Iraq.

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Wait, you weren’t joking? It was both. Having a country blow up in your face is not a quick road to victory. You guys told people victory was around the corner. Now its a whole nother’s president’s administration that sees the end of a war your people started.

History will show that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd singularily torpeoded the banking industry.

Psst. Come here. I got a little secret for you. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were LOSING market share as the bubble was expanding. Try derivatives funded shadow-banks. Try wall street and its hedge-fund mania. Try the web of toxic assets and ****ty bets that came out of the OTC derivatives mess.

The banking industry torpedoed itself, with assistance from the Free Market Fundamentalists who couldn’t understand the problem with letting people defraud and enter into conflict of interests with clients.

MAG-
I have no problem with you criticizing anything. I just expect that if you want my respect for an argument, you’ve got to do more than just repeat a party line without evidence to back things up. I submitted evidence to back my assertion that the Stimulus, while insufficient, has been successful, as far as its limitations have allowed it. What’s the evidence, not merely the theory, that it’s done harm?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2010 2:26 PM
Comment #307475

Beretta9-
How do 1, 2, and 3, amount to Obama being a scary black man racist? In the case of 1, you don’t necessarily have to adopt a racist viewpoint to find it a compelling theology.

Number 2, a person can have a distinct viewpoint from the church they attend. I attend a Catholic Church, yet I’m much more liberal than the leadership. Why does Barack Obama have to be considered as ideologically equal to his pastor, as if he never had a thought in his head besides what Wright put there?

And that’s if we buy this ridiculous argument that Wright was always as bombastic as he was in the videos. If he was mostly a regular black preacher most of the time, its even easier to see how Obama wasn’t a raving black nationalist- because even his pastor wasn’t that.

You guys get caught up in your own rhetoric, and build on it as if it were fact. So, its not suprising you don’t understand how Obama could be reasonable, given how limited your experience of the preacher was.

And three? Certainly. But here your narrow point of view again sabotages your point.

If you want to jack around in circles about this subject, its your call whether you want to be tiresome, but I reject your overheated interpretations of Obama’s future, your narrow assessment of what this means.

Which is besides what I think to be the most compelling point I could make: Why does the GOP have to allege that Obama could be secretly some sort of Black Supremacist?

Because so far he’s been almost unnerringly conciliatory on race. Because he himself represents the breaking of more than one kind of barrier, between parents of different race, and between one race and the highest aspirations possible.

You can’t allow him the benefit of being a symbol of healing and reconciliation, as he should be. You have to trample that into the mud with everything else about him, so you can beat him in November 2012. Partisan politics trumps social advancement every time with the Republican Party nowadays. Nobody can be allowed to celebrate the barriers broken down. Instead, they have to be scared into raising those barriers up once again, by folks who can’t win an election when its a fair fight on the issues.

That’s the sad thing. Instead of letting your party regain some kind of virtue, you’ve chosen to try and smash everybody else’s virtues flat.

America needs to wake up from this kind of mediocrity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2010 2:40 PM
Comment #307478

We want not cowardice, prejudice, and hate electing our nation’s leaders.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010

Please consider Mr. Remer’s comments preceeding his final paragraph quoted here and tell me if it doesn’t sound like prejudice and hate.

His comments are filled with despicable acts ascribed to his political opponents. He then would have us beleive that opposition to the building of the mosque at the current proposed site in NYC is the genesis of those acts.

The majority of Americans have made it clear that they understand religious freedom and the right to build the mosque at that location. And, they are asking that a different location be chosen. It’s really that simple.

Has it become outrageous to aks others to be tolerant of predominate views? Is it unAmerican to ask others to show restraint in their exercise of their rights?

Now, it would seem by his comment (“We want not cowardice, prejudice, and hate electing our nation’s leaders”), Mr. Remer would have us believe that this issue will be the determinent factor in the November elections.

Hogwash, such nonsense is merely used to deflect attention from the sorry state of affairs in the democrat party and that party’s failure to produce the results desired by the electorate.

Mr. Remer’s comments appear to be the beginning of the litany of excuses that will flow from a rep/cons sweep of congress in November.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2010 3:03 PM
Comment #307479

Rich,
With only about 2% of the worlds oil I do believe the other corporations using oil to make durable goods might have a thing or two to say about the willfull destruction of their resource. For as strange as it may sound 100 years later we are still using whale oil in some of our spacecraft.

No, just as the 1970’s saw a natural resistance from leaded fuel to inleaded fuel I do believe President Obama and Congress should have took the automotive failure and spent the millions on purchasing electric cars for local, state, and federal fleets. Since doing so would not only help the auto makers improve their current technology, but the annual budget savings would be a good thing to hold up to the “Drill Baby Drill” crowd.

Now, as far as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 I do believe the President and Congress was correct to apply the funds toward making our local, state, and federal buildings more energy efficent. And why that may have made the other industries cry out in rage, I still want to hear how someone is going to increase production and put people back to work when the reason they lost their job in the first place was the cost of oil made it impossible to create goods and services at a profit.

For why the Billionaries in Washington and the Millionaries on Wall Street may cry about the cost of doing business. I wonder what they are going to do when the American Worker wants their 500% raise in wages because the Corporation still wants to remain Ignorant about Income and Wages.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 1, 2010 3:06 PM
Comment #307482

Rich;

I have no problem with nuke power plants. I know you don’t build a nuclear power plant in a year, there will never be a nuclear power plant built. They may have funds, but they will NEVER get permits. This is a smoke screen…

Obama stabbed the oil workers in the back with the moratorium. It was never needed and he hurt a lot of people are out of work because of a political stunt.

Oil drilling on any coast will never take place with Obama and dems in control, they are too much in debt to the enviro wackos.

Obama’s claim to miners when he was campaigning was, “we can put a man on the moon, we ought to be able to make clean coal”. Problem is, it was a lie to get their votes. I said nothing about the union pensions. He shut down coal mining for the same reason he shuts down oil, he owes the left wing enviro nuts.

Firstpost:

Thank you for your response. The point being made by my links was in answer to the liberal’s questions, “Why does such a large percentage of Americans still believe Obama is a Muslim?” The links answered the question; because mainstream Christianity cannot identify with the form of Christianity that Obama has associated himself with, and not only does his former pastor and “Mentor” preach black liberation theology, but also identifies himself with Black Panther Leadership and the Nation of Islam. You are correct about Stephen sidetracking the issues and changing the subject. The only argument he can make involves the standard talking points of the left.

Firstpost, I guess you committed the ultimate sin by correcting Stephen, because you immediately got a response from David Remer covering Stephen’s backside, so in other words, you have brought out the big guns. Good for you…

Posted by: eretta9 at September 1, 2010 3:27 PM
Comment #307483

Stephen, I just stated that the stimulus didn’t live up to the hipe and you go out on some stupid tantrum saying I’m bad mouthing something. I have my right to an opinion just as you do and I don’t think the stimulus has been used to it’s potential. But the question to you was, Do you think it wise to raise taxes on anyone with the economy in the shape it is in? Which has nothing at all to do with the stimulus.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 3:36 PM
Comment #307484

Stephen:

I don’t know why you are having so much trouble with the links I posted. I am assuming by your answers that you are saying:

1. Yes, Obama’s pastor preached Black Liberation Theology.
2. Yes, Obama sat under this preaching for 20 years.
3. And Yes, Obama was subjected to this preaching.

Now I did no say, and the writer of the links did not say that Obama was a believer or supporter of Black Liberation Theology. The purpose of the links was to answer the question, “Why are there so many Americans who believe Obama is still a Muslim?” The answer was: that he sat under of Jeremiah Wright, and Wrights version of Christianity is alien to the traditional teaching of Christianity in America.

So the only question you need to answer is; Yes, Americans consider Obama to be a Muslim because of what Jeremiah Wright has introduced Obama to or: No, Americans do not consider Obama to be a Muslim because of what Jeremiah Wright has introduced to Obama. The writer of the link simply made the argument that a percentage of traditional Christians in America believe Obama is a Muslim because he sat under the teaching of a black liberation theologian for 20 years. I did not say I believed this, you assumed it.

You have taken a simple subject and turned it into a real point of contention, and have even drawn the rest of the liberal yahoos out who are trying to throw Beck and everyone else into the mix. It is amazing that firstpost was able to understand this, but you can’t. I guess I gave your intelligence too much credit.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 1, 2010 3:50 PM
Comment #307486

Royal Flush said:

“Now, it would seem by his comment (“We want not cowardice, prejudice, and hate electing our nation’s leaders”), Mr. Remer would have us believe that this issue will be the determinent factor in the November elections.”

RF, I know you were quoting David, but perhaps you could help me understand. David is he organizer of VIOD; which is meant to viote all incumbents out. Correct?

If we are to vote all incumbents out, would we be guilty of voting new politicians in through, “cowardice, prejudice, and hate”, better yet, if we voted incumbents out, would we be guilty of voting them out by, “cowardice, prejudice, and hate”?

HELP ME SOMEONE!!! I want to vote incumbents out, but I want to do it for the right reason, and I want to vote new ones in, but I want to do it for the right reason…

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 1, 2010 4:00 PM
Comment #307490

300 thousand…87 thousand? Who cares? The biggest crowd in town, not all that long ago, was the lynch mob…or the KKK rally…oh, well…Glenn Beck as George Washington, talking about honor and truth…damn, I just puked on my shoe!

Posted by: Marysdude at September 1, 2010 4:38 PM
Comment #307491

firstpost-
The conservative viewpoint, these days, seems to be built on the big lie approach. They’ll call Obama a racist, a muslim (with perjorative intentions), and whatever else, and despite lacking evidence for these things, they will repeat them again and again.

If I am not as accomodating as I once was, it’s because I find dreadfully little to accommodate these days that I could, in good conscience, accommodate.

1) It did not live up to expectations. But expectations can be subjective, and can depend on what you believed was going to happen at the time.

Put simply, if you believe you’re starting out with maybe an 8.0% unemployment rate to make up for at one point (just for example), but you later find out that things were so bad that a 9.0% unemployment rate would come about, then of course, if your stimulus takes 1.5% off the rate, you’re still going to have to deal with 7.5% instead of 6.5%. Still, where would you rather be?

There seems to be an unspoken premise in the Republican criticism that essentialy says, if we did nothing, we’d have the same rate. MAG seems to be saying that essentially, it was a wash, that nothing really happened.

I don’t see a lot of economists who say that, though, and that’s the thing.

I think the Republicans have their paradigm wrong on the economy here. They’re thinking inflationary problems, when all the market indicators are showing that the opposite is occuring, that pressures are trying to force prices down- deflation, basically. You don’t deal with deflation the way you deal with inflation, for obvious reasons.

Inflation essentially pushes money supply higher, sending more money after relatively fewer goods. Anti-inflation measures try to disinflate the market, cut down on the available money supply. Sometimes, this means putting interest rates higher, locking up more money in the bank. Sometimes this means austerity, with the government raising taxes and cutting services, deficit spending less.

So, what happens when you try this with a deflationary economy? Look at the 1930’s. These were all approaches that Hoover’s administration attempted. None worked. In fact, they probably contributed to things getting worse. Deflation is more goods being followed around by less money. Look at the Feds actions as of late. They’ve been pumping money into the economy like crazy. That should be driving up inflation, but it isn’t. The Fed’s also kept rates flat at zero, essentially letting the banks take out money at cost to the fed.

That, too, should be inflating things.

The Banks should be lending like crazy. But they aren’t.

Why aren’t they? Because they are up to their eyeballs in bad derivatives, and nobody knows how good the other banks or their money is. Laws, wisely enough, force them to keep enough money on their accounts to colateralize all their lending out.

But it means that financing is not going out to Americans and small businesses. It means the entrepreneurs aren’t creating jobs, and people aren’t buying as many of the big ticket items. The market, so crippled by its dysfunction, is now having difficulty returning to its former correct setting.

2) Read this critique of Beck by a Catholic Columnist, if you please.

He lays out an important fact: James Cone’s liberation theology, the one that Obama would be relating too, is a movement that started in 1966, and is American and Protestant in origin. It has a racial perspective to it that is integral to the theology.

The Liberation theology he’s trying to tie it to, (since he’s mentionging that the popes had trouble with it) is a movement which developed at about the same time in Latin American Catholic communities. The label, though, doesn’t come into play until 1971, though.

And really, that Liberation theology is applied against the sort of right-wing governments we talk about now, who victimized their populations, who disappeared people. Our country’s black Liberation Theology was started in a time of great racial strife by men and women whose experience of that period was fresh and raw, in living memory instead of just some text book.

Though I may not find some of what they say comfortable, I remind myself that the things they endured in their lives would be far from comfortable or comforting as far as I was concerned. It’s easy to condemn such people as radicals, if you live a comfortable life in a free nation, as an equal citizen.

3) If you say my label of “harmless” begs the question, then I am glad to answer that question.

