Beck: "There is a coup going on ... it has been done through the guise of an election"
From the August 31 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
From the August 31 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: If I could just -- if we could just be like Cuba. Let me give you the last piece of evidence that there is a revolution going on, and it is coming. It is -- there is a revolution, and they think they can get away with it quietly.
They think they -- and they -- they -- you know what? At this point, gang, I'm not sure, they may be able to because they are so far ahead of us. They know what they're dealing against; most of America does not yet. Most of America doesn't have a clue as to what's going on. There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America, and the way it is done, it has been done through the -- the guise of an election, but they lied to us the entire time.
Some of us knew! Some of us we're shouting out, you were: "this guy's a Marxist!" "No, no, no, no, no, no." And they're gonna say, "we did it democratically," and they are going to grab power every way they can. And God help us in an emergency.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money to give away" Margeret Thatcher.
The other half votes to get benefits? Like those on Medicare? But I bet you don't think that old people should have their Medicare taken away.
Apprently they need some of your particular style of kookery over there ASAP!
Best wishes for a speedy recovery,
sodium!
How could it be idiotic to believe that everyone deserves health care? Being healthy isn't always in our control, some of us are born with a certain gene pool and are not able to control our health destiny. Not all of us are blessed with perfect genetics.
By the way, have you seen Mexican hospitals?
You are simply grasping at straws to try to turn my argument out, and your "clever" retorts are silly.
People take children and other people from countries all the time and take them to Canadian and American and Western hospitals FREE OF CHARGE.
But those parasites! *sarcasm*
Does cholera care if you're poor, wealthy, or sitting on a pile of Krugerrands because you took all your money out of the bank in case of Y2K? No -- but it does tend to like the living conditions poor folks find themselves in.
If you do not provide health services to immigrants regardless of status, you potentially build a breeding ground for disease. If you do not provide health services for the poor -- and for that matter, improve the physical circumstances of the poor -- you potentially build a breeding ground for disease.
There is no such thing as a disease-proof Fortress Amerikka.
Help me out on this one.
You can't be that stupid really, can you? Are you being paid to be a troll?
I'm just curious -- do you really think you're making sense when you say things like that?
Thank goodness for Fox. Nothing from NBC,CBS,ABC. I assume that’s why Fox ratings are through the roof. Americans want the truth.
The major networks have 10 times the audience of FoxNews.
FoxNews appears to be trying its best to create an uprising through the daily lies it tells and that then echo with right wing radio.
Do you think our last presidential election was a coup? Beck's 'theft of America' assertion is truthful in your view? Seriously, election day - which Beck is spitting on with this statement - is priceless to our democracy, why on earth is it truthful to trash America in this regard?
Bush had over 20 "Czars" himself.
Nobody around President Obama is a Marxist, communist, or whatever else you might think they are. Did you know, most of the senior white house staff aren't accountable to anyone other than Obama as well? And they provide the BULK of information and counsel to the President.
Thank goodness for Fox, because if I dind't have them, I wouldn't have anything to laugh about.
I'm going to say what everyone else is too nice to say. You are insane. You need professional help. You are following a rabble-rousing moron (Beck) who is making up conspiracy theories. The "czars" were around during past administrations, and nobody ever cared. But suddenly they are a sign of our whole country being taken over? Really, you sound completely out of your mind bonkers, just like your formerly drug addicted hero Glenn Beck.
Fox has always had higher ratings, even when Bush and the Republicans were sinking us into an economic crisis, appointing czars, starting pre-emptive wars, and running up record deficits. It is due to your side wanting to live in a right-wing bubble and never hear an opposing viewpoint.
They did really good.
THAT one did a helluva lotta good . . .
This is terrorism, try to frighten people into shutting up and falling into your irrational mental hole
It requires that you expose yourself to different theories and viewpoints, many independent sources of information, and carefully draw enlightened conclusions.
Not so with Conservatives. That's why Fox's ratings seem high: their audience watches nothing else. And that's not a "talking point," that's based on numerous polls.
When your political stance is based on a loopy, Orwellian, denial-based worldview like that of the current Republicans ("We'll be greeted as Liberators; Saddam was buying Uranium, Abstinence Education works; the Jury's still out on Evolution," etc.), you need Talking Points to keep your baloney straight.
That's why it's so easy to assemble a collage of video clips of wingnut Congressfolk spewing exactly the same phrases. You don't see that with Progressives. Ever.
Hope I've cleared that up for ya.
QED We need say no more.
They all call for big government.
Beck did say one thing that hit the nail on the head though...
God help us in an emergency.
We've given them unlimited power by not voicing our opposition to unconstitutional legislation, and by not exercising the civil liberties and rights our forefathers fought for.
Unless we all get involved and actually read the bills, acts, and executive orders that can be used in emergencies, or any other time for that matter.
Whether the "conspiracy theorists" are right or not about the government "creating crisis" to take over doesn't matter, what matters is if there is an emergency (health care and money shortage, Acts of terror) do they have the right legislation and power set in place to actually take over. If you can answer no to that question than you should be able to sleep soundly. If not, you should do something about it.
As for Marxists, George W. Bush surrounded himself with folks like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, Bolton, et al. All adherents of William Kristol's father Irving's "neo-conservative" philosophy. Do a bit of research on neo-conservatism. It is not conservatism; in fact, they originally called themselves neo-liberals. Neo-conservatism is based upon the teachings of Leo Trotsky, a noted MARXIST. Yep, your two favorite Fox talking heads, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer . . . they are followers, indirectly, of Leo Trotsky.
have there been any instances of any "czars" defying to appear before congress?
no there hasnt been.
there have beden plenty of times where Rove, Meirs and Bolton all ignored congressional subpoena's and cited for contempt of congress......
