Beck says Obama can be considered a socialist, because Marxism and progressivism are "the same thing"
January 26, 2010 11:40 am ET
From the January 26 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
HEYO!
You can write sentences like this OR accuse other people of being poorly educated. Not both.
Try thinking for yourself. Read the Quaran, the Wealth of Nations, Das Capital for yourself.
Capitalism is actually a form of Socialism
Also, this guy places democracy on the left end and monarchy on the right? It's probably safer to switch those around and place democracy somewhere near the center and monarchy (closer to totalitarianism on the left).
Totalitarianism is on the left end. Anarchy is on the right end. That is the basic two dimensional political spectrum.
Well, you've been caught drooling over St. Ronnie several times. That helped.
I can't name one left-wing authoritarians. Can you?
Progressives believe in the power of the state to provide for the citizens. Conservatives believe in the power of the citizens to provide for themselves.
You obviously need to look up the word authoritarian. From what I remember, part of it means following a leader who is perceived as being strong, regardless of facts/reality, like the nutjobs gladly followed Bush & Co. off the cliff chanting USA!! USA!!.
Seriously, read Dean's book. You'll learn alot about the term "authoritarian".
Totalitarianism - Is the control of a single political organization, faction, or class domination, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. It can be a control from the left political spectrum and right political spectrum.
Anarchy - A total abolishment of state. A belief in individual freedom. It can be on a right or left spectrum.
Monarchy is actually a very conservative/reactionary form of government.
My mind. Blown.
If a communist society (though a democratic process) decided teachers should earn three times as much as anyone else, that would still be communism.
Marx created the term communisim. He can define it as he wants.
However, I disagree that communism would be no government, but rather a pure democracy. And no, none of the pure systems are functional.
Anarchy simply does not enter into a discussion of governmental and economic systems.
Well, he also round up homosexuals, communists, despised organized labor, was anti-abortion, supported vast growth of military and unilateral action invading countries. Anti-immigration as well.
Is this another underground theme park you're trying to punk your unsuspecting audience with, Beck? Seriously? If so, this one is much, much more dangerous and not even CLOSE to being as hilarious like you thought that one was.
Cheers!
Cheers!
The new Administration recently requested 708 (708!) billion dollars next year for war and empire. The welfare-warfare state proceeds apace. Who are we at war with anyway? Is it now Eastasia or Eurasia? - - I forget.
Your 1984 analogy is false.
Endless war is wholly owned by the neo-cons. The endless war against "terror" (insert Eastasia or Eurasia).
Spying on citizens was initiated by the neo-cons. (Yes, I'm unhappy Obama hasn't completely eliminated this)
Guantanamo will be closed... When? Already been pushed back a year. Our empire is going to eventually end because the welfare-warfare state has bankrupted us.
Spying on citizens by the federal government has been happening for a long time. It was increased during the Bush years. Obama has done nothing to address this and most members of his party give him a pass. You are willing to give this administration a pass because they are your guys. This is why it is so dangerous to think in terms of political parties. I would advocate you think outside of those artificial categories. Why not think in terms of principles and ideas instead?
Wrong. Very few here, at least, give Obama a pass on anything.
Wilson a neocon? That's revisionist history at its best.
It might help to understand our Founder's reasoning by knowing that the first line of the Constitution, We the People, was originally proposed to be We the States. The central government was a creation of the sovereign states. The 18th century meaning of the very word congress meant a gathering of countries. This is exactly how the states viewed themselves. They were willing to give up some of their powers to a central government for reasons of security and increased commerce, but they were especially wary of creating an all powerful central government.
The Framers of the Constitution create a central government that was powerful but within a very limited sphere. Most of the laws were intended to come from state and local governments. The Founders gave us a central government that was part federated/part national; they did not give us a national government. They feared a consolidated central government. They had just suffered at the hands of just such a system under the British, and they didn't want to repeat the experience at their very own hands.
The Founders created a system that was democratic, but not too democratic. Some of them referred to direct democracy as mob rule. After all, you can't have 5 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what they will have for dinner. They gave us a federated constitutional republic instead. It was representative, but it was never intended to be direct democracy. The executive was to be elected by the electoral college system -- not by direct vote. The U.S. Senators were to be elected by state legislators (who were chosen directly by the people). The Senators were there to protect the interests of the States. The Founders reasoned that state legislators would be generally more knowledgeable about current affairs (and less likely to be fooled by the promises of politicians), and would subsequently choose more wisely than the people frequently. The Senate was to be a break on a sometimes ill-informed public. Members of the House of Representatives were to be directly appointed by the people, and was subsequently called the People's House.
Always remember that the Founders viewed the Senators as ambassadors (their language) from the states to the federal government. If a Senator were to vote upon a piece of federal legislation that transferred state or local power to the central government, then he faced the strong possibility of being recalled by his state legislature. This actually happened many times. If a Senator were to vote upon a piece of legislation that members of his state legislature considered unconstitutional, then he would face being removed here as well. This all served to check the central government's lust for power.
This ingenious system served to keep the voracious appetite of the central state at bay for well over a century. That all changed with the enactment of the 17th Amendment. No longer would the states have the safeguard that they had under the old senatorial election system.
The direct election of Senators has not served the interests of the States or the people; it has served the interests of the central government. U.S. Senators now have every reason to vote to expand the federal government at the expense of state and local governments. The increased concentration of power only can benefit the Senator under the new system. We have created a system that encourages Senators to do the majority of their fundraising outside of the states that they allegedly represent. And we wonder why no one seems to be able to check the central government.