Many Republicans believe that ACORN is this powerful secret organization that is somehow able to sway elections, and which seeks to undermine social order by coddling those who shouldn’t be getting a handout. Witness the infamous “pimp” video.

The rather profoundly edited pimp video, as it turns out. One AG and DA office after another begged off of prosecuting the people involved with those videos, after discovering that the filmmakers had misleadingly spliced and cut short footage.

I don’t fear a community organizing group that folks have to go to those lengths to slime. I fear the organizations that are willing to go to such lengths to engage in a Witchhunt, unjustified on the facts. The same site that posted that misleading video would later go on to post another misleading video, which got an innocent woman named Shirley Sherrod fired.

You need to ask yourself what the people in your political community are willing to say to you, facts notwithstanding, in order to sway your opinion and rally your opposition to liberal and Democratic causes.

4) Republicans spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, and put Americans through the trauma of an impeachment to get at Clinton. They promise to use their subpeona power to harrass Obama if they get the majority. They hounded ACORN into non-existence, lead the effort to make it illegal to give them federal funds.

If its not Shirley Sherrod, it’s the Mosque. If it’s not the Mosque, then its bashing people who have been on Unemployment long term. If it isn’t the long term unemployed, it’s atheists. If it isn’t atheists, its illegal immigrants, and anybody who questions the constitutionality of the Arizona law.

They always got somebody they’re villifying or demonizing.

And no, I wasn’t restricting my comments just to the RNC.

I’m overjoyed to find where Republicans aren’t jumping on these bandwagons, but I find it difficult these days to find reasonable folks on the right willing to drop this politics of division an polarization.

5) What’s with Reverend Wright, and the videos? Why should Obama, who is rarely known to raise his temper much less to engage in anti-white radicalism be painted with the same broad brush. Why should Beck claim Obama’s secretly a racist, simply for standing up for a black guy who was busted for breaking into his own home?

I’ve made my arguments on the subject, and they are plentiful, and documented. I don’t have the energy to reargue everything, so I simply state as fact many of the things I have previously argued and documented. Perhaps this is a weakness, and those unfamiliar with my career on this blog (almost seven years worth of posts) should be given the benefit of what I base my opinion on. But its difficult sometimes to reargue things over and over again.

I’ve seen cards with watermelon patches and Obama welfare-bucks with fried chicken on them coming from Republican sources. I have heard Rush Limbaugh claiming that a White Kid getting beat up on by black kids on the bus is what we all have to look forward to.

I am not making a charge in vain here. Ask yourself why Breitbart and company were trying to zing the Obama administration on Shirley Sherrod, why the Right Wing Media accused Obama of stirring up controversy when he defended Professor Gates. Why the emphasis on the racially charged remarks that Wright made? I can’t believe that these approaches are just coincidental, not knowing about the GOP Southern Strategy, or the Willy Horton ad, or the vile ad that one politician used against Harold Ford, featuring a blond white woman telling the black candidate to call her. The GOP’s done a lot to burn up the benefit of the doubt on such tactics, and you should be concerned how much goodwill its burning up now.

6) Bush wasn’t a liberal, he was a profligate. When Clinton was given the chance to run deficits, he lowered them. Republicans didn’t like how, but he did anyways. Bush lowered taxes, and immediately, started spending. I can understand your ire about the drug benefit, but you should consider that the wars he charged on the credit card were not cheap either.

Republicans have not shown one bit of repentance for the most expensive of the policies, especially the tax cut. They are quite willing to be wasteful, irresponsible spenders when the target is something politically correct for them, like tax cuts mainly targeted at upper income ranges, at corporations who are making record profits, and on two large wars and a bulked up defense department.

I’ve posted an article on this somewhere in my archives that lays out what Obama actually spent. More than half the Deficit comes from Bush’s decisions, from Bush’s programs. Obama has nowhere near equalled that proportion, though he did restore a lot of magic asterisks, spending not budgeted but paid for, to the budget, and that may be the reason for your misperception.

And why do people hate Congress? Because they know things are flat out bad, yet they see nothing being done. I would accept the criticism of my party with much more grace, if I knew it was just them being as bad as the Republicans. But I can’t agree with that, not with the Republicans breaking records on filibusters, blocking even minor appointees they later join the Democrats in confirming unanimously, or by strong majorities.

I freaking hate being scapegoated for somebody else’s wrong. It’s highly offensive to me. One, somebody else should be held responsible for their own actions. Republicans should be suffering for their obstruction. Two, I believe people should be held responsible for what I do. I see the Republicans scapegoating people left and right for their ideas, their laws, their screw-ups. I’m long past being in the mood to be blamed for more of their monumental screw-ups.

7) Putting aside the concerns about Deflation, Your people will have great difficulty enacting the kind of emergency help folks want. Have you seen how the Public Option polled, how much people agreed with the Medicare buy-in? Do you know how few people actually want the Bush tax cuts renewed?

I don’t think Republicans have their fingers on the pulse of the public, and even when they’re bothering to try and find it, they’re trying to get that pulse racing to some end, so they misinterpret the reaction they’re getting from their fierce propaganda efforts as being evidence of American conservatism.

You talk about convincing me that Republicans have logical cases and can think things out, and really I never disputed that. What I think is the problem is that Republicans have kind of fossilized into a way of thinking, and they’re building their politics around it so that it just reinforces themselves. I mean, even with the biggest financial disaster in seventy something years, these folks are taking the side of the banks. That is way out of touch.

How can People who are on the record taking the side of the insurance companies against reform, the banks against reform, the energy companies and oil companies against reform ever truly put that anger to bed?

Ultimately, that anger comes from what has factually gone wrong in the world, on those people’s account. Republicans are not only trying to out-talk that, a tall proposition, but they’re also trying to justify that behavior, and are doing little with their policy to prevent a recurrence of the kinds of crises that so gutted the public standing of these businesses.

Republicans are simply putting off the reckoning, for themselves and others, and with the tensions still out there, I doubt it’s just going to go away.

Over all Stephen, the point of this post was not to persuade you. I didn’t try to refute or wholeheartedly commit to proving your presumption wrong. The idea here was to give you a little perspective. An understanding that you are no different from those you continue to talk down to.

I write to persuade. I don’t kid myself that I’m just offering perspective. Why offer that? To encourage a different point of view.

Well, while I appreciate your more thoughtful approach, I don’t think there’s much point to arguing from a point of moral privilege with folks who pretty much consider me a lying hack liberal. I am shocked by the causticness of the other side every day, yet I’m not surprised anymore. I wonder where their sense of right, decency, and shame is. I worry about a politics that seems to be based on conspiracy theory, on junk science and industry-bought science, rather than more free, more checked and balanced outside perspectives.

I feel less like saying, “come, let us reason together” and more like saying “there are truths you can’t ignore and be right, and you’re ignoring them.”

But that’s difficult, isn’t it, to do the work to argue in a personal fashion about current events and politics, when you hear the same arguments come down the pike from the same people over and over again, regardless of how much information comes in that discredits the theories they offer. How many times do I have to say that Obama never was and isn’t today a Muslim? How many times do I have to point out that the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is actually a man well documented for speaking out against radical Islam?

How many times do I have to take the pains to get my facts right, only to see simplistic repetition of the same zombie-lie talking points from the other side? How many times do I have to talk to a guy who insists that Freddie and Fannie crashed the market when I know that the role that Over the Counter Derivatives and the sleazy system that the Wall Street Banks set up did the bulk of the damage, and that non-bank lenders originated and sold most of the bad loans?

It’s a soul-sucking thing, and the only reason I don’t quit is that I believe that if I did, this kind of nonsense would once again take over policy, take over how we do business. God I don’t want that!

I listen to Republicans talk about how Obama’s destroying the country and the economy, and I just think to myself, “What do you folks think your people just did?”

How does one stay reasonable with the unreasonable? With those who don’t bend when you put a documented fact that contradicts their claim? Who repeat discredited claims, again and again, and smugly assert their better handle on reality on its account?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2010 5:09 PM
Comment #307492

Royal Flush-
What is outrageous is that public and political pressure would take with the left hand what the right hand is forbidden from touching.

The center should be built, if only to answer those who would accuse America of having laws that say one thing, but a culture that says another.

My theory about terrorism is that the al-Qaeda terrorists are bigots looking to provoke our country into acting from reciprocal bigotry. You may not believe this, after years of political indoctrination from the right on the subject, but I wanted revenge on those terrorist just the same.

But my brand is ruthless cold and precise. We get the terrorists, and just the terrorists. We don’t mount a huge, vague, resource-draining campaign, or worse go chasing off into an unrelated war to destroy these bastards. No. We focus our policy like a laser on a target, and make it clear that its the terrorist act that brought this on them, and that any such act will bring that vengeance swiftly, directly, and forcefully on them.

And when we’re done, they will know that there are no greater friends, if they approach us civilly, but no greater enemy, both in fierceness and concentrated power, if they screw with us.

Of course, that kind of gets lost in years worth of arguing with people about epic-sounding clashes of civilization, by people trying to fulfill some eschatological or geopolitical ambition. The properly directed retribution was derailed by people who were so overloaded with political baggage that they couldn’t just get the job done.

We’ll see how far you get in November. Then we’ll see how much you keep. Republicans seem to think policy is secondary to politics, that they are exempt from the pressures they’ve turned against the Democrats. They’re kidding themselves.

MAG-
I don’t think its unwise to raise taxes on the rich. Economic studies have shown that they are flush with money, even as everybody else is thin on it. They’ve got a whole lot of money they aren’t spending, so they got some cushion on the matter.

Besides, you’re avoiding the obvious question: is the doubling of a debt already said to be heading towards 100% of GDP worth the economic benefit it would provide to the rich?

Remember that your extra debt would be a burden on future generation. Remember that the stimulative effect proved questionable in the Bush years, as jobs and other measures declined, even before the crash of 2008.

What’s the upside here, I ask?

Beretta9-
There’s a simple answer to your question of why so many people believe he’s a Muslim.

Because your people have been lying their asses off relentlessly on the subject, and your politics discourages anybody from conclusively saying otherwise.

I mean, really, let’s follow the logic.

1) Obama sits under the tutelage of a Church of Christ minister for twenty years, as per his argument.

2) He learns black liberation theology, which you claim is horrible and racist.

3) This so confounds people that they say…

He must be Muslim!

What the hell?!?! How does this even begin to resemble a coherent argument?

It’s a lot simpler to blame the Republicans and other political opponents for spreading BS lies about Obama’s religion. That goes like this:

1) Politicians or pundits claim Obama is a Muslim.

2) The people who listen to them or repeat what they say in the Republican media spread this out, perhaps phrasing it in faux-rhetorical terms.

3) The closed loop of political audiences out there take this view in, especially when others they love and trust repeate it, and so the view spreads.

God, what a simple argument, and with clear causality to boot. Obama gets saddled with the image of being a Muslim because some people are relentelessly lying about him to people who nowadays don’t trust the sources that might debunk it.

But of course, the Right Wing lying about something like that would look bad. So, some folks aren’t going to admit to that, are they?

Yep, Obama should have known that if he sat down and listened to a guy preaching black liberation theology, that some day he’d get mistaken for a Muslim .

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2010 5:37 PM
Comment #307493

HELP ME SOMEONE!!! I want to vote incumbents out, but I want to do it for the right reason, and I want to vote new ones in, but I want to do it for the right reason…

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 1, 2010

B9, I feel your confusion. Idea…vote for the person you believe to best represent your political philosophy and let VOID worry about answering your question.

Mr. Daugherty asks; “How does one stay reasonable with the unreasonable.”

First, one becomes reasonable and consults professionals to help then with their lib/socialist mental disorder.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2010 5:40 PM
Comment #307498

Mr. Daugherty writes; “The center should be built, if only to answer those who would accuse America of having laws that say one thing, but a culture that says another.”

What a juvenile answer. It should be obvious, even to the mentally challenged left, that those who don’t already know about religious freedom in America never will.

Such an infintile belief is difficult to understand in real terms and only makes sense if one views it as totally political and confrontational.

We argued for months on this blog about the wisdom of pushing thru a huge new entitlement program concerning health care. The dem/libs knew it was unpopular and that promises of openness and honest debate would be the rule. Regardless, it was pushed thru despite the promises and with a gaggle of vote buying pork billions attached. It became the first huge rip in the fabric of “change” so adeptly promised by obama and his flock.

Well, the mentally disordered got their way and now few, if any, dems are running on this phyrric victory.

I would ask Mr. Daugherty if he knows of any dem candidate running for congress in November who has, as part of his/her platform, a strong stance in favor of the mosque building site. If not, why not?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2010 6:42 PM
Comment #307500

I just wasted how many minutes re-reading SD and his past rolled into a new comment #.

The difference SD, is I and others understand you.

From what you put on the screen, you do not understand those that take an opposing view on things. In other words you are being intolerant and short sighted.