Please go away and learn something, and don't come back until you are no longer ignorant. Stupid is incurable, but ignorance has a remedy.
(Sorry, had to be done.)
Debunked talking point 937.
Except for Crazy Annie Coulter -- who did it TWICE.
Voter fraud is committed when people who have registered illegally actually show up, and vote under their fraudulent voter registration.
With what happened this last fall, fraudulent registrations were turned in by voter registration workers (since they were getting paid by how many people they registered), and were reviewed by ACORN officials.
Said ACORN officials noted that they thought there were some fishy looking voter registration cards, they flagged them, and turned them into the local registrar, which is required by law (destroying said registration cards is also against the law).
ACORN turned in the workers responsible for these fraudulent voter registrations.
No voter fraud was committed due to these fraudulent registration attempts.
ACORN's offices were raided and ACORN people were arrested.
Good one.
ACORN turned in and flagged the suspicious applications to the authorities. They were responsible for the fraud discovery.
As for the Nevada case, different circumstances. An employee offered bonuses for a specific number of registrations per/hourly employee. It's against the law to do that because of the danger of the hourly workers making up false registration forms.
Is this along the lines of:
"Who knew they'd use planes as missiles?
"Who knew the levees would break?"
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Who knew?
It would be investigated not thrown out. If it was thrown out, a black comedian whose real name is George Wallace would be denied his right to vote.
It makes me wonder how many blacks have had their ballots thrown out because they had unusual African names.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or just stupid?
Any organization that does voter registration is required to turn in ALL completed registrations and FLAG those it suspects might be fraudulent. A voter registration drive doesn't get to decide whose registration is valid and whose isn't. That's the election authorities' job.
In short (and I'll try to be as clear as possible here):
You.
Are.
Wrong.
About.
ACORN.
oh wait that was what happened at the behest of karl rove and co.
Voter Caging
now i will get out my model 2004 space modulator
They all all laughed as if it were the funniest joke. I didn't get it and they explained to me that they did not plan on going to hand out voter registration forms to the people by that particular building because that is where all the Hispanic people congregate.
Although there may have been some accounts of voter fraud, it is not representative of the entire group. To me, it appears as though this issue is being attacked because conservative pundits view it as a weedkiller for the liberal grass roots movement. If you prevent the problem from the root (votes), then you can prevent the opposing party from gaining power.
Seriously, this is the ideology that Beck is peddling. He constantly refers to "they" and President Obama doing these secret things to destroy America because they are this secret cabal of fascist/Marxist's who want to do this because.....well.....because Beck says so.
Really Starkcr31, Is this is all true? I mean Beck was able to show us on his blackboard. He was able to prove with a blackboard and a piece of chalk that "they" are some secret organization or group of people who want to literally take over this nation and ultimately the world.
Yep, Obama and "they" must be so mad that Beck has uncovered their nefarious plan. I'm wondering though, how does Obama hide his connections to Dr. Evil and Simon Barsinister (Underdog's nemesis)? Who else is in on this evil plan? I'm thinking Snidely Whiplash perhaps? Maybe Elvis? How about the Illuminati? Gosh, I hope either you or Beck finally tell us who "they" are, the suspense is killing us all. .
You need to quit, hon, you're losing with your talking points. Try reading instead of listening to the liars on Fox.
And, again, having a brain doesn't have anything to do with political ideology. Just because you stupidly believe everything you hear on Fox as truth doesn't mean you're a conservative, just means you're stupid.
You lose yet again.
http://www.twit.tv/sn211
Another "conspiracy theory" was that the firing of the US Attorneys was for political reasons. Oops, that turned out to be TRUE.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
At the onset of the invasion of iraq, we were told the oil riches coming from that nation would pay for the war. This wasn't a conspiracy theory, Rumsfeld said that.
Nobody ever claimed that Bush allowed Katrina to happen, but what he was roundly criticized and called out for, was the total inept response that FEMA had to the disaster than was known to be looming ahead for NO. Since most of the people who died, and or were stuck in NO with no way out were poor black people, stands to reason that some black people felt that Bush had indeed deserted them.
And, FEMA sub-contracted out the evacuation planning to a corporation for $500,000. And guess what? They never even produced a plan.
As usual, you're conflating the hurricane with the flood. Everyone survived the hurricane. They died because of the flood.
Make a note of it.
FEMA is responsible.
No city or state in the nation has the means to respond to a storm the size of Katrina. Especially a city below sea level, with the levees maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
The Federal Government failed New Orleans going back decades. bush wasn't responsible for the storm or the condition of the levees just as Nero wasn't responsible for the fall of Rome.
While Rome burned, Nero played the fiddle. While New Orleans was dying, George W. Bush played guitar.
And it appears that he has a man helping him with that.
ass
Where do you conservatives get your logic?
ass
Michael D. Brown screwed up AFTER Bush appointed him
ass
False
Bush appointed Brown for his own reasons, one of them being the ability to preform the duties of the appointment. If Brown screwed up, its because partly because he was the wrong person for the job and also due to the fact that Bush made a poor choice in his selection for FEMA director.
Whether Obama knew Holder cheated on his taxes is again irrelevant to comparing Holder to Brown. The BIGGEST reason it is irrelevant is Holder hasn't failed in epic fashion like Brown has.