Most Americans are completely unaware as to the intent of the design of the Founders. Most of them don't comprehend the nature of the system that they live under -- they just know that something is wrong. Our public schools have failed us in regard to the intent of the Original Constitution(intentionally?).
The Progressives who advocated the 17th Amendment promised that it would be more democratic and lead to less corruption than under the old system (just like they promised that the federal income tax would only be applied to the top 1 percent). The old system had corruption, but it has increased exponentially since the direct election of Senators. Our Founders created a system that was constructed in such a way as to prevent the very system of government we now have; a heavily centralized national government that crushes everything in its path.
By the way raddave, you mentioned that Adams advocated a heavily centralized national government. That is true, but Hamilton was the great champion of this cause. Hamilton proposed this very system (a carbon-copy of the British mercantalist system that he called the American System) at the Constitutional Convention, but his ideas were rejected by the others. Hamilton once referred to the Constitution as a "frail and worthless fabric." The Constitution gave the central government more power than the old Articles of Confederation, so he took what he could get at the time. He and the Federalist Party proceeded to use the federal court system to achieve what he and his allies couldn't achieve at the Convention. The federal courts have been used as shock troops ever since by advocates of increased concentration of governmental power at the federal level.
Cheers!
It is where the people who care live.
States are not sovereign, this is not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere. That is one of the major differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Also, when the 10th ammendment was ratified the word "expressly" was dropped, which gives Congress a lot of implied powers under article 1, section 8.
Even with a popular vote for the Senate, we do not have a direct democracy but a representative one. It is in my opinion that if the state decides who represents them and not the people, you are setting up a "ruling class" and to imply that State legislators would be more knowledgeable and would choose more wisely than the people is to sound elitist and arrogant, one of the claims against the government today. I have never read anywhere where the founders viewed Senators as Ambassadors from the state to the federal govt.
You argument about a state recalling a Senator if he voted against the state's wishes or interests is flawed. The Constitution states that a Senator's term is for six years and only the Senate can expel a member.
I do not feel that giving the people the right to choose who represents them in the Senate gives the federal government anymore power than it had before. It does however give more power to the people of the states.
The only reason the public schools have "failed" us in regard to anything is that the ultra conservatives have seen to it that the schools are never funded properly enough and not supported enough so they can claim that the public school system is a failure and so it must be dimantled.
Anyway your point is moot because the 17th Ammendment was ratified as is now part of the U.S. Constitution, the same with any argument you have with income tax, it is not in the Constitution that Congress expressly has the authority to tax income. So the states gave these powers to the federal government using the process intended by the constitution.
cheers!
Ergo, the LOL.
You've already disrupted this thread with your long post about the founders. Marxism did not exist at that time. Therefore, you've attempted to derail this thread.
raddave wrote that he'd like to discuss this away from this board because he was didn't want to derail a thread that you already derailed.
That's the joke.
My doubleplus bad.
BTW, if you want to pretend to be an "intellectual," you need to learn the meaning and usage of the word. Very telling.
When's the last time you had an intelligent conversation binxt. You come to this site to get affirmation for your belief system(insecurity?). If you encounter anyone here that deviates from the received orthodoxy, then you resort to name-calling. You don't actually attempt to have an intelligent discussion. Very telling.
The militia's that popped up in the 90's loved this one. They stocked extra ammunition over this one. Nutjobs.
Historians respond to Jonah Goldberg's "liberal fascism"
Make sure you take the time to check out the essays from several historians (and one researcher with a left-wing background) that Dave Neiwert organized for the History News Network that were posted today.
Academic historians, in fact, have tended to shy away from tackling Goldberg's book, precisely because it is such an obvious work of propagandistic polemics, and his methodology so shabby, that they haven't considered the work (such as it is) contained therein to be worthy of academic consideration.
But because Goldberg's fraudulent thesis has now become conventional wisdom on the American Right -- and particularly among the Tea Party set, where signs equating liberals to fascists and Obama to Hitler have become commonplace -- many historians, especially those who have specialized in the serious study of fascism, have come to the realization that calling out Goldberg for his fraud is long overdue.
To that end, I began organizing last fall a series of essays from academic historians and political scientists critiquing Liberal Fascism. The essays are now ready, and this Monday, Jan. 25, they will be presented at History News Network.
In addition to my introductory essay, there will be essays by four widely acknowledged experts on fascism:
-- Robert O. Paxton, professor emeritus at Columbia University and the author of The Anatomy of Fascism.
-- Roger Griffin, professor of political science at Oxford Brookes and the author of The Nature of Fascism.
-- Matthew Feldman, professor of history at University of Northampton, and a co-editor of several academic texts on fascism.
-- Chip Berlet, senior researcher at Political Research Associates and the co-author (with Matthew Lyons) of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort.
Google the 'history news network link, it's worth the read, really!!
Fixed.
I think you want to put me into a box because that is the ground on which you are comfortable debating(fighting?). You already have your ready-made put downs or comebacks for anything that an establishment Republican might throw at you. I challenge you in ways that you aren't used to. It throws you off - - so you seek to label me as Republican to get back on more comfortable ground.
cheers!
Did you vote McCain/Palin?
Just curious . .
(*see also: elites, commies, fascists, socialists, and environmental wackos. Fill in where needed)
Beck keeps ramblin' 'bout
Socialism, communism, fascism, Marxism, this-ism, that-ism, alcoholism.
All we are saying,
Is take five minutes to look these concepts the f___k up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIOnSJ87214
Marxism - Is a form of Anarchy. Beck is a fool and a misguided corporate tool!
Nuff said!