Going to church. Good night.

Posted by: tom humes at September 1, 2010 6:49 PM
Comment #307502

Stephen. You say that you don’t think it is unwise to raise taxs on the rich. This might be a good idea but the top 5 richest in congress 3 are Democrats and I’m not talking millions I’m talking 10’s of millions with John Kerry leading the pack at I think I saw it at 122 million net worth. Do you really think that Kerry will agree to pay more taxes seeing how after buying his million dollar boat decided to dock it in a different state to avoid paying I forget what tax he would have had to pay docking it in his home state. Now I agree everyone should have to pay his fair share but do you really think the rich will stand by and say ok I’ll pay more.I don’t think so.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 6:57 PM
Comment #307506

B9,
How aew the coal anf oil workers being harmed when the Pesident calls for the coal and oil owners to meet safety standards? Does this mean you believe all safety regulations should be removed? How about all stop lights and traffic laws? Where does it stop?

Yes, closing down industries that would rather risk their workers lives instead of spending a few dollars to fix the problems is being a good parent. And why it may lay some people off for a while, I wonder if the 11 oil workers on Deep Horizon would have rather been collecting unenployment insurance that day.

BTW, the President doesn’t have a degree in carbon; however, listening to and reading about how the coal industry has made leaps and bounds in the refinement of coal over the last 30 years. I’m still waiting for them to find out what “Pure Carbon” is capable of doing. And that day is closer than most people think if the reports and studies are right.

Now as far as Nukes, besides national safety should we leave the Children of the 22nd Century with more nuclear waste nobody wants in their backyard?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 1, 2010 7:27 PM
Comment #307508

Mag-
“Now I agree everyone should have to pay his fair share but do you really think the rich will stand by and say ok I’ll pay more.I don’t think so.”

So together let’s make them! They paid 90% for quite some time and the middle class did well. Once Reagan came into office and significantly dropped their tax rate (which by the way, was continued by Bush, Clinton, Bush.)the middle class has been barely able to keep their heads above water. This is an issue where middle class republicans and democrats should come together. Raise their taxes!

Posted by: Ted at September 1, 2010 7:39 PM
Comment #307509

Mag,
Extending the Bush tax cuts is the lazy way out. If Congress and the American Public really wants to do something to help keep taxes low than Congress should write a tax bill that give tax cuts to those citizens willing to invest in Americas’ Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. For why a 4% increase on a million dollars is only $40,000.00. Unless we are talking about creating jobs paying below the proverty level than some kind of incentive needs to be done to get the cash off the sidelines.

Personally, I’m in favor of a tax bill similar to what President Regan did with corporations in the 80’s. Make over $250,000.00 in a year and you pay 15% more taxes unless you can show the money created a livable wage job or was invested in Community, State, or Federal Bonds and Notes.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 1, 2010 7:43 PM
Comment #307513

Henry,
I somewhat agree, but what is a livable wage job? Does it include some benefits? Seems like it could be easily defined and then easily taken advantage of.

I mean someone could live on $13,000 a year. Comfortably-No, livable- I suppose. When you think about it, Walmart creates livable wage jobs all the time, but I don’t think we should say that WalMart should be exempt from the 15% tax because of the jobs they create. I mean these are the same people who take out life insurance policies on their own employees.

Posted by: Ted at September 1, 2010 8:34 PM
Comment #307514

Henry I agree with the tax bill you suggest but to tax the rich for the sake of just someone to zero in on to tax No.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 8:36 PM
Comment #307517

Mag-
-tax the rich for the sake of just someone to zero in on to tax No.

I don’t think it is just to zero in on someone. Corporations use the courts, highways and other public commons more than the average family/individual. They also tend to pollute and create more waste. I’m sorry but I think asking them to pay just 15% more is not unreasonable.

I guess I really don’t understand why some average middle class Americans fight so hard to make sure that the wealthiest people in this country are not burdened too much. Is it not enough that many are set for life and that their income has risen dramatically over the past twenty years while middle class wages have flat-lined? Also, many could clearly care less about this country because they ship American jobs oversees to avoid supporting the country that they claim to love so much. What patriots!

I know the argument is that if you tax them too much and force them to pay better wages then they will ship jobs overseas. Fine, let them. However, if they ship those jobs to another country then the average American should demand that they pay a huge import fee to get their crap back in. Maybe then they would think twice about paying an decent wage to their FELLOW AMERICANS.

Posted by: Ted at September 1, 2010 9:13 PM
Comment #307518

Royal Flush-
I don’t have to check with my politicians to see what’s correct for my party. I guess that’s what you consider a mental disorder: free thinking.

I believe the Republicans picked the worst side. First, your position has not been consistent over time. Rauf was well used, and and often spoken too as a representative of moderate Islam. I think he even appeared with Glenn Beck on a program. It would be one thing if this guy was a Wahhabi with the tendencies to match, but the guy’s actually a Sufi, which is a type that the real hardline folks hardly even consider Islam.

So who can possibly live up to the standard you set up? The answer is, no Muslim can. You automatically, logically playing our your position, exclude anybody more strict than him.

So, it all comes back to a question: what are we excluding here, and why? Are we nursing the wounds of 9/11 against all Muslims? It would seem so, from your argument’s logical consequences. Why would we be doing that? All Muslims did not attack us on 9/11, only a renegade terrorist group. Why are we collectively punishing them?

How does that square with American tradition.

Sure, your position is easy, and easy to inflame people with. But if you think about it more than just superficially, my argument is better aligned with this nation’s principles.

It is not juvenile to say we must be consistent with more than just snap judgments and feelings. We have to be the masters of those sentiments, not their slaves.

Republicans unfortunately have us slaves to too many ill-thought out emotional reactions, and I for one am tired of it. We should be a nation built, like the founding fathers intended, on the light of reason, not the emotional charge of panicked policies.

tom humes-
I make no bones about why I understand the Republican’s position, but do not like it. You and Royal Flush need to realize yourselves that not every must or should think your way, and when depart from that, and when we say, I don’t think your positions right, and here’s why, it’s not a sign of mental illness.

MAG-
Oh, don’t waste my time. Kerry ran on rolling back the tax cuts in his last campaign.

Let me ask a pointed question here: was it Kerry’s intention to permanently park the boat in the other state?

Another pointed question: if he did intentionally park the boat out of state to avoid taxes, how in holy hell does that relate to the right or wrong of the tax cuts?

Oh, that’s right, you’re arguing ad hominem, which means that you’re saying that the tax cuts are good or bad depending on whether their defenders are true believers or not.

Now, that fact you so quickly dropped may be intrigueing from that angle, and invite a little scrutiny. But if we’re not totally ignoring the evidence, it has nothing to do with the quality of the tax cuts, because the relevant details here are:

A) CBO forcasts for the ten year affect of such legislation, which is basically to double our eventual debt, which is already heading to 100% of GDP.

B) The poor performance of Bush’s tax cuts in improving the economy. If we cut out the misleading, Bubble driven gains of the middle of the last decade, the picture goes decidedly to the downside on the economy’s growth after the tax cuts.

So, if it didn’t help the economy, and it sure won’t help the deficit, what good is there in extending the tax cuts? The wealthy were not suffering for the lack of what the Bush tax cuts gave them in the nineties, and I doubt even now, especially now after they’ve concentrated so much more wealth to the top, that they’ll be hurting. If I thought they were having problems, I’d question letting the tax cuts expire for the time being, but they’re not, so I don’t.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2010 9:22 PM
Comment #307521

Mag,

Nope. It says through the Civil War. Work stopped before the Civil War. The Civil had zero to do with the work stoppage. It was not a scar of the civil war as Beck proclaimed. He lied. Again. And you continue to believe wholeheartedly in this guy who makes things up. That is the behavior of a fool.

Sorry if I burst your bubble.

Posted by: gergle at September 1, 2010 9:55 PM
Comment #307522

Stephen, If Kerry does dock his boat in another state to avoid the tax do you honestly believe he is truthful in rolling back the tax cuts? Do you honestly believe those Rich congressmen are going to screw themselves by raising taxes on the Rich only. Stephen don’t be stupid if taxes are raised and the Bush tax cuts expire it isn’t only the rich who will get taxes raised. We will all have our taxes raised.
Ted I like Henry’s comment about a tax bill but I’ll go one step further. A flat tax starting at say 5% for those making $15,000 or less up to 25% for those making $250,000. No deductions no refunds.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 10:07 PM
Comment #307523

Ted that’s $250,000 and up.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 10:08 PM
Comment #307524

MAG,

Not a bad idea! It is a progressive tax. The only thing I would change would be 250,000 and up. I think there should still be a higher level once you reach the millions. For example a husband and wife working full time could be paying the same rate as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. I understand that BG or WB would be paying more because of their larger income, but I really tend not to look at how much one pays in taxes, but how much one has left after paying them. Even if we taxed someone like Bill Gates at 50% he still would walk away with hundreds of millions. I just think the middle class needs a break for awhile. And besides, if people like Gates if covering more of the cost percentage wise, I’ll have more money in my pocket to go buy more Microsoft software. We both win!

Posted by: Ted at September 1, 2010 10:34 PM
Comment #307525

>Wrights version of Christianity is alien to the traditional teaching of Christianity in America.>Wrights version of Christianity is alien to the traditional teaching of Christianity in America.

Traditional? What folly! There are so many different sects and off-the-wall-theologists in the business of Christianity that there is no ‘traditional’ teaching. Where in the world did that come from?

Posted by: Marysdude at September 1, 2010 10:37 PM
Comment #307526

Ted Sounds good.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 10:40 PM
Comment #307527

Ted Thinking it over I wouldn’t go more than 35-40% for those making a million +.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 10:52 PM
Comment #307531

MAG,

I can live with 35-40%.

Posted by: Ted at September 1, 2010 11:08 PM
Comment #307534

gergle Money ran out and the civil war prevented resumtion of the construction I read wiki to.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 11:13 PM
Comment #307537

In addition I think it’s important that most of us stick together. Maybe it’s me, but I personally just don’t know that many people making a million+. And I, along with all my friends and family certainly don’t know anyone personally making multimillion dollars per year. I have to assume that most people are like us. You have some friends and family doing ok, but by no means are multimillionaires. It is indeed a rare thing.

The one thing that bothers me is when people on TV keep saying that a tax rate increase on the wealthy is a tax on all of us. The message ends up being YOUR TAXES ARE GOING TO GO UP. I mean when this administration was discussing allowing the tax breaks for the wealthy to roll over,the talkingheads were making it sound like all taxes were going up. I could understand why the wealthiest in this nation were trying to make it seem that way so we would fight against ANY tax increase, but I’m sorry, I see through the game and I support increasing the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans. Stick together (Democrats and Republicans) and the middle class can prosper once again.

Posted by: Ted at September 1, 2010 11:29 PM
Comment #307541

Also a few other links to gergle. The know nothings had the purse till 1858. The Alabamians wanted the states and territories to donate stone for the inner wall. I agree the know nothings blew it with trying to use inferrior stone which had to be replaced. I’ll give Beck 25% being right the civil war did have a small impact on the construction.

Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 11:45 PM
Comment #307548

Why a liveable wage is based upon your shelter and utilities costing 30% of your take home pay according to your parents of the great depression and federal standards I would extend the term to include the cost of personal health insurance, home owners and flood insurance, as well as basic transportation allowance.

For why you can make the argument of who should make more money for the contribution a Human makes to Mankinds’ Government and Society if America is going to lead the world in equality than IMHO Commerce and Industry is going to have to deal with paying Our Citizens a basic wage that eliminates entitlements and/or provide the opportunities to earn an income which will pay for the burdens placed on them by Our Elected Officials and the Societal Elite.

Simply put, we can make it were everyone lives in tents and walks to and fro or we can use today’s technology and utilities to create a Trickle-Up Economy which promotes Energy and Financial Independence. For why the Children of the 70’s may never be able to prove to the Children of the 21st Century that a Self-Sustainable Green Government and Society can be built by Mankibd. Seeing how far we as a nation has come in answering the Issues of the 20th Century, arming them with the Hope, Faith, and Courage that their grandchildren will be able to answer the Issues of the 21st Century and beyond is the least we can do as Parents and Adults.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 2, 2010 2:16 AM
Comment #307557

MAG,

Obviously there were more important things going on during the Civil War than memorial construction, but to say that the Civil War caused the “scars” on the Monument, is 100% wrong.

Construction stopped well before the Civil War, and didn’t resume until long after the war.

I give him a zero on history, and of course, this isn’t his first failure to understand or know history. He would’ve flunked out of my history class, economics class, and logic class….not to mention morals class.

Posted by: gergle at September 2, 2010 11:02 AM
Comment #307558
Stephen, If Kerry does dock his boat in another state to avoid the tax do you honestly believe he is truthful in rolling back the tax cuts?

You were asking me whether I thought the rollback is a good idea, and now you’re trying to get me off on this tangent about whether Kerry’s a hypocrite or not.