So yet again, you are an ass
Oh, wait, you provided none, yet again.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/citing-tax-troubles-an-obama-appointee-withdraws/
Does it change the fact that Geitner did in fact pay his taxes?
Does that still change the fact that Brown as head of FEMA failed in epic fashion?
As far as Geitner is concerned...has he done anything since being appointed to his position to make Obama look bad ala Brown/Bush?
Why let facts get in the way of your hatred of all things related to this administration. This really shows how your ilk has a knee-jerk reaction to a mandate.
It must really suck to be you.
I mean really suck
Oh, and Bush DID let some Katrina suffering/death happen. FEMA under Brownie and Bush KNEW the levees broke and didn't tell anyone in Louisiana until THE NEXT DAY.
By then the city was underwater.
Some reading that might help you out:
http://www.gregpalast.com/
Where did Chris say that any fringe commentary was acceptable?
Regarding Iraq, it's difficult to argue that he invaded in good faith. There may be several possibilities for motivation, but 9/11 or WMDs do not appear to be legitimate ones.
I don't think I've ever seen someone say that Bush "let Katrina happen". The accusation there would be that he ignored the impending crisis. Was it racially motivated? I don't know, but when the "life" of a single brain-dead white woman was at stake, he flew in from Texas just to sign a bill. That really doesn't look good, you have to admit.
I didn't vote for the guy, I was able to see his lack of intelligence at the start of the campaign.
And contrary to your delusions, you're pretty short on the stuff.
It's not that Bush knew the attack was coming and didn't stop it, it's that Bush knew an attack was coming and did NOTHING AT ALL. That is, except fishin', bikin, golfin', and clearin' brush.
Remember this - Clinton told Bush that Al Queda would be his #1 national security priority. How many times did Bush and his minions meet with Richard Clarke?
"You could ignore it, sir."
"I see. Pretend nothing's going on and hope everything works out in the end?"
"Just a thought, sir."
"But a good thought. I'll consider it."
Still, look up non sequitur. Then stop doing it.
ass
Expert Fired Who Warned Levees Would Burst
Hurricane George, Four Years Later
http://crooksandliars.com/greg-palast/katrina-four-years-later-expert-fired
Bush ignored warnings by Richard Clarke and the intelligence community that bin Laden was planning to attack. This has been documented, no conspiracy.
There was no reason to invade Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. It wasn't about "needing" oil, it was about control of the Iraqi oil fields. In March 2001, PRIOR to 9/11, Dick Cheney ordered maps of the Iraqi oil fields and compiled a list titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." Why do you suppose those were necessary? These documents are available for review online. They were released pursuant to a FOIA lawsuit.
Katrina wasn't caused by Bush; however, his inaction and inattention (according to Bush staffers, he didn't want to be disturbed on his vacation, he was watching the baseball playoffs) caused unnecessary delay in aid to the people of New Orleans. He wasn't even aware of what was going on until one of his staffers presented him with a DVD of news reports. This is also documented.
Conspiracies? Nope, just fact.
And you have to be starkravingstupid to think that when people say Bush "let" Katrina happen that they're talking about the STORM. They mean that he botched the cleanup, jackass. That really shouldn't have to be explained to you.
Personally? I never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Bush MAY HAVE decided no to ANT to HELP OUT after the fact... But I for one believe he was just so gott damned stupid that he did even realize that he should have. (OTOH... It seems that Texas got taken care off, and Iowa a year later when the Mississippi flooded... I'm not speculating now, just stating FACTS.)
by foghornleghorn (August 31, 2009 2:24 pm ET) 11 1
One "conspiracy theory" was that the threat levels were made for political reasons. Oops, that turned out to be TRUE.
Another "conspiracy theory" was that the firing of the US Attorneys was for political reasons. Oops, that turned out to be TRUE.
August 3, 2004: "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security." - Tom Ridge
From Tom Ridge's book The Test of Our Times: Ridge admits that he "was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over."
Looks like something to back it up, Brainy Smurf.
I notice you throw around words like "stupid" and "moron" pretty freely, but you have given not a single piece of evidence, and refuse to acknowledge it when you are given evidence to support other's claims. What does that say about you?
And don't be such a baby about name-calling, sticks and stones and all that. It usually only happens at the point that it's well deserved,and the mean hurt-y names are generally much milder than are warranted.
Your intellect just isn't sharp enough to cut it.
And both of us know you're nowhere near beating the cat.
You've come to a battle of wits unarmed.
I'm waiting with bated breath for you to graduate to "I'm rubber, you're glue."
First, you have to show that you HAVE intelligence. Just spouting talking points and false information you've gleaned from Fox is not showing intelligence.
As of 8:57 PM, you've hit 43 thumbs down votes. I'm not sure but I think that's some kind of record.
Beck gets closer to the edge each day. He's fermenting a revolt against the elected government of the United States because he won't accept the fact that the majority of Americans disagree with his delusion and support the elected government of the US.
I was called a traitor for not supporting the war. What do you call a guy like him?
How can you be so stupid and so wrong all of the time? Lincoln knew you completely when he said "you can fool some of the people all of the time."
You must spend all of your time in the bathroom, urinating what used to be Kool-Aid.
And I never heard him refer to Bush as a socialist/Nazi/racist/marxist/whatever else you want to throw in there.
"McCain is Center left"?? ROFLMAO!!
That must be why John answered "I don't know" when asked how many houses he owned -- or proposed keeping US troops in Iraq for 100 years . . .
Next, you're gonna tell me Dumbya was "center left" . . .