This is the shiny keys approach to argument, and it’s an irrelevant approach at that. I support rolling back the tax cuts. Does Kerry’s position on boat taxes matter? No. Does his hypocrisy matter or not? Well if he votes for the tax cuts, then we have a problem, but until that point, it doesn’t matter even there.

As for whether taxes get raised? I expect it to get raised. I don’t like it, but mature adults often have to do things they don’t like in order to prevent bad things from happening.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2010 11:10 AM
Comment #307560

gergle,

“Construction stopped well before the Civil War, and didn’t resume until long after the war.”

Curiously part of the interuption was caused by the “Know-Nothing” Party, which was formed in New York in 1843, and had been originally called the “American Republican Party”.

How ironic is that?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 2, 2010 11:45 AM
Comment #307561

Yes the boat tax sure does matter Stephen, if he tries to skirt taxes in his home state what do you think he’s going to do with federal taxes. I’m using Kerry as an example of the Rich. If you can’t trust a Senator to do the right thing in his home state concerning taxes, how can you trust him to do what’s right for the country. There’s going to be loop holes in any legislation concerning taxes, rich Senators and Congresspersons are not going to screw themselves. What’s going to happen is the middle class will get the brunt of paying the lions share of the tax burden. I don’t mind paying my share but until we get a better tax code like something of what I suggested to Ted, we as middle class will always get screwed with the tax burden no matter it Democrat or Republican controlled congress.

Posted by: MAG at September 2, 2010 12:22 PM
Comment #307565


Mag, I wouldn’t say it is 100% of rich Congress persons and Senators, but close enough that it really doesn’t matter there are a few who put their country and the rest of us first. That is the paradigm, what is best for the wealthy is best for us all, we have allowed to grow until it has almost total control of our government, both parties.

It is not just taxes though. Billions of taxpayer dollars were given away during the Iraq War. I am not talking about the money to prosecute the war, although I disagree with its necessity. When our troops march off to war, corporate waste, fraud and abuse march along side of them. Corporations bilk the government of billions per year to the benefit of share holders, large and small. When the small share holders realize that may be costing more than they are receiving, perhaps they will help change that.

It seems like nearly everyone running for the Senate is a millionaire, multimillionaire or even a billionaire.

Wealth controls the political parties. The political parties control the voters with their hot button issues. Divide and control. Psychology 101. MSNBC, Fox and political punditry have become an intricate part of wealth’s psychological attack on the people.

Posted by: jlw at September 2, 2010 3:00 PM
Comment #307568

Regarding Congress: It is high time for term limits.

I propose 2 six -year terms for the Senate….one term in office and the other term in jail.

That should do it.

For the House, 2 four year terms would have my blessing. Same as Senate.

Posted by: agentgibbs at September 2, 2010 3:35 PM
Comment #307570

Marysdud:

Regarding “Tradition Christianity: You now what dude; if you want to know what was being said, why don’t you go back to the beginning of the post and catch up. You show up at the end of 260 posts and spout something that you have no idea what was being talked about… Why don’t you just catch up…Because I’m wore out from arguing with idiot liberals…

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 2, 2010 4:02 PM
Comment #307576

Rocky,

That was what struck me, too. Of Course, Washington wanted nothing to do with a monument to himself and likely would have opposed such a venture, if he were alive. I guess in terms of history a monument makes some sense, but I tend to agree with the idea of it being funded through donations rather than appropriations.

The republican ideals that Washington represented were something worth remembering, and that seems to get lost in large statues, and the automatic renaming of places and building of huge presidential libraries.

While I know from reading histories that it was a fashion to resist (mostly following Washington’s example)taking on the trappings of anything appearing royal, and resist being drawn into a position of power(Adams played that game well), while many actually did aspire to power and respect. In that sense it was a facade and not honest humbleness. Even Washington was keenly aware of symbolism and showed it in the way he dressed, met people and carried out his duties.

Beck attempts to play humble, while using a multi-million dollar platform to promote himself. It’s his complete disregard for competence, authority and knowledge that offends me. His lack of shame for the ignorance he spews makes it crystal clear that he aspires to wealth and power, without regard for those he leads blindly, and the damage that does.

Posted by: gergle at September 2, 2010 4:35 PM
Comment #307579

Beretta9-
If you’re fed up with arguing with idiot Liberals, you do wish me to start deleting your posts? That can be arranged if you’re not willing to quit with the personal attacks.

MAG-
If he goes back on his word, then I will help see to it that he’s punished for it. You catch politicians in the act as much as possible, and then you make it hurt. We can, as a nation, wallow in self-pity about the state of politics, or we can do something about it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2010 5:07 PM
Comment #307583

Stephen, I know the rules and the term “idiot liberals” did not have anyones name attached to it. It was a generic statement, and I have not attacked anyone personally. If I have, perhaps you could tell me who they are and I will apologize.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 2, 2010 5:52 PM
Comment #307588

Unless you’re not interested in reading the truth, you might enjoy this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/aug/27/glenn-beck-faces-truth-o-meter/

Posted by: jane doe at September 2, 2010 6:23 PM
Comment #307591

jane a little late with that link someone earlier beat you to it.

Posted by: MAG at September 2, 2010 6:34 PM
Comment #307592

I was thinking that most seemed to have bypassed it, or read the information selectively.
Cherry-picking doesn’t work in all things……

Posted by: jane doe at September 2, 2010 6:44 PM
Comment #307596

B9 wrote; “Stephen, I know the rules and the term “idiot liberals” did not have anyones name attached to it.”

Right B9, and if some wish to believe you were talking about them does that mean they accept the label?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 2, 2010 7:36 PM
Comment #307598

True…

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 2, 2010 7:54 PM
Comment #307616

Would this be a good time to as for a WatchBlog group picture?

Posted by: Chico at September 3, 2010 12:21 AM
Comment #307619

Beretta9-
Read the Rules For Participation. Should I be under the impression that you’re looking for loopholes in the rules to permit you to trash people, irrespective of productive debate?

Decide what you’re here for. Debate and arguments about politics, or to troll this site. Pick where you fall, and I will respond accordingly. I don’t always like what you say, but at least most of the time, you’re debating. You can operate on a better level than looking for ways to get away with insulting Democrats.

I don’t care who you’re addressing. This isn’t middle school, and you’re not a Junior high kid.

Royal Flush-
Well, he mentions a long conversation, the length of the post, and says he’s tired of arguing with idiot liberals. Now you tell me, did those idiot liberals fly off to Mars, or was he very likely refering to Marysdude and others on this site?

I’m warning him here so other Democrats don’t have to feel that they’ve got to answer that kind of misbehavior with misbehavior of their own.

So, to be fair, I’m just not going to tolerate it from either side. It’s time to civilize this place a little. Let’s stick to facts, arguments, and other evidence. Let’s critique arguments rather than having a pie fight about who hates America more.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2010 12:57 AM
Comment #307621

A word of warning.

Altering someone’s nom de plume in an insulting way has gotten me and another member banned from this site before.

I did it as a response to someone continuing to do it for a lengthy period of time. It was and is juvenile. Debate the issues, critique the arguments, leave the insults for 4chan.

Posted by: gergle at September 3, 2010 3:12 AM
Comment #307625

Well, let me put a stop to this discussion right now. I apologize to any liberal who may have misunderstood me. My goal was to never personally attack anyone or to insinuate a personal attack.

Beretta9

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 3, 2010 9:31 AM
Comment #307627

Now, hopefully, Stephen Daugherty will stop his constant double standard insults against Republicans.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 3, 2010 9:53 AM
Comment #307635

Well said Mr. Daugherty and count me in the column that will comply.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 3, 2010 12:24 PM
Comment #307641

Please do not worry about the ‘Marysdud’ thing. B’69’, tee hee, just doesn’t know how to spell. As far as the reading 260 entries is concerned…I read my share, but the idiocy of the term ‘traditional Christianity’ kinda stood there, in the glare, like a deer in the headlights. ‘Traditional’ what? Is a ‘traditional’ Catholic the same as a ‘traditional’ Protestant, or a ‘traditional’ Mormon? Let’s see, if a Jesuit is a ‘traditional’ Catholic, what is a Greek Orthodox, or an Anglican or, for that matter Lutheran. If a Lutheran is a ‘traditional’ Protestant, what is a born again Baptist, or a Mormon or a snake handler? When someone uses a term like that, he generally means a ‘traditional’ that meets his own belief system, and by that very thing, breaks from the mold of ‘tradition’. Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2010 3:56 PM
Comment #307642

gergle, I always wondered just where the line was between same….and / different.

Posted by: jane doe at September 3, 2010 3:59 PM
Comment #307644

Jane Doe,

Sorry, maybe I’m being dense. I don’t understand the question or joke.

Posted by: gergle at September 3, 2010 4:40 PM
Comment #307647

Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2010

I quite agree. It is stupid for one to bash “traditional” Christianity when one doesn’t know what it is. So you can sleep well tonite dude, here’s the definition…

One who believes in, and follows, the teachings of Christ the King is a Christian. All the nonsense in your comments describes how Christians worship, not what they worship.

There is no such thing as a non-traditional Christian. One either is…or isn’t.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 3, 2010 4:51 PM
Comment #307649

And, Jeremiah Wright misses being a ‘traditional’ Christian how? By the definition posted above, he is very traditional…stupid is as stupid does.

Wiki says, “Jeremiah Alvesta Wright, Jr. (born September 22, 1941) is an American Pastor Emeritus of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), a megachurch in Chicago with around 8,500”.

Note the name of the church he preaches in has the name of Christ in it.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2010 6:12 PM
Comment #307652

I don’t remember ever hearing about Jesus Christ getting up in front of a croud and say, “God damn Judaea!” the way Jeremiah Wright damned America in front of his congregation at TUCC.

Maybe Jesus Christ did! Maybe he pissed Herod off enough to be considered a criminal. From what I hear about that part of the world I don’t think it’s too hard to get on someone’s bad side.

If Jesus Christ preached to his followers to damn anyone I would be interested in the context. It would lend credence to the claim that Jeremiah Wright is a “traditional” christian because a “traditional christian” is one who follows the teachings of Christ.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 3, 2010 6:49 PM
Comment #307654

dude, I know people who have either Jesus or Christ in their name, doesn’t necessarily mean they are Christians. Listen to what the rev preaches and decide for yourself if he is preaching Christianity. Of course, that would require a knowledge of the teachings of Christ.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 3, 2010 7:11 PM
Comment #307655

Royal Flush-
The Baptists were once called anabaptists, so called because of their practice of baptizing people at an older age than the traditional birth baptism, anabaptist meaning “baptizing again” Their beliefs were kind of radical. They thought that they should not have to comply with the then standard practice of letting the government license their preachers. They reasoned that Preachers were ordained by God, and the government had nothing to do with it.

I would imagine that the likelihood is your religion is one once considered untraditional. The traditionalists at the time of its birth might have smothered it in the crib, if they could.

I think true Christianity is defined by Christ, not the traditions of men, and I do not think custom in worship overrides the following of the most essential commandments: To love God with all your heart, your mind and your body, and to love others as you love yourself. Past that, all is just elaboration, and I believe God looks past the details, and many times even the failures to look for the person reaching out to him. Grace to me is what defines Christianity, and it obeys no human laws.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2010 7:37 PM
Comment #307656

The only written or recorded sermons I have ever heard from Wright, Sharpton, or Jackson, were black liberation theology sermons. Now, perhaps they have presented different sermons, but I have never heard them. Whenever Franklin Graham is interviewed on the news, he always manages to include a message of Christ in his interview; whenever Sharpton or Jackson have been interviewed, they never speak of Christ. BLT has a message that divides people; those who have and those who have not, those who are poor and those who are rich, those who are oppressed and those who are free. Jesus never drove a wedge between people unless He was talking about those who believed and those who did not believe. This is the difference between tradition Christian teaching and non-traditional.

Messages from Franklin Graham would be traditional, BLT messages would be non-traditional.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 3, 2010 7:44 PM
Comment #307657

Stephen:

“The Baptists were once called anabaptists, so called because of their practice of baptizing people at an older age than the traditional birth baptism, anabaptist meaning “baptizing again” Their beliefs were kind of radical. They thought that they should not have to comply with the then standard practice of letting the government license their preachers. They reasoned that Preachers were ordained by God, and the government had nothing to do with it.”

You are correct, Baptist was once called Ana Baptist, but it had nothing to do with baptizing people at old age. The name did not mean, “baptizing again”. The word Ana was a prefix, meaning “Re” and the name Ana Baptist actually meant re-baptizers. In case you didn’t know, the word Baptist was not a name chosen by the Baptists, it was a derogatory name given to them and the name was “Baptizers”. The name baptizer was given to them because they baptized by immersing into water. The name Ana Baptists was given because they did not accept alien baptism; so if one came to them from another denomination, they were re-baptized in order to become members of that particular Baptist Church.

Their beliefs may be radical to you, but these same beliefs are still practiced today. They do not believe their preachers are ordained by God; they believe their preachers are called by God, but they are ordained by their churches.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 3, 2010 8:21 PM
Comment #307659

SD, I agree with your last paragraph. As I implied earlier, it is man’s description that determines tradtitional versus non-traditional. I am quite certain that a Christian is anyone who loves, believes in and follows, as best they can, the words and example of Christ regardless of the form it happens to take.

Many religions have man-made rules and forms. One can agree or disagree with that. Growing up as a Roman Cathloic the church at that time did not allow eating fish on Friday, now they do. My sister and her husband just celebrated their 57 wedding anniversary. Back then, they could not marry on a Saturday so their wedding was on a Wednesday. The thinking was that a Saturday wedding might cause folks to miss Sunday Service. Now, Saturday weddings are the most common.

My brother-in-law divorced after many years of marriage. His exwife wanted to marry in the Roman Catholic Church. The only way this was possible was to have her former marriage annulled, which was done. How can the church annull what they blessed years ago. Well, simple, they made a man-made rule and condition. I am not sayng that is wrong, just reality.

For centuries the Anglican and Episcopal church forbade women clergy. Some years ago that rule changed and now they have women priests and bishops. They did not change God’s law or the teachings of Jesus, but rather, changed their rules and form.

These type of rules and form are all man-made. One can accept or reject and still be a Christian. And it is these man-made rules that establish tradition.

So, when anyone talks about “traditional” Christianity one must understand that they are talking about the traditions of a particular church, not the teachings of Christ.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 3, 2010 8:41 PM
Comment #307662

umm, Where does one find exactly the teachings of Christ? I haven’t spoken to him in a while, nor have I heard of anyone who has, that I didn’t consider a bit nutso.

Which version of truth does one follow? King James? Then shouldn’t they be called Jamesians? Or is it Joseph Smith? Since Jesus was likely a Jew, shouldn’t Christians follow Judaism? I mean that was the supposed foundation of his religious upbringing. Should we follow the teachings of the Essenes, since they were the sect he supposedly followed, and in fact, much of the text of the King James version seems to be derived from, and then attributed to Christ? (see the dead sea scrolls)

Shouldn’t Christians all follow Catholicism? Since that seems to be the oldest church claiming to follow Christ?

I always find it a bit hilarious how some Christians claim to know what Jesus taught, yet can’t can’t cite anything but a middle ages revision of a highly edited and confused translation of something questionably related to somebody that may have lived in Judea a very long time ago.

Perhaps that explains a confused understanding of history some people seem to have.

Posted by: gergle at September 3, 2010 9:14 PM
Comment #307665

So, it’s just a matter of degree of Christlike behavior? When Swaggart and Baker fell from grace, and when Robertson and Falwell agreed that the twin towers fell because of homosexuals, it is traditional, but when Wright spouts off about past wrongs to his black brethren, in the name of Christ it don’t count as traditional? Okay, I’m glad you’ve cleared that up.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2010 9:35 PM
Comment #307666

Shouldn’t Muslims all follow Islam? Since they claim to follow the teachings of Mohamed?

I always find it a bit hilarious how some Muslims claim to know what Mohamed taught, yet can’t cite anything but a middle ages revision of a highly edited and confused translation of something questionably related to somebody that may have lived in Judea a very long time ago.

Perhaps that explains a confused understanding of history some people seem to have.

Absolutely man all religions have people that have hijacked it. My question is which religion has the most contributing members to society? Which religions have the most individuals that find true peace in belief? Which religion shows the most restraint?

I’m betting you are an all religion man gergle. Why not make that distinction in your posts? Hate equally, us readers will respect your posts a bit more.

Posted by: Chico at September 3, 2010 9:57 PM
Comment #307668

Eccl 12:13 has the admonition that it is the whole duty of man to obey God and keep his comandments. That sounds simple but, when man starts to mess with it and to modify and change it, it then is not the original message anymore. Christianity is living Christlike. Another simple thing that man messes up. So the moral of the story is don’t follow man, follow Christ.

Posted by: tom humes at September 3, 2010 11:31 PM
Comment #307670
I think true Christianity is defined by Christ, not the traditions of men, and I do not think custom in worship overrides the following of the most essential commandments: To love God with all your heart, your mind and your body, and to love others as you love yourself.

I agree, Stephen Daugherty! This is true of all “traditional” religions.

I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy


Past that, all is just elaboration, and I believe God looks past the details, and many times even the failures to look for the person reaching out to him.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2010 07:37 PM

Here’s where we disagree and I find your education in the teachings of Christ, or any other prophet lacking.



Honor your father and mother
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house
You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife

http://www.reference.com/browse/10+commandments

There are only ten laws written in stone. All others are written by man and subject to interpretation. A shame considering the failings of man have replaced 10 laws with many thousands of laws.

“I always find it a bit hilarious” it keeps many thousands of lawyers and politicians employed without question.


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 3, 2010 11:51 PM
Comment #307671

This is one that should be concentrated on, Stephen Daugherty.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house

Here’s another that should have focus.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 4, 2010 12:13 AM
Comment #307672

B9,

The only written or recorded sermons I have ever heard from Wright, Sharpton, or Jackson, were black liberation theology sermons.

Hold on a second, you condemned a pastor with over 20 years of sermons based on a handful of snippets?

You could have tried looking further than the mainstream media did.
Rev. Wright certainly said quite a few things inappropriate for a church sermon, but it was not a constant feature of his services.

gergle,

I always find it a bit hilarious how some Christians claim to know what Jesus taught, yet can’t can’t cite anything but a middle ages revision of a highly edited and confused translation of something questionably related to somebody that may have lived in Judea a very long time ago.

You are aware that we have papyri (in Greek) of the New Testament from the second & third century; which is substantially better than any other text from the ancient world including the works of Homer and all of the Greek philosophers. One of Archimedes’ books is only known through a single copy, which is actually a Palimpsest (Archemeds’ book was erased and the paper reused for a different books, but the scribe screwed up the erasing job and Archimedes’ words can be seen with modern imaging techniques. We have no surviving Greek versions of Ptolemy’s Almagest, yet we rely on it for accurate observations of star positions two millennia ago.

WW, you do realize there’s more to Mosaic law than the 10 commandments?

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 4, 2010 12:27 AM
Comment #307673

chico,

I’m betting you are an all religion man gergle.

You lose.

I’m an atheist.

Not sure exactly what you’re point is. I believe (without checking) that there are more Muslims than any other religion.
I think religion is mostly about arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin. (i.e. a pointless argument)

Weary,

You realize you are actually quoting Jewish text, right? They don’t believe Christ was the son of God.


Tom,

If you can show me how you know what Christ was actually like, I might believe you.

Posted by: gergle at September 4, 2010 12:27 AM
Comment #307675
They don’t believe Christ was the son of God.
Posted by: gergle at September 4, 2010 12:27 AM
Here’s where we disagree and I find your education in the teachings of Christ, or any other prophet lacking.
Posted by: Weary Willie at September 3, 2010 11:51 PM

I never said he was the “Son of God”, gergle. Notice the mention of a prophet! In fact:

Maybe he pissed Herod off enough to be considered a criminal.
Posted by: Weary Willie at September 3, 2010 06:49 PM

Liberals are making more and more Christians every day with their law this and law that.


Warped Reality, show me where, in contract law, it is allowed to commit a violation of any of the 10 commandments.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 4, 2010 12:47 AM
Comment #307677

I was talking about these. Of course, none of these commandments allow for anyone to violate the ten you have already listed.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 4, 2010 1:35 AM
Comment #307679

Weary Willie

and I find your education in the teachings of Christ

Christ is Christian interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God. His surname (if he existed at all)wasn’t Christ. Jews don’t believe in Christ. Again, these are not necessarily teachings of Jesus. These are repetition of Jewish teachings. Something is lacking here, as well. Perhaps a rational connection?

Liberals are making more and more Christians every day with their law this and law that.

Actually, in First world countries Christianity is diminishing and Atheism is rising. I did mistakenly believe that Muslims were the largest faith. They are not, they are about 20% of the population. Christians are about a third.

Posted by: gergle at September 4, 2010 4:25 AM
Comment #307680

But, please remember…this s all ‘traditional’.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 4, 2010 5:08 AM
Comment #307683

Muslim cleric calls for beheading of Dutch politician

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100903/wl_nm/us_dutch_wilders

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 4, 2010 8:52 AM
Comment #307687

gergle
My source of being like Christ comes from the Bible which should be the one and only source for Christians and how they learn to have a relationship with Jesus Christ.

“Actually, in First world countries Christianity is diminishing and Atheism is rising. I did mistakenly believe that Muslims were the largest faith. They are not, they are about 20% of the population. Christians are about a third.”

The Bible confirms what you just said. Nostradamus never would have guessed that. The numbers don’t make any difference. They will be ever changing. The Bible said in the last days that people will go against their own family, that the way they behaved in the days of Noah is the same way they will behave as today, that man will deny GOD, and at the battle in the Valley of Jehosephat that all the nations of the world will go against Israel. There are many other things the Bible says about the last days of this earth. Most have come to pass and there still others to happen.

Posted by: tom humes at September 4, 2010 10:54 AM
Comment #307691

Wow! And the tooth fairy shall rise again.

For all intents and purposes the end-times have come several times in history, including the days of extinction of dinosaurs, and I’m sure the Jews thought end times were happening during the thirties and forties, and Cambodians likely considered their end had come during Pol Pot. As far as peoples rising up against peoples…what do you think has been happening all throughout human history? Every prediction can be said to come true at some point in time, and even the Bible can have some truisms, maxims and old-wives-tales that make sense at one time or the other.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 4, 2010 12:29 PM
Comment #307693

I always find it a bit hilarious how some Christians claim to know what Jesus taught, yet can’t can’t cite anything but a middle ages revision of a highly edited and confused translation of something questionably related to somebody that may have lived in Judea a very long time ago.

Posted by: gergle at September 3, 2010

I am embarrassed for you gergle by the comment you made which lacks knowledge of two well known, non Christian, writers of His day. I have cited their works before and won’t bother again as it would make no difference to you.

Despite your refusal to recognize God or his son Jesus, they know and love you. Perhaps someday you will come to know that.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2010 12:36 PM
Comment #307694

Marysdude;

“For all intents and purposes the end-times have come several times in history, including the days of extinction of dinosaurs, and I’m sure the Jews thought end times were happening during the thirties and forties, and Cambodians likely considered their end had come during Pol Pot. As far as peoples rising up against peoples…what do you think has been happening all throughout human history? Every prediction can be said to come true at some point in time, and even the Bible can have some truisms, maxims and old-wives-tales that make sense at one time or the other.”

I would like to dedicate these Biblical verses to Marysdude and any others who believe the Bible is nothing more than a history book, that can not be taken literally:

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?


Posted by: Beretta9 at September 4, 2010 1:02 PM
Comment #307702

Confusus
Buddha
Vishnu
Josephus
Muhammed
Joseph Smith
Brigham Young
Jim Jones
Conrad Hilton
Marysdud
B’69’

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Isn’t all this quoting of some ancient relic of a book a little juvenile?

Posted by: Marysdude at September 4, 2010 3:07 PM
Comment #307705

Berette9 said

“I would like to dedicate these Biblical verses to Marysdude and any others who believe the Bible is nothing more than a history book, that can not be taken literally…”

Thats not me! I don’t even think its a history book.


But for your Beretta9:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: 037 at September 4, 2010 3:57 PM
Comment #307708

Baretta9
AMEN!!!

Bobby Blue Bland sang a hit song “Pity the Fool”. The meaning is totally different from what is being spoken and written here but the title has the message.


Marysdude

“Confusus
Buddha
Vishnu
Josephus
Muhammed
Joseph Smith
Brigham Young
Jim Jones
Conrad Hilton
Marysdud
B’69’”

“Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Isn’t all this quoting of some ancient relic of a book a little juvenile?”

That is a list of falible man. And except for your “Marysdud and B’69’” whoever they are, the list represent death. Jesus Christ is alive and is perfect in all ways. His Word, which is the Bible, is what every one on that list has used to distort the purpose and meaning of Jesus Christ. He is Supreme. He is Omnipresent. He is Omnicient. Why is time divided into BC and AD? You know the answer, you don’t need me to tell you. And, yes, there are people who want to alter that, but the date today is: September 4, 2010 in the year of our Lord.