If McCain looks like he is far right of you, It just might be that you a far far left. I'm just sayin
McCain said during the general election, he was against gay marriage. You fail there.
When has he voted for so called liberal judges? Name them.
It's called cap and trade.
He supported W's budgets, as did EVERY OTHER REPUBLICAN (for the most part).
McCain rated as voting with Bush almost 100% of the time.
McCain turned far right over the last year.
No, no, put down the tinfoil.
There is no other point other than to make people angry. Unfortunately, it's hard to keep the garbage collection running, etc, when 25% of the people supposedly running the show are playing a big game of "why are you hitting yourself?".
BTW, Palin's huge crowds came from people who appreciated her hate speech against the black guy.
Oh, and "liberal judges"???? You are aware that the overwhelming majority of our country's federal judiciary is made up of Republican appointees, right?
(remember the trash talking he did on Theocons?)
McCain2008 was a Neocon.
Fail. Yet again.
Try a book, starkers.
Very intelligent of you. Kind of like saying "My dad could beat up your dad"
ass
Your intelligence is showing
ass
ass |as|
noun
1 a hoofed mammal of the horse family with a braying call, typically smaller than a horse and with longer ears. Genus Equus, family Equidae: E. africanus of Africa, which is the ancestor of the domestic ass or donkey, and E. hemionus of Asia.
- (in general use) a donkey.
2 informal a foolish or stupid person : that ass of a young man.
ass
which I did
Oh dear, you're really going this far to try and prove me wrong?
ass
And you think that is scoring points?
Huh?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090814/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_us_health_care
You are nowhere near that subject.
You know, beam in your eye, mote in others', etc.
Using profanity shows your Stephen Hawking-esque intelligence.
~ starkcr31
Leads to subject (B)
Stephen Hawking. Isn't he the guy who would have been allowed to die if he had lived in a country with socialized medicine like, er, Great Britain?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090814/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_us_health_care
and you STILL can't follow the conversation...
ass
Without the healthcare he received from "evil socialized medicine" he would not have survived to become the intelligent man you so know and love.
once again you are an ass
ass
Or it may be I am just proving you wrong every time you post something.
I READ legitimate news [not opinion] sources. I READ government documents.
We've obliterated your talking points. Give it up.
And based on your previous statement, you must work for the government, which suggests you can't get a real job and must suck on the teat of the tax payers.
You are an extremely manipulable troll, and you are fun to play with, and we'll keep doing it until you bore us.
I can't believe you haven't realized that by now, but that's just part of the fun.
You know how hard it must be to remember all of that BS?
If that happens, you may be out of a job . . .
...Bob Altemeyer, a professor of psychology at the University of Manitoba, added to the literature with his model of "right-wing authoritarianism." Drawing on years of empirical research, Altemeyer found that the right-wing authoritarian personality is "almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence."
You bear out his argument beautifully.
Manitoba: A province in a socialist country
I also wonder if some of you wingnuts have contemplated the effect of broadening the definition of "socialist" so that it encompasses essentially every country except the United States. There are countries that do better than us in health care, crime rates, educational standards, etc, and those countries are labeled "socialist" by your absurd standard. The way it's supposed to work is that there's a handful of countries that have horrible conditions, and you contrast them to us. That's where branding them as "socialist" would have an effect, since we would want to avoid being like them. It's not quite as compelling to mock other countries when we're not setting any sort of example they would ever want to follow. It's sort of like calling your neighbor a geek when they make three times the income that you do.
We're all intelligent at something.
So yes, let's not talk about intelligence, because we're all smarter at some genre of intelligence than others.
If your brain can't cash the check, your mouth shouldn't write it.
He hates Medicare, Social Security, bank bailouts, automaker bailouts, taxes, eroding civil liberties and big govt. Is that it? Do I have that right?
Because, for some strange reason, I do not recall the vitriol, hatred and railing against those programs under Bush W.
You remember Bush W, don't you? You know, the one that expanded the Fed Govt with the Patriot Act more than any other president in the history of the US. Authorized illegal wiretapping. Authorized TARP. Authorized the GM bailout. Expanded Medicare coverage.
But I guess you're right. This has NOTHING to do with Obama. Nothing to do with a black democratic president.
Riiiiight .... LOL!
Never with enough volume, or votes to hurt them in the elections though. Concervatives who complained about expanded gov't and/or defecits under Bush were declawed, toothless tigers. He could be every bit as bad as a democrat (in their eyes) but at least he wasn't a democrat! (You know, like that guy Clinton who was the only president in a generation to have a balanced budget?)
Just sayin' that if you hate big govt, taxes, social programs and errosion of civil liberties, you either hate it when done by a Dem AND a Repub or you are a hypocrite.
Would you mind explaing why a propsed 35% marginal tax bracket for people making over $250,000 is some how socialist?
Would you mind explaing why the gov't giving a multi-billion corporation that employs a good chunk of our workforce a LOAN is somehow socialism? (And for the record pst loans of this type have always been repaid, and the gov't is likely to make a killing on this one as well.)
Would you mind explaing what exactly you think socialism even IS?
You don't know what socialism is; all you know is to hate anything that Limbaugh or Beck CALL socialist.
BTW, top marginal Tax rate was 50% under Reagan. Neither Obama nor Clinton have gone anywhere near that, so why don't you tell me about what a socialist Reagan was?
It's called redistribution of wealth. That's socialism.(starkcr31)
Did I claim it was the definition? I didn't? Well, then stop making ridiculous claims, idiot. (starkcr31)
LMAO. Spectacular !