Posted by: tom humes at September 4, 2010 4:44 PM
Comment #307717

Tom…don’t waste your time on fools.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2010 6:12 PM
Comment #307723

You know, there was a time when I felt the same way as Marysdude and 037. I used to mock God and His Word, but when I became a Christian, I realized what a fool I had been. The Bible says, “If in this life only, we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable”. I’m glad there was a change in my life 38 years ago. As humans, we become concerned about what this life holds, but I’m glad I don’t have to worry about eternity. I have a peace “which passeth understanding”. I remember what it was like to live in a state of uncertainty.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 4, 2010 6:58 PM
Comment #307732

Stephen, I will sit here and tolerate, to a degree, the name calling, bad-mouthing, insults and trolling.
If I wanted to be preached to, I would find a church and go to it. If I’m alone with these thoughts, than so be that, too.
State your spirituality, or lack of it…but I’m tired of the preaching and taunting because some of us have chosen to live a different way than others.
B-9, it is NOT up to you or any other individual to decide that I live with uncertainty.
Nobody is telling you not to believe what you do, we are telling you to quit trying to cram your beliefs down our throats then demean us for not agreeing or accepting !!!

Posted by: jane doe at September 4, 2010 10:21 PM
Comment #307733

jane doe

Being a bit thin skinned there aren’t you?
Nobody is cramming their beliefs down anybodys throat. If you don’t like what is written then do a pass on it. You are not required to read all that is written. You state your beliefs or lack of them often on a variety of subjects and I don’t think you are trying to cram anything down my throat. So, let it go. Everybody has strong beliefs on a variety of subjects and they let them be known here. That is healthy

Posted by: tom humes at September 4, 2010 10:35 PM
Comment #307741

Do not worry, jane doe…stupid is as stupid does. They cannot help themselves, because they know not what they do, and are too childish to recognize it. Perhaps if you ignore it it will go away? What was it RF said? “”don’t waste your time on fools”, and perhaps that message was coded for us. So, don’t waste your time on the three stooges.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2010 6:22 AM
Comment #307755

jane doe:

There is certainly a lot of anger represented in your words. Do you believe in Global Warming? Have you ever stated your beliefs about Global Warming on WB? If you have, the you are guilty of publishing the religious beliefs of the left. Because GW is one of the religions of the left…

I never named anyone as living with uncertainty of the future. I merely said, I know what it is to live with uncertainty of what the future holds. You don’t seem to understand, with many conservatives, their Christian beliefs are not something they do; it is a lifestyle that permeates every aspect of their lives. Our decisions in life are based on our religious beliefs. When I vote for a candidate, my religious beliefs are as much a part of the selection process as it is for the left to vote for a liberal because he/she is a tax and spend, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-GW democrat.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 5, 2010 2:02 PM
Comment #307758

Royal Flush,

I am embarrassed for you gergle by the comment you made which lacks knowledge of two well known, non Christian, writers of His day. I have cited their works before and won’t bother again as it would make no difference to you.

Despite your refusal to recognize God or his son Jesus, they know and love you. Perhaps someday you will come to know that.

Hilareous! Of his day? Really? Interesting. Care to name them, or is it a classified secret you keep so you won’t be laughed at?

You don’t need to be embarrassed for anything except what you say, but how omnipotent of you to take responsibility for me. I’m so glad that now YOU presume to speak for God. I think this well demonstrates the confused thinking involved in many of your posts, and your confusion over politics and history.

Posted by: gergle at September 5, 2010 2:43 PM
Comment #307763

Perhaps when some people stop confusing their religious zealotry with politics, render unto Caesar, and stop trying to convert those who don’t believe in their magic books and mythology, and start looking coldly and clearly at the ideal of religious freedom that is a tenet of American politics, they might find a form of politics that others won’t see as tyrannical, and despotic in nature and not find themselves rejected by the mainstream of politics.

Posted by: gergle at September 5, 2010 2:50 PM
Comment #307764

GW is a religion is a religion, secular humanism is a religion, atheism is a religion…everything they DON’T believe in is a religion (except Muslim, and it’s a cult). That is the way they justify religious wars…find something they don’t believe is right for them, turn it around so that it is also wrong for everyone else, and make a war on it, and make war on those who won’t go along with their kind of foolishness. Religion, BAH!

Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2010 3:45 PM
Comment #307768

Global Warming is a religion????
I never expected that ignorant a comment, even from a few on here. And in response to your question you asked about that……….yes, I’ve stated my feelings and beliefs. IF you have been around as long as some of the rest of us, then you can pretend to know what we think and feel. Until then, don’t try controlling the actions of others.
Tom, there is nothing healthy about bullying. Not as a playground brat, and not now.
If some of you fail to see, recognize and understand science, with all the proof presented, then it is far more clear to understand how you can think living by rumor, and hearsay should guide your day, and control ALL human life. You just shouldn’t act so offended when one of your targets show a little spine and back you off.
B9, Flushed, Tom, etc., if there were a Christ, I think he would be totally pissed off at how hateful, vicious and vindictive you are, claiming to act in his behalf.

Posted by: jane doe at September 5, 2010 5:05 PM
Comment #307770

Weary Willie-
People are imperfect, and God know this. Since he has decided not to abrogate our free will, but still must deal with folks of such comparatively diminished capacity to his, he gives us laws. But my observation is that humans are even capable of screwing that up.

I don’t think God’s unaware of this capacity at all, not given all he talks about with others about mercy and forgivenss. He knows we need to live by certain rules in order to avoid violence and chaos between people, but at the same time, he knows the great complexities of human behavior, judgment, and relationships between people.

He knows that sometimes, when people get to trying to enforce his law, they go too far, and forget their own imperfect humanity.

I don’t think his calls for mercy and forgiveness towards others are a bug in the religion, but a feature. I think lately Christians have been getting a bad rap because all they see of Christians these days are folks who push discrimination against gays and lesbian, who blame natural disasters and terrorist attacks on the victims, who are constantly hounding people on abortion.

They don’t see what I was privileged to see, as I read the bible. They don’t see the principles of peacemaking or forgiveness, the way in which Christ is always cutting short those who make religion about lawyerly rule-following and putting people in thier place, rather than the guide to grace and salvation it’s supposed to me.

For the record, I once was a secular humanist, and for the record I can state that there wasn’t anything religious to being one. I attended no church, was not walled in by any doctrine. If I wanted to believe something, I could, but there was no compulsion. I believed that human beings could take charge of their own fate and make the decision to be good, to do good by others.

The argument that it and science are some kind of religion is spurious, an attempt to make this a matter of competing beliefs, rather than folks exercising their freedom not to be religious, or folks following a academic disciplines to discern good hypotheses from bad ones.

Me? I think it’s rather harmful to religion to go this route. A person who has decided to be free from religion is only going to truly become a Christian if grace and their own free will leads them to it. A person who believes what they believe because of the scientific evidence at hand is going to feel like you’re intruding where you got no right to intrude, substituting blind belief for what he can prove by logic and evidence.

It only makes them want to dig in their heels further, because to them, it’s a matter of standing up for the truth against unfounded opinion. It’s not some dark and evil conspiracy. It’s just people wanting the freedom to pursue the truth without a religious censor on their backs.

Truth, I believe, does not contradict truth, and just because people have the choice, science says, to do something, doesn’t mean they must do it. As many scientists have put it, the fact that neuroscience or evolutionary science tells us that we have this capacity or tendency towards something doesn’t mean we must do it, it means we have tendencies we must consciously decide to keep in check.

What I’ve read of the bible tells me no different. From David, who kills his future wife’s husband to marry her, to Moses who murders an overseer in a rage, to even Abraham, who lies about his wife so the man he’s visiting won’t kill him to get to her, the prophets and patriarchs are not perfect people who never had a wrong thought. They’re human, and the bible doesn’t hide it.

To treat it as just some rulebook, or to get into fruitless debates about the degree of God’s supernatural intervention drains the bible of its true significance, the stories both human and divine that it presents. To try and force people to that interpretation is equally pointless. Even if it is right, only free will and God’s grace will allow them to see that.

I think people are burnt out on organized religion right now. I think people believe a culture of quiet, unquestioned belief helped get us to where we are now, and seems to be driven to keep us there. When religion seeks to wield official power, it can end up taking the fall for the results of secular policies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2010 5:21 PM
Comment #307773

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Examples of RELIGION:

1. Hockey is a religion in Canada.
2. Politics are a religion to him.
3. Where I live, high school football is religion.
4. Food is religion in this house.

Conclusion: Global Warming is a religion to the left.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 5, 2010 5:39 PM
Comment #307775

And idiocy still a religion to many on “the right”.

For the rest who may be interested, here is a very interesting article on faux beck..

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/5/897174/-The-Charlatan?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

Posted by: jane doe at September 5, 2010 5:48 PM
Comment #307776

Stupid is as stupid does…thanks for the stupid lesson.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2010 5:52 PM
Comment #307786

Idiocy is anyone who would waste their time reading from the Daily Kos. What a retarded site.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

If you google “Global Warming a Religion”, you will find 5,220,000 hits. So, someone is connecting Global Warming to the latest liberal religion.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 5, 2010 9:28 PM
Comment #307805

Glenn Beck resorts to lying at the restoring honor rally and the conservatives of course fall for it and will excuse his lack of honor,as usual, with lame excuses.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/03/glenn-beck-admits-lying-i_n_704958.html

Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2010 11:47 PM
Comment #307807

Beretta from your link about global warming as a religion I have pulled several quotes. Do you agree with these quotes because they seem to define all religions in an attempt to convince those that have no critical thinking skills that global climate change is a religion because they falsely believe those that argue the affirmative in the global climate change debate use these same means and methods to convince others of the climate change.

It seems to me that at least one of these quotes hits the nail on the head when it comes to Beck and therefore relevant to this thread. Care to guess which one?


“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
Blaise Pascal

“Faith is a belief held without evidence.”

“It is in the nature of religion to be authoritarian and proscriptive. Essential to this is the concept of sin – a transgression in thought or deed of theological principles.”

“Demagoguery is also, therefore, a feature of religion. Some people have the capacity to hold the masses in their thrall. It is a mysterious art, as their skills of oratory do not often stand up to any sort of critical examination. They are idols of the moment, who often turn out to have feet of clay, as so frequently seems to happen with charismatic TV preachers.”

“Religion has always played an important part in the imposition of authority. For many centuries it took the form of the “Divine Right of Kings” or the “Mandate of Heaven”. Once you get the people to believe, you can get away with almost any imposition. The alliance between the shaman and the legislator has long been the very foundation of authoritarianism. Even when the dogma is a godless one, such as Marxism, it is imposed with religious fervour, for that is the way to induce conformity.”

Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2010 12:08 AM
Comment #307817

It would be very difficult to define a ‘religion’ without also attempting to define the mythical ‘god’ or ‘gods’ that create the need for the religion.

WIKI comes pretty close with, “Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe.[1] It is commonly regarded as consisting of a person’s relation to God or to gods or spirits.[2] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories associated with their deity or deities, that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.”

While zealots of the earth, Greenpeace and others are as fervent about saving the earth as religious fools are about saving souls, those organizations fail the ‘god’ test. They don’t worship or exalt the earth, they are concerned about the failure of people to take care of it, hence creating hazards for themselves.

Beck fails EVERY test…he is not a believer in God, or he would not do as much harm to others as he does…he is not honorable, or he would not lie so much…he does not care about the things he espouses, or he would not profit so much from them. Beck is a very successful entertainer, who cares not about the harm he is inflicting upon his nation, or the people who believe in Him.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2010 7:06 AM
Comment #307823

j2t2;

Great, you pull these paragraphs out of context from the link. If you put them back in the context of the article, what do they mean then???

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 6, 2010 10:21 AM
Comment #307835

I read this in this morning’s ‘Letters to the Editor’ section of my newspaper. I could not have said it better myself:

GOP broadsides against Obama hard to fathom

I’d take Republican criticism of President Barack Obama more seriously if I could find a thread of coherence in their arguments.
First they call him a Socialist. Then, when he saves us from economic disaster by bailing out the banks, he is accused of ‘putting Wall Street before Main Street’. He is scolded for being all talk during the oil rig disaster in the Gulf, but when he brokers a commitment from BP to pay reparations, he is attacked as being too tough on them. The same Republicans who supported huge deficits since Reagan, have become deficit hawks overnight.
They claim to favor small government, but criticize Obama for not creating jobs. They tell us they adore the Constitution, but when Obama points out that the document protects Muslim’s religious rights, they want to amend that Constitution. After complaining that Obama and his family have belonged to a radical Christian church, they say he’s a secret Muslim.
I guess we have to look to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin to explain it all to us.

I particularly appreciate that last line.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2010 1:30 PM
Comment #307838

This is the reason newspapers are going out of business; you could have heard the same liberal talking points on Matthews, Maddow, Olbermann, or Daily Kos. I suggest cancelling the paper and getting your talking points from the internet or cable, no sense in paying twice.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 6, 2010 2:07 PM
Comment #307839

And what “left-coast”, liberal-loving, tree-hugging state is it that you live in???? dude
I have nightmares thinking about what a team led by the likes of Palin and/or Beck would be like.

Posted by: jane doe at September 6, 2010 2:19 PM
Comment #307841

Beretta the question I raised was “do you agree with these quotes”. This was not meant to be a trick question nor was it meant to argue the merits of the global warming as religion argument. The reason I asked was the author of the nonsense you linked to was trying to make the case that global warming is a religion not science based. He did so by comparing religion to global warming. So as an example…

1. He stated that “It is in the nature of religion to be authoritarian and proscriptive. Essential to this is the concept of sin – a transgression in thought or deed of theological principles.” He is trying to make the case that religious beliefs and global warming are the same, but that aside, the question I ask you is do you believe religion is authoritarian and proscriptive. Is this a good means to compare religion and global warming?

“If you put them back in the context of the article, what do they mean then???”

Beretta it is my opinion that they mean the same thing as they do when used as a stand alone quote. The quote was this guys basis for making his case that global warming is a religion. It seemed to me his argument makes religion sound bad in his attempt to maker global warming a religion. I found it curious that you would agree with the guy when he seems to be debasing religion.

As far as the Beck question I was thinking that both “Demagoguery is also, therefore, a feature of religion. Some people have the capacity to hold the masses in their thrall. It is a mysterious art, as their skills of oratory do not often stand up to any sort of critical examination. They are idols of the moment, who often turn out to have feet of clay, as so frequently seems to happen with charismatic TV preachers.” and “Religion has always played an important part in the imposition of authority. For many centuries it took the form of the “Divine Right of Kings” or the “Mandate of Heaven”. Once you get the people to believe, you can get away with almost any imposition. The alliance between the shaman and the legislator has long been the very foundation of authoritarianism.” speak to the ways of Glenn Beck.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2010 2:24 PM
Comment #307846

Well, I said I’d made my last comment, but now because I came back to read this thread, I’d like to make just a few more:

Beretta re: the video link I put up previously:

They tricked people into believing they were conservatives, so in my opinions, they are not worth viewing.


Attacking the messenger because you didn’t care for the message, eh? I know, the truth hurts sometimes for us all.

Btw, the guys who did those interviews did not tell people they were conservatives, they told them they were college students at Wright State (which they are). They also claimed they were student journalists working on a school project (the school project part was not the truth). It seems the people interviewed believed those two were from the conservative website RedState, or perhaps from a website they’d never heard of called “Right State.” So, perhaps they were somewhat tricked — but then, reporters (as well as detectives) have a very long tradition of tricking everybody they meet into revealing the unvarnished truth to them. That is indeed what those two reporters did in the video link I posted. They made those tea partiers feel free to spout off and say exactly what they think and believe; and in doing so, those rally-goers revealed themselves as uninformed and/or misinformed, bigoted and/or racist, and in several instances, pretty much unintelligible.

Tom Humes:

liberals and southpaws above: attack, attack, attack and say nothing in rebuttal. For instance many above called Beck a liar, but did not offer one single proof of a lie.

You claim to have read every post, yet many people in this thread have quoted Beck’s lies and outrageous statements. Maybe you require more? Okay, here you go. Not just a few, but 116 pages chock full of Glenn Beck’s lies, bigotry and loony conspiracy theories for you to wade through. Have at it.

I read every post above and found that the hate and misinformation from the southpaws was so thick you would face a challenge of enormous size to see any value present.

And how would you classify these statements?:

Are there any depths of depravity that liberals won’t go?
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
First, one becomes reasonable and consults professionals to help then with their lib/socialist mental disorder.

Is this the pure love of Glenn Beck’s God? Or is it hate?

You know, when I used to read and post here regularly, these were exactly the kind of statements where the expectation would be that such people would be canned.

Lastly, Dr. Martin Luther King was a republican. I found it so can you.

Doh! Wondering if this statement might make it onto the Glenn Beck University brochure?! :^)

Royal Flush:

The majority of Americans have made it clear that they understand religious freedom and the right to build the mosque at that location. And, they are asking that a different location be chosen. It’s really that simple.

Oh it’s really that simple? Well let’s imagine for a moment that Christian’s were a minority faith in this country. Now imagine that the people of the majority religion (let’s say Flying Spaghetti Monster) heard of a doctor getting shot in the face and killed in his church (lets call him Dr. George Tiller) by a fanatically anti-abortion evangelical murderer (let’s call him Scott Roeder) and the majority then decided that while the country has religious freedom, all Christians should now be considered dangerous and suspected of plotting to kill people. Thus, no more churches could be built in select locations because they offended and disturbed the al dente sensibilities of all the brothers and sisters who worship around the sauce pot of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Now, is it still so simple?

Has it become outrageous to aks others to be tolerant of predominate views?

What’s is so outrageous is the arrogance and intolerance of those holding the predominant view. Something that Dr. King knew well and fought hard against.

Is it unAmerican to ask others to show restraint in their exercise of their rights?

In my view: Yes. It is. Absolutely.
All Men Are Created Equal. Unalienable Rights. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
No American has the right to ask another American to restrain the exercise of their rights.

Finally, I see this thread has kind of devolved into a debate over religion rather than the Beck rally.
And in that case I just thought I’d point something out I noticed.

Like most people who call themselves conservative, Glenn Beck loves to publicly proclaim himself a Christian over, and over, and over. Accordingly, this is what he asked his followers to do at his big open air revival, er, rally in Washington:

“I ask, not only if you would pray on your knees, but pray on your knees but with your door open for your children to see.”

Just to compare, here is supposedly what Jesus Christ asked his followers to do in The Sermon on the Mount:

“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”

So, if one believes in Jesus’ sermon of instruction, Glenn Beck would be a hypocrite who will get no further reward.

Ah well. As Jesus also said in that sermon: ‘Ye cannot serve God and mammon’; and since Glenn Beck makes thirty two million dollars a year (and counting), he’s likely only interested in earthly rewards, rather than any of the heavenly variety.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2010 2:43 PM
Comment #307851

Oh I do so enjoy your visits here, Adrienne!
Yep, it’s really kind of sad to have watched the erosion in here. Some of us can and do remember how high the bar used to be…..but the company was always good on those “outings”. Hm…just thinking and it’s 10 years this month that I’ve been visiting this site. Wow, time…flies…..fun and all that.
Don’t stay a stranger.

Posted by: jane doe at September 6, 2010 3:16 PM
Comment #307855

Adrienne,

I hope you were not serious about ‘no deposit, no return’. Although, I would understand if you were.

In any case, it was good to see you again. jane doe is right about the deterioration of the site, but I don’t think it would take much to bring it back…all that it takes is for good people to do nothing…etc.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2010 4:41 PM
Comment #307868

>And what “left-coast”, liberal-loving, tree-hugging state is it that you live in????
Posted by: jane doe at September 6, 2010 02:19 PM

jane doe,

I live in that bastion of liberalism, Georgia, with that Socialist, Sonny Purdue as governor, that left leaning Saxbee Chambliss and that pinko Johnny Isaakson in the Senate, and the Democrat in sheep’s clothing Lynn Westmoreland in the House. The newspaper I read has such stalwart members of the liberal media as Bob Barr and Neale Boortz throwing Communist Manifesto’s around like crazy. Thanks for asking.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2010 5:48 PM
Comment #307869

PS:

jane doe, you can inform the guy who thinks reading the newspaper is so passé, that it is good practice that assures I can comprehend the written word, and that perhaps he should try it sometime. He certainly has problems understanding those that are written here.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2010 5:52 PM
Comment #307878

Thanks very much Jane Doe and MarysDude. Kind of you to say - and right back at you.

Btw, have you heard about Beck’s ‘Black Robe Bridgade’?

They were that bunch of old white guys who were wearing black robes and stood behind Beck during his big patriotic-militaristic revival meeting the other day. Basically all the wacko fundamentalist, authoritarian, evangelical, dominionists were rubbing elbows up there. You know, Dobson et al. Scary name for a really scary bunch.

Among that “honor restoration” black brigade was Rabbi Daniel Lapin — he’s a long time buddy of Republican lobbyist/convicted felon Jack Abramoff. Even Dominionist-Armageddonist Rev. James Hagee was up there.

You guys remember Hagee? The bigoted, racist nutbag who endorsed John McCain during the last election? The guy McCain eventually had to reject because of all the batsh*t crazy and hateful things the Reverend has said over the years?

Really hates Gay People. Indeed, Hagee thinks Katrina was “the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans”, because “there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades.” Also claimed that: “All of the city was punished because of the sin that happened there in that city.”

Of course, it’s not just gay people who are doomed — Roman Catholics are too. Hagee has denounced the Catholic Church as: “the great whore of Babylon”, and “a cult”, and an “apostate church”, and a “false religious system”, that is: “going to be totally devoured by the Anti-Christ.”
Oh, and according to him, Catholics were also to blame for the Holocaust, too.

Kind of confusing that he said that last thing though — because Hagee also thinks: “the rise of Adolf Hitler was part of God’s plan to help the Jews reach the promised land.” Yeah, that’s right — he thinks the Nazis were operating on God’s behalf to chase the Jews out of Europe in order to shepherd them to Palestine.

Hates all Muslims, too. Claims they: “have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews.”

Total hate-filled cuckoo.
And Beck actually thinks Hagee can help him “restore honor” to the nation.
No doubt that’s why he had him on his show so he could ask Hagee if Obama is the anti-christ.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2010 7:56 PM
Comment #307883

jane doe;

If you are upset at the way WB has deteriorated, your gonna hate what happens next to the congress.

Adrienne, hate to see you have to leave again, come back and impress us with your wit any time.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 6, 2010 8:23 PM
Comment #307898

Beretta9-
Why don’t we define Religion the old fashion way, in terms of Gods and spirits? I mean, if you define religion in the loose way you’re doing, doesn’t the term lose something of the sense of the sacred?

Do you really want religion to be a term used in such a profane sense, for the purposes of your argument?

Global Warming is not a religion to the left, as nobody is required to take it on faith. There is plenty of evidence out there, plenty of rational evidence to satisfy objections. Only those who basically want to blame Democrats for believing strongly in a strongly supported argument call Democrat’s trust in the theory a religion, because they wish (ironically enough, given conservative interest in religion) to cast the shadow of irrationality on what folks on the left believe about Climate Change.

Idiocy is anyone who would waste their time reading from the Daily Kos. What a retarded site.

Or maybe you just don’t like liberals.

If you google “Global Warming a Religion”, you will find 5,220,000 hits. So, someone is connecting Global Warming to the latest liberal religion.

I got 17.9 million hits on Sasquatch. 33.3 million on astrology. 19.6 million hits on 9/11 Truth.

So, by your own logic, the theory that George Bush intentionally either let the Twin Towers get destroyed, or arranged the attack himself, should be credited.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2010 10:32 PM
Comment #307929

Adreinne
Where is “Rev. James Hagee” from? Never heard of him.

There is a John Hagee from San Antonio. Maybe the cited talking points have screwed up. I am not a fan of him, but when you take talking points and cherry pick the phrases it serves not purpose. Keep the text clean and straight.

Posted by: tom humes at September 7, 2010 9:25 AM
Comment #307934

Stephen,

You make a huge mistake because religion has nothing to do with spirituality. The point of the link was many people are religious about a lot of things. Jesus accused the Pharisees of being religious but not being right with God.

If I say I get up at 7AM and religiously eat oatmeal and walk 4 miles, you would know exactly what I mean and yet it has nothing to do with spirituality. So, you are just talking silly and TRYING to create an argument. I don’t care how many links you find astrology, Sasquatch, or even JFK’s assassination; all your links simply prove there is a lot of questions about whatever subject you want to link to. The point of the link to GW as a religion simply proves there is a lot of questions and debate about GW. There is scientific evidence that GW is a hoax, but you are not willing to look at any anti-GW material? As a result, the only scientific material you are willing to look at is pro-GW material. If there is scientific material on both sides of the argument and you are willing to only look at one side, then you are guilty of accepting your side “by faith” as being the correct side. When you accept something by faith, it becomes a religion. GW is certainly a religion to the left and it is presented to the rest of the world in a religious format. You ask us to accept what you believe by faith. Furthermore, many people who accept GW as truth, have no idea what the scientific facts are, but they simply accept what you say as truth. There are many posts on this page alone, complaining that Beck is some kind of religious priest who has duped millions of Americans into following him, and by the lefts words, blindly following him. What is the difference between the right blindly following Beck, or the masses blindly following the GW proponents? You say, we have scientific proof, and I say, Beck backs up everything he says with documented proof. So what is the difference? Yes, GW IS a religion to the left, they blindly follow it and believe it without ever looking at the opposite side. The real question is: what do the left stand to gain by forcing GW down our throats”? The answer is their hatred for fossil fuels and their hatred for America. America runs on fossil fuels and to shut it down will shut down America’s industry. The lefts belief is that it’s NOT FAIR, that America is successful and 3rd world nations are poor. So there is an ulterior motive…

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 7, 2010 10:05 AM
Comment #307936

You eat oatmeal religiously…are you serious, does that really mean to you that oatmeal is your God? Pullleeeeze! This description merely points out the rote by which you do a repetitive deed, ie, the same rote by which you attend services every Sunday/Saturday/Wednesday/Friday. Or, perhaps your habit of prayer before supping or…or…or…it has NOTHING to do with Religion or of being religious. No wonder you are frighteningly equaling religiosity with Greenpeace…atheists…cake eaters, etc. Can this site actually go any lower? There is no religion without spirituality, but there are ignorant religious people.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 7, 2010 10:50 AM
Comment #307945

Tom Humes:

Where is “Rev. James Hagee” from? Never heard of him. There is a John Hagee from San Antonio.