And I ask again, when is redistributing wealth okay? Was it okay when the first European settlers did it? If it was, where is the line of demarcation for you? And since the highest tax rate now is lower than it was under Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy or Eisenhower, how is Obama redistributing wealth more than has been done in recent history? Or do you argue that Reagan (top marginal tax rate of 50% for five of his 8 years; 38 and 28 percent for the last two) and Eisenhower (top marginal tax rate in the 90s for his entire presidency) were socialists, too? By the way, those numbers come from the Brookings Institute and the CBO.
oops
You're right. It didn't take long at all to prvoe my point that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Stark can't think it's socialist, because he hasn't even demonstrated the ability to think at all yet.
All he can do is parrot talking points. Don't try to make him THINK about them, it'll make his head hurt.
Also, you fail to recognize in your blanket statement of "Democrats just tend to do it much more." that this is a false perception, as the largest expansion of our federal government over the years has happened more during the times of republican Presidents.
This post from February needs to be dusted off in honor of the Democratic National Convention.
Administration Change in National Debt as % of GNP …… Verdict…..
_____________________________________________________________
Eisenhower………………… -16.2%……………………………… Outstanding
Kennedy/Johnson……….. -16.5%……………………………… Outstanding
Nixon/Ford…………………. -2.8%………………………………. Adequate
Carter…………………………. -3.2% ……………………………….One term only
Reagan……………………… +20.5% ……………………………..Impeachable
Bush Sr……………………… +13.1% ……………………………..Shameful
Clinton………………………… -8.8%……………………………… Very good
Bush Jr……………………… +12.4%*……………………………. Unacceptable
*End of year 2008 estimate.
The myth of “tax and spend Democrats” is, in fact, a myth. The myth of “dispassionate, fiscally responsible Republicans” transcends myth, having achieved jokedom. And, most amazingly, the myth that Republicans are better for the economy is (you guessed it) pure fiction.
There is some slop in these figures, due to macroeconomic lags and the partisan complicity of Congress. The balance of power between the White House and Congress has been roughly even over this period. One party has controlled both branches of government for about as long as they have been split. Republicans have controlled the White House for 32 of the 52 years included in the study. Otherwise, the figures speak for themselves.
We also correlated GNP growth by year during this same period to test the Republican claim that they are better at growing the economy than Democrats. These statistics are, unfortunately, just as rough. Yet the contrast is significant. During 32 years of 5 Republican administrations, measured in linked 2000 dollars, average annual GNP growth was 2.7%. During the 20 years of 3 Democratic administrations, average annual GNP growth was 4%, again measured in real dollars. So the Democrats were 50% more successful growing the economy during their terms, and did so without busting the budget every year.
Republicans who stand around today wringing their hands over the fact that our Treasury bonds are in the hands of foreign governments have only themselves to blame, in that the bulk of these bonds were issued to finance the fiscal irresponsibility of the 3 Republican presidents since 1980.
A headline crossed my desktop while I was working on this: “Federal Deficit Could Reach $800 Billion”. In this election year, the Democratic nominee must not allow John McCain to position himself as the business-friendly candidate, the guy for economic growth and fiscal discipline. That kind of thinking went out with Eisenhower
ass
TRANSLATION: It takes longer to read than a bumper sticker.
Or as Uber said, follow the link -- and shut the h*ll up.
{Although, I'm guessing you won't follow the link unless it leads to WND, Drudge, FNC, Rush, or Hannity . . .}
Unless you are prone to call those around you stupid for your failure to comprehend, that is.
I assume you'll be holding your hands over your ears, yelling, "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!! LALALALALALA!!!" any second now.
Prior to this past January, Repubs held the WH for 28 of the preceding 40 years -- kinda hard for Democrats to "do it much more" if they're not in office . . .
Gore actually shrunk the government, and Clinton balanced the budget. Things none of your conservative heroes managed to do, even while they were ranting about the fact that it wasn't being done (by themselves).
You keep making false statements regarding Democrats, so people are, legitimately, asking you how you felt about Bush, a Republican, doing the same things.
Seriously, though, wasn't your comment supposed to be an insult? The point of using the "comeback" line was that you didn't address what I said at all.
Gotta love how we're not allowed to bring up Bush -- yet, starkravingmad and other wingnuts would bring up Clinton at the drop of a hat whenever Bush was criticized . . .
You’ve obviously never listened to Glenn Beck. He was railing against all of those things under Bush.
And aren't you the same person who kept saying that our population numbers are what makes our health care system ranking so low? By that logic, how could we possibly have an effective school system, since we have so many more children in it than other countries do?
And Glenn is a practitioner of this totally off the wall religion.
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for religious freedom, please, practice as much as you want, and what you want, but I'm not sure how sane and rational people can read the Book of Mormon, and nod along in agreement.
That being said, I haven't known too many Mormon folks over the years, but the ones that I HAVE known have been really some of the nicest, if NOT the nicest folks I've ever met.
Unfailingly polite, and just nice.
When I was five, I was in Sunday School learning about the book of Genesis. The Nun went through the days and got to MAN on day 6. Now, I was into dinasaurs BIG TIME when I was a kid, and ALREADY KNEW that they exsisted (and went extinct) MILLIONS of years before man ever came along. So I pointed this out to her. ("Uh, sister? I think you forgot something there...") Now, I don't remeber exactly how she answered that question, but I do recall that her answer left me profoundily unsatisfied... and I was only five. Think about that: A PROFESSIONAL couldn't come up with an explanation that satisfied the reasoning ability of a FIVE YEAR OLD. I left KNOWING I was right, and the bible wrong, and I haven't even fully bought into any of it since.
Fact is, the preacher HAS TO control the whole presetnation, showing only the suff he wants you to see, at least until he's got you hooked, as every major religion in the world is filled with wierd and uneccessary stuff that you're asked to buy into for no other reason than - once you're willing to deny your own common sense and scientfic evidence: you'll believe (and do) anything.
I'll retract what I said somewhat, I was looking at bintx's post. Mjh did mention you. Still, you'd be better off responding to him than to "you people". That's generalizing, and goes beyond people who are insulting you or even talking to you.
Well, starckly, perhaps you should return to The FoxNation, Stormfront, Freeperville, etc. . .
That way, you'll be loved --- and what you call "being attacked from all angles" {but in reality is having your rightwing talking points being debunked} won't happen . . .
However, the other, more important reason is because my parents were interested in my learning (which, it so happened, I enjoyed.. teaching myself to read at 3) and I got additional education outside the schools.
Of course, the Catholic schools had breaks that public schools do not.. the ability to kick out disruptive students, as one example.
No child left behind.
Interstate system of highways.
Power grid.
Water companies.
Police.
Fire.
Schools.
Universities.
All of these things receive lots of federal funding, and if they didn't, most would probably fail to exist.
Local schools receive large amounts of federal funding, which is why No Child Left behind was enacted, to judge which schools will receive, federal funding.
Universities, especially public land grant institutions, receive large amounts of federal funding as well.
really? Or did you pull this fact out of your back-side.
Please make a note of it.
And please, enough with the civilian defense force crapola.
It's a very short goose-step from "homeland" to "fatherland."
Which of course, means that it's not true. He made a call for the nation to do service for their country, and this was one of the examples he used as a potential (as in, something that could be done) to help our country.
i guess that would be "everything" wouldn't it?
and as far as being an "extreme liberal" as you put it. Thanks for misusing the term liberal.
You'd better do some stretching because I am about to drop some knowledge you need to pick up
liberal
adjective
1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
- favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
- (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state.
- ( Liberal) of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
- Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2 [ attrib. ] (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
3 (esp. of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact : they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation.
4 given, used, or occurring in generous amounts : liberal amounts of wine had been consumed.
- (of a person) giving generously : Sam was too liberal with the wine.
The car companies are also trying to pay back their loans, never mind that only 2 of them too govt money (Chrysler and GM), Ford is out there on their own, as are many foreign transplants doing business and building cars in the US. Nobody is taking over anything.
Also, in the car and bank industry, nobody within the government is or has anything to do with day to day business of the companies that have received taxpayer money.
The civilian defense force does not exist, and won't exist.
Health care, nobody has taken over anything. There was or is an option for a public plan, but the vast majority of Americans are still going to be covered under private health insurers.
Care to cite some actual facts of these businesses coming under govt control, because as much as you "think" it's happening, it's not.
You don't know what you are talking about, so you just keep making stuff up. Quit while you're less behind.
Yet you continue to spout your ignorance unabated.
BTW, Bush wasn't evil, he was just incompetent and should never have held any type of public office. His history showed his incompetence.
Your comment does not "still hold." You have bought Beck's phony schtick hook, line and sinker. And he's laughing his backside off at you.
As for Obama . . . tell me how he is "ruining" this country?
As I said, you need to quit while you are less behind. You really have no clue what the devil you are talking about.
1) The Democrats did not "take over Congress" in 2006 . . . the new Congressmen were sworn in in 2007.
2) Having simple majorities do not equate to "control" of Congress. In order to get anything passed, both houses required support from Republicans AND from the President. Bush never exercised his power to veto until 2007. The Democrats did not have a veto proof majority.
3) Mr. Obama has been president for 7 months. It's kind of hard to turn around 8 years of inefficiency and government over spending in 7 months. BTW, if John McCain were president right now, the economic situation would be exactly the same.
Need more refutations?
You do need some classes on economics/finance/reality. You can't spend your way out of debt, but sometimes you have to spend your way out of a recession. (Full disclosure - I have a B.A. in finance.)
So you're saying we should all just cut back and spend less. Well, that was tried once. And it led to something widely known as the GREAT DEPRESSION.
In an economic decline, especially in a consumer driven economy like ours (remember, we don't produce much of anything anymore), when the people don't have any money to spend, the only entity that can spend it to jump start the economy is the GOVERNMENT.
Plus, they're forever saying, "you can't spend your way out of a recession" -- but, for some reason, think we CAN drill our way out of an oil shortage . . .
Let's assume for a moment you're not a troll. Do you understand how you might not come off very well here?
I'd say that he's ruined a nice chunk of it. The war memorial wedge is growing. And what was the reason again?
Wow, starkcr -- you must've been either asleep or in a coma from 2001-2008 . . .
Please. You can't be that stupid. You must be a troll.
And a very incompetent one, at that.
The clowns that were in office for the last 8 years wrecked virtually everything they touched.
Talking points aren't truth.
Add Economics 101 to your list of classes to take at the local community college.
Apparently he got his degrees at State of Confusion.
Ex. "The reports of house sales going down last month sent the Dow Jones down 200 points today."
Stocks took a nose dive before Obama claimed victory, so unless you think McCain was going to crap up the economy, Obama had nothing to do with the nosedive.
Still it may explain the downturn of late 2000-2001.
BTW, I'm a conservative voter from WAAAYYY back . . . to 1972, as a matter of fact. I am probably more conservative than you . . . . agreeing with Beck (or you????) doesn't make someone conservative and disagreeing doesn't make someone liberal.