Yeah, that’s the guy. A real hater and crazy Endtimer.

when you take talking points and cherry pick the phrases it serves not purpose.

Sure it does — it serves the crucially important purpose of highlighting exactly what kind of whacked-out nutbags Beck considers of monumental importance to the “Divine Providence” of what he’s calling “The Third Great American Awakening.”

Hagee has long been famous for saying all kinds of bigoted, hateful things — and Beck just hitched his religious wagon directly to Hagee and all he stands for by endorsing this man and asking him onstage to join his revival.

This is the kind of whacked out stuff that Beck just had to say about his newly created Black Robe Regiment:

I introduced the Black Robe Regiment. These people are in trouble. They’re in trouble. The media hasn’t noticed them yet, quite honestly, because the adversary hasn’t noticed them yet. We’re not battling flesh and blood. The great thing is, darkness does not understand light. They have no idea — it has no idea where we’re headed. And that’s good. But understand, once it does, the very gates of Hell are going to open up.

Btw, for anyone who doesn’t know the Extremist Christian-Taliban dog whistles, the term “adversary” is a code word for Satan.

So let us make no mistake: Beck is painting this nation in stark black and white here — you’re either with them or against them. He has now begun telling his followers “you must tithe” to this black robe brigade because it is nothing less than a battle between good and evil.

This is a movement toward Religious Fascism that has begun, and since that is the case, it seems pretty damn important right here and now to expose and call out exactly who and what Glenn Beck considers “good.”

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2010 1:44 PM
Comment #307949

Adrienne, thank you for your wit, again. I thought you couldn’t stick around. How did you, being a liberal, get a copy of our code book?

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 7, 2010 2:33 PM
Comment #307951

This “warning” was issued today. Will be interesting to see how some of you can manage to spin it. Will it mean an end of your support for the war……the troops?? Kind of like getting your ***** stepped on….


http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0910/fiery_issue_63e1b213-7801-4a3f-a804-a878aca5308c.html

Posted by: jane doe at September 7, 2010 2:40 PM
Comment #307955

Oh yes; I’ve been waiting for someone to bring this up. How do you feel about it jane doe??? Be careful how you answer, then again, you may just want to keep silent on this one…

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 7, 2010 3:26 PM
Comment #307956

Wow jane one church acts like an idiot. Kinda like one liberal idiot burning the U.S. Flag and putting all liberals in the same category.

Posted by: MAG at September 7, 2010 3:27 PM
Comment #307957

MAG;

Hold off on this one. I’ve been waiting for a liberal to throw his hat into the ring on this. Let’s wait until someone posts the subject, lol.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 7, 2010 3:32 PM
Comment #307960

well, dude, to quote you, “stupid is, as stupid does”.

Do you think this just went right over their heads?
Patreus issues a head’s up against stirring the pot and creating problems for our troops. You two (B9 and Mag) manage to become idiotic (more so) and twist it into a you against me issue.
Are you saying that you’ve dropped support against “the war”….? against our military?, against Ths Shrub’s whole little fiasco he got started? Or, was the story beyond your comprehension?

Posted by: jane doe at September 7, 2010 4:20 PM
Comment #307961

I wonder if the idiot preacher thinks burning the Islamic holy book will somehow make 9/11 go away.

Burning the Qaran to protest 9/11 is like burning the Bible to protest Christian stupidity…it will change NOTHING, but will hurt the feelings of many.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 7, 2010 4:26 PM
Comment #307963

jane doe,

Somehow the folks who think learning to read is passé cannot understand that being against a dishonorable war is not the same as being against the troops…who’d a thunk it?

Posted by: Marysdude at September 7, 2010 4:29 PM
Comment #307964

Well dude, the whole thing is that Patreus is very fearful, that if the Qaran burning takes place, and the population over there hears all about it, that things could blow up (literally) in the troops’ faces. So then, how many morons here responsible, would understand and comprehend what their actions led to? How could, and would, they spin that??

Posted by: jane doe at September 7, 2010 4:37 PM
Comment #307974

jane doe,

Those who are on the side of war, will not see anything bad about more of our troops dying and/or the extension of hostilities. False Christians all.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 7, 2010 5:48 PM
Comment #307976

Am I creating problems for our troops by saying that a church that wants to burn the Koran on 9/11 is full of IDIOTS. Why would I do that when I was one of those troops 40yrs ago? Those that want to insite others by doing something stupid are ignorant people and that includes those on the left. There is no spin jane, they are ignorant, idiotic people and if they thought twice about what they were going to do I would hope they wouldn’t do what they plan. As far as being Christians, I agree with Dude False christians like Jim Jones, and that idiot Baptist minister who protests at funerals of our fallin troops.

Posted by: MAG at September 7, 2010 6:14 PM
Comment #307987

Mag and B9, I don’t know how much slower we can explain the possible situation that could erupt from the stupid things people on your side of the fence have talked about doing.
I’m not the one who threw out the warning…..it was Patreus!!! Slow down and think about this again…..use big letters and small words if you need to get the picture.
Here….maybe it will all fall into place once you recognize the FOX banner………

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/06/petraeus-warns-churchs-koran-burning/

Posted by: jane doe at September 7, 2010 7:44 PM
Comment #307989

jane how much slower do I have to be to get you to realize I condemn any body doing anything to instigate violence. These people who want to burn the Koran on 9/11 ARE IDIOTS not christians. I KNOW PATREUS gave the warning, but some people are idiots and can’t heed a warning. What is it that you can’t understand about the fact that I condemn the actions of that church. THEY ARE IDIOTS THEY ARE STUPID JANE. I know what could happen but I don’t live in Florida so I can’t stop them myself. I wish I could but I can’t, so stop trying to get a spin from me because you won’t. What about stupid things people do on your side like trying to instigate a spin on something that is idiotic.

Posted by: MAG at September 7, 2010 8:03 PM
Comment #307993

Mag, pretend I’m writing this now in bright colored-crayon. These are people, some of your holier-than-though brethren…we are good Christian, God-fearing, God-loving, hate-spewing, blasphemy-preaching right-wing nutzoid whackjobs!!! IF they didn’t have a church connection to their goal, you would have had them set to burn at the stake for being us !
Your sidekick seems to think this deserves its’ own post….but presented with a skewed perception, more to your liking, of jack perhaps.
Being caught with your pants down and a handful of ****…..you just can’t spin out of it.

Posted by: jane doe at September 7, 2010 8:47 PM
Comment #307996

Beretta:

Adrienne, thank you for your wit, again

You’re quite welcome.

I thought you couldn’t stick around.

Well, I didn’t think I could… But perhaps I can?
It’s really nice that you seem so eager to have me here.

How did you, being a liberal, get a copy of our code book?

Oh, I have my ways…

MAG,
I happen to think it’s great that you’re condemning that church for such reactionary stupidity!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2010 9:03 PM
Comment #307997

jane they are not my people, they are not good christians, they are hate spewing idiots much like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and BHO’s old pastor. Your comments are ridiculous putting it mildly.

Posted by: MAG at September 7, 2010 9:05 PM
Comment #308003

It’s kind of fun watching you try to sneak quietly out of a corner, Mag.
No…they are actually hate spewing idiots just like a crap-load of others claiming to be such good, charitable, kind, loving and gentle, Christ-like rightwingers with nothing but vile hatred as their message to anyone not marching in lockstep with them.

Posted by: jane doe at September 7, 2010 10:01 PM
Comment #308006

Idiots are in all groups jane even yours.

Posted by: MAG at September 7, 2010 10:21 PM
Comment #308008

I don’t really agree with what this church is doing, but the question is, do they have the right to burn these books? The bigger question is, if they have that right under the 1st ammendment, does a military general have the right to say anything about it? If it was a general who said “liberals don’t have the right to protest war”, what would your reaction be? I think it’s a little scary when a military commander says an american doesn’t have the right to free speech.

Posted by: Beretta9 at September 7, 2010 10:35 PM
Comment #308010

jane doe

I’m going to turn you into the EPA. With all that anger there has to be sulphur smoke coming out of those ears and polluting the atmosphere all around you. I mean you liberals are for clean air aren’t you? Under Uncle Obama’s health care reform law you can also get some anger management under one of those new 150 commissions he has authorized. And if you kick one of your cats, oh oh, here comes PETA. The hate crimes enforcement squad will address the situation later.

Posted by: tom humes at September 7, 2010 10:50 PM
Comment #308017

No American general said that the idiot did not have the right to do the utterly stupid and insane thing he is doing. The general said that if the idiot went through with his insane plan, it would likely cost American lives and set the war back. No one is attempting to stop the idiot on first amendment grounds, they are trying to stop the idiot from completing his insane plans for practical reasons. There is NOTHING to be gained by this stupidity except the idiot’s fifteen minutes of fame, and much can possibly be lost.

Again I say that if certain folks would take up reading the passé newspaper daily, they MIGHT be able to comprehend the written word.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 7, 2010 11:45 PM
Comment #308018

PS:

jane doe, don’t take the bait…you know the end result, and that end result is the goal of a troll.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 7, 2010 11:46 PM
Comment #308044

hey dude,
my mistake was in thinking that we were dealing with people having the power to understand logic, common sense and the meaning of the concept of appropriate.
These are the same (fill in the blanks)- - - - - - who attacked “us” on a regular basis saying that we were contributing to, or escalating troop injury and/or deaths because of our understanding that we had been thrown into an unjust and illegal war. Now they’re saying it’s okay for their beliefs to trump ours because …..well, just because.
Two things this has enforced in my mind is that my beliefs have sustained me for quite some time, and without irrational hatred, and my conscience is clear when I go to bed at night. And I shall continue to understand that might, isn’t always right.

Posted by: jane doe at September 8, 2010 11:09 AM
Comment #308057

Heck, jane doe, not even ‘right’ is always right. ‘Might’ is rarely even close. That’s how the school yard bully, who could leap over buildings in a single bound, and was faster than a speeding bullet, came to invade a sovereign nation without good cause. And that is how the apologists, even today, sniff out even the most ludicrous reasons to celebrate a ‘victory’. He was mighty, but lacked honor, and so his ‘victory’ will always be incomplete and tarnished.

But, please don’t tell the ‘Christians’ who post entries here, else you will get a bunch of flack about how you are less than patriotic. The really zealous ones might even say you aren’t a citizen, or are a traitor, that your feet smell and you don’t love Jesus.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 8, 2010 12:50 PM
Comment #308115

Oh, this is hilarious:

$225 tickets to ‘meet and greet’ Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin in Wasilla, Alaska on 9/11 — and they’re already sold out.

Step right up all ye God-fearin’ American Patriots! You don’t want to miss this golden opportunity now do ya? No sirree! Only two hunnert and twenty-five smackers buys ya the chance to reach out and shake the hand of the man and woman who are the very epitome of phony-baloney patriotic hucksterism!!!


Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2010 8:55 PM
Comment #308123

By golly, you’re right, and don’t forget that in that price, y’all can get a good look at Russia, too!!!!!

Posted by: jane doe at September 8, 2010 10:20 PM
Comment #308134

Cheap at ANY price…of course I’m talking about the two stars.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 8, 2010 11:41 PM
Comment #308136

Jane,

LOL! You betcha! Or maybe that’ll be just a bit of an extra charge?

You know, their greed may be laughable, but there is something so incredibly twisted about this too. I mean, how totally shameless and sick in the head would you have to be to plan such an event in order to profiteer off of the people who died on 9/11 — not to mention the fact that the attack was used as an excuse to start two unnecessary wars?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2010 11:49 PM
Comment #308137

Adrienne,

Nah, you just have to be a shameless (un)patriot, and/or someone who espouses truth in a dishonorable way.

The scary part is that if you throw a dart at a map of the United States, you will have a fifty-fifty chance of hitting some fool who takes these two clowns seriously. Education in this country has failed so drastically that half the people can’t spell Beck, but they can fall under his spell.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 9, 2010 12:19 AM
Comment #308139

I don’t know how they can fight so hard(and we’ve seen it for sure on here the last few days)in the name of Christianity, when it all boils down to the god they cherish is the almighty dollar ! Hypocritical…..ya think ?

Posted by: jane doe at September 9, 2010 1:12 AM
Post a comment