~ John McCain, September 2008; after the Dow dropped 700 points one day after his giving a campaign speech declaring that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong!"
And the political club affiliation has nothing to do with it. As I said, you are one of those people who believes that anyone who disagrees with your false statements is a {{{{{{{shudder}}}}}}} liberal. Nope, you are just stating false information. I'm not defending Frank, I don't really give a rip about Frank, I just hate to see people post false talking points as truth.
Nothing you have said here today is truth, it's just something you heard on Fox.
(by starkcr31 (August 31, 2009 3:48 pm ET) 1 5
You didn't answer my question about why Frank lied about what was actually going on... )
HAHAHAHAHA.
Actually, there are in fact pdf files from the time in question. It was really FRANK who made the push to regulate mortgages, but he voted against his own bill when the republicans put poison pill amendment in it. The Republicans and Bush were opposed to any regulation of the mortgage markets of the from the get-go, and now, surprise surprise, they act as if they were in favor of regulation all along.
In 50 years, I believe it is a real possibility that Republicans will say that it was really the democrats who didn't want to take action on global warming. And there is also no doubt that there will be dittoheads like yourself who believe them.
You're digging that hole deeper with your canned talking points.
You really need to stop. You're looking silly.
Whether he had veto power or not,
It wasn't because Barney Frank didn't think it didn't need to happen.
That was in 2005. Fail again.
HOW'D THAT WORK OUT?
(Not too well for the Republicans for a start. And not too well for the rest of the country. But go ahead and sign their praises. I'm sure you've got some BS fairy-tale involving the CRA that you're just dying to tell us.)
Yeah -- unless you were protesting the Iraq War during the Dumbya misAdministration.
Then it was treason.
My, what a complete and total nutjob this guy is. Now, I will say, if the result of said election were actually in doubt, and there were some nefarious goings on during the election, then he might have a point.
But, since none of this actually happened, it's called democracy Glenn. Love it, or leave it.
To Glenn Beck and all the other traitorous swine on the right... YES. (Apparently.)
But if a revolution is indeed going on, as he claims, then why is he still talking? Why? Why?
Because Glen understands "The Buck" does not stop here, Obama's no Harry Truman.
Droping an Atomic Bomb on Women & Children will never happen on Obama's Watch.
With Obama we are stuck with "Peace on Earth & Good Will Towards all Men" What a Crock.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Also remember that nobody else had the Bomb in August of '45.
How do you know that Bad News above has never served his country? You don't. How do you know Bad News doesn't have sons or daughters serving now, or who have served, and or were killed in the service of their country? You don't. We don't.
We have had our right to speak given to us by the Constitution, and the willingness of some to defend it. Have you, through your own virtue served in the military? Defended the Constitution? If so, I salute you for your service, and thank you. And if you didn't, why do you criticize others who you don't know if they have or not?
coup d'etat: a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force
Yeah, Beck . . . go back to school. Your "self-education" needed a better teacher.
The difference is that there were no loud left-wing voices from the media and Dem politicians channeling that for a successful movement the way that conservatives are right now.
It is "they" who are coming to get you.
It is "they" who are coming to get your guns.
It is "they" who are destroying your country.
Who the hell is he talking about?
Does he ever say?
Based on what I heard the other day, I thought that it was a bunch of Americorps members who were conspiring to destroy America by tutoring kids, building houses and cleaning up communities, but I'm still not sure.
The black men led by the black man in the White House.
So... Do you like that?...
I never know what this guy thinks... He is constantly contadicting himself with in single 10 second statements...
I challange anyone in America to tell me one thing Glenn Beck has said that he has not contradicted at some point.
This group has literally infiltrated our entire network of newsmedia, government, schools, and even our private lives. Why even as I type now, a member of THEY watches my every move. Forget the Priory of Scion, and the Illuminati... the history of THEY goes as deep as cave paintings on walls.
I for one thank Glenn Beck for finally exposing the truth of 'THEY' and their direct connection to the White House. Perhaps when we have properly dealt with the rabble that is THEY, then we can focus on the smaller cells, THEM, THOSE, and the very secret and pervasive orginization THAT!
On a side note... has anyone ever thought to count the number of times Glenn uses the word 'they' in a single broadcast?
I couldn't listen to an entire Glenn Beck broadcast unless I was tied to a post and forced listen against my will.
I can't help but think that this is going to end ugly...
I second that. I rather be waterboarded!!!
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya to Vizzini
Back during the Tea Parties the same thing was done with a different phrase. "No taxation without representation." That was also redifined by Beck and others. The phase actually means that if you don't have a vote to an elected representative in government, then you shouldn't be taxed. But the tea party goers changed the meaning to: If you are conservative, and your representative is not also a conservative, then you are not being representative and therefore it is unfair to tax you.
Idiots.
Oh brother!
Next, he'll be claiming that our 3 branches of government are a triad of conspirators!
Beck is like a bowl of granola - fruit, nut and flake.
I'm not sure if Beck is smart enough to realize it or not, but it's pretty classic incitement to appeal to such thinking with constant repetition of the words, "they" and "them."
He hates democracy.
He hates the electorla process.
He hates the Constitution of this country.
He hates the principlas of freedom and liberty that we defend.
PERIOD.
He can no longer deny any of these things and still be able to say what has has.
Any reasonable review of the bile (words, graphics, video) puked up by this substance-damaged hate monger must arrive at the conclusion that Beck is a bigot.
And like so most bigots, he's a coward. He’s afraid to scream out: “Good God America! Don’t you realize we’ve elected a NI66ER as President?”
Go ahead Glenn, say it - you've come so close and we all know you really want to.
Mr Beck, look at Cuba, study it's economy, study the oppression, study its isolation... nobody with any sociological or economical sense would possibly want to "be like Cuba"; it wouldn't make business sense, economic sense or even militaristic sense. It just doesn't make sense!!!
Now, you said, "They think they -- and they -- they -- you know what? At this point, gang, I'm not sure, they may be able to because they are so far ahead of us. They know what they're dealing against; most of America does not yet."
Who are "they" Mr. Beck. Tell us who "they" are. Are "they" the people flying in black helicopters or are "they" the new world order, or maybe "they" are the ones who are hiding the aliens from Roswell; who the hell are "they"???? (and while you're at it tell us who "him" is)
Mr Beck, if our leadership was the thing you imagine it to be then your show wouldn't exist. Do you get that? Can you work that one out on your whiteboard?
Do none of you see how we are drifting away from the principles that allowed this country to make more progress in the last 233 years than any other country in the history of human civilization?
No, I don't "...see how we are drifting away from the principles..."
Perhaps you can enlighten us.
They are changing the inequities that gave rise to Teapot Dome, the Great Depression, the Texas banking scandals of the 60s, the S&L scandal of the 80s, and the credit-default-swap frauds of the last few years.
They are changing the way big Pharma and big Insurance have gouged the American public out of adequate health care.
They are changing the rules of the game so that kleptocrats and their cronies can no longer hold sway over our elected officials.
And those cronies will fight and are fighting tooth and nail to keep their hands on the controls.
I say good luck and God speed to the way our government is fundamentally changing America back to what it is supposed to be, as opposed to what it has been the last eight years: the personal playground of the elite few who viewed themselves as having a Manifest Destiny to impose a kleptocracy on the populace, for the benefit of the rich and powerful.
OK, I can't say that wingnuts think nothing happened. There was Saint Ronnie's terrestrial visit in the 80s.
Also amazing is the ranting of idiots like Bleck describing a legitimate election as a coup. Aren't the teabaggers the ones screaming about taking the country back, making up ridiculous stories about birth certificates and death panels in comically failed attempts to subvert the democratic process?
(My apologies to Jon Stewart for probably mangling what he said.)
A coup by its' definition means BLOODY, VIOLENT UPRISING. Use another word, rather than a scary one.
You mean things like getting rid of slavery, giving women the right to vote, civil rights, etc.?
Well Mag -- its not like the country was going to remain the EXACT same as it in 1789, 1863, 1929, 1941, or 1955 anyway.
If the country changes, the gov't better change with it . . .
Let me get this straight. A "coup" is actually another name for the democratic process by which bills are introducted into the democratic institutions of this country by our democratically elected representatives, which are then debated and voted upon by our democratically elected representatives.
"Do none of you see how we are drifting away from the principles that allowed this country to make more progress in the last 233 years than any other country in the history of human civilization? "
So what you are saying in this post is that democracy is really a coup that is democtatically changing this country from the democracy it was (that included slavery by the way) to a new terrifying......democracy. Phew, I an so glad your cleared that up.
Now what he wants is an election in the guise of a coup.
Randy
Now there is coup.
I thought that Limbaugh and Beck and Hanity were fairly close for the most idiotic rants on the airwaves. I think Beck has surpassed the other two with this one.
Shouldn't advertisers bail on this one also?
And thank you one and all who made mention of the um, "handling" of the 2000 elections, and 2004....go Diebold!
Get a clue, Glenn. Your craziness is showing.
Glen Beck works by another set of rules. He is well paid to spew words with no meaning whatsoever.
I can't even disagree with him without bringing myself down to his level.
Fox News and its sponsors have set aside all responsibility by deciding to give this guy a platform.
The best thing to do is just laugh in his face. The small percentage of people who believe what he says is true, well, the stupid and ignorant ye shall always have with you, but hopefully, we won't forever have Glenn Beck.
Although Gore had won the popular vote, Bush had won the electoral vote, and with an independent commission reviewing the recount, Bush would have won in most counts, with only Gore winning in the most generous of situations. Unfortunately there was a circus that surrounded the event.
I believe that America has changed since the creation of the constitution, and the nation is capable to conduct a popular vote without the use of the electoral college. Bush winning the election may not seem right in modern elections, but it is how our system works, and would require change (which I assume that if the Obama administration were to consider it, Beck would come out saying it is the liberals trying to increasingly marginalize the Republicans).
As for Beck, he discusses a "coup" and "revolution". I have heard people at work discussing the inevitability of a revolution, and some of them believe this revolution will be violent, and so they are buying guns and ammunition.
He believes that the coup is occurring from within, through the election process, and that these people are undermining our government. The problem with this is where does it stop. When does the right stop calling communists communists, or socialists socialists? Where is the line that separates communists from socialists? The rhetoric coming from these conservative commentators suggests there is no line, and to try and destroy our system through lies seems more dangerous.
If you try to limit one group's freedoms based on the fact that you disagree with their political beliefs, where does it stop?
On the entry under Florida's 2000 election, it outlines in a table what methods of recount would have resulted, including the one preferred by Gore, which would have led to a Bush victory. Other varying standards had Bush ahead, while certain other ones had Gore ahead, but with the majority placing Bush as the winner.
The official final count which included Volusia and Broward recounts had Bush ahead by 537.