Beck: We "have a president who surrounded himself with Mao supporters"
March 10, 2010 6:18 pm ET
From the March 10 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
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.
Cue the google.
Which Marx's Brother was he?
Whatever it is you enjoy spreading, it sure as heck isn't wealth.
Obama said he wanted to spread teh wealth - this is a tenet of Marxism. His mentor was Frank Marshall Davis - a known Communist. Why can't you just admit your hero is a Marxist?
Please explain to us your statement that "the United States entered World War II against Germany to shut down the Concentration Camps." It's been more than two weeks now.
Stop running. Stop ignoring the request. Defend your baseless take on history. Otherwise, seriously, shut the f-- up and stop pretending that you know anything about anything.
I didn't point out any typos, and you know it. I pointed out something you wrote, and will not back up or even acknowledge. And everyone on this thread can see that.
"Neither of you has come close to laying a glove on me." Uh huh. What a clueless moron you are.
Try reading a textbook. Do I have to prove to you that we landed in Normandy on 6/6/44? I wasn't there, but I know it was a fact. What is there to prove - the statement speaks for itself. I guess you didn't study US history. If you are this dimwitted I can't help you.
"Try reading a textbook." Give me the title of the one that points out this "fact."
"What is there to prove- the statement speaks for itself." Yep, it sure does.
BA Political Science, Catholic University.
MA History, University of Maryland.
Teacher of History since 1995.
You, sir, are full of crap. And you know it.
MA Economics, London School of Economics
PhD Internattinal Political Economy, LSE
Visiting Lecturer, NYU Stern, Monetary Policy
I win!
And I doubt anyone will stop laughing long enough to notice that you misspelled "international." The rest of your BS "resume" is funny enough.
I don't believe you went to college period - so we are equal is questioning the authenticity of one another's CVs
Did you mean: communist manifestation
It enocourages me when you troglodytes point out typos. It confirms that you can't touch me on substnace.
Well, since you have no substance.....
Sorry, you are the ignorant one, but then everyone here knows that. The fact that you compared yourself to seahawks is very telling BJ. I think I'm going to have to lower my estimation of your IQ to dull normal.
TYPO! TYPO! TYPO!
Let me help, it's called a typo. in typing manifestation of, I got ahead of myself and double typed an O - happy?
It enocourages me when you troglodytes point out typos. It confirms that you can't touch me on substnace.
You don't know what Marxism is any more than Beck does. Look it up.
I'm not a member of any political club, so I can't be a RINO or a DINO. I don't believe in 'em. They are not provided for in the Constitution and I think they are destructive to the country . . . so did James Madison.
As for your bizarre and incorrect definition of Marxism . . . keep trying . . . LOOK THESE THINGS UP.
Before you tell someone that they don't know what a "neo-conservative" is, you should do your own research. Talking points of the nature that you post here are almost always BS.
My suggestions for your research would include Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, neo-conservatism, the Straussians . . . that should get you started.
Your willingness to display your blatant ignorance is upsetting to me and seeing a fellow human being willfully debasing himself like you are doing hurts me deep inside and makes me cringe on your behalf.
I feel for you, buddy, so please follow others' suggestions and do some research into the meaning of the word before you open your mouth to change feet again.
HTH, comrade
You have much more empathy than I do, sodium -- for I find seahags' willingness to display its blatant ignorance absolutely HILARIOUS . . .
And don't forget his left hand, which counts for his five best friends.
You also don't have the slightest clue what a neo-conservative is. News flash, John Bolton is not Jewish. Neither is Cheney or Rummy. None of the aforementioned has ever been a Democrat either. By definition they can not be a neo-conservative.
You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. You have no original thoughts. You are a parrot - you repeat talking points. You are completely ignorant of economics, history, political ideologies, and numerous other subjects.
Are you a moronic troll?
You sound like one.
Thanks for exposing your ignorance for all the world to see.
Neo-conservatism is a PHILOSOPHY, you idiot. Just because Irving Kristol and many of the original adherents were Jewish doesn't mean that being a Jew is a requirement for believing it. WOW, you really, really, REALLY are a joke!
[BTW, the anti-Semitic accusation with regard to neo-conservatism . . . it's a talking point. You FAIL, once again.]
C]reate a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.
Oh, and he also wanted to redistribute land ownership:
It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal.
For a hilarious look at seaslug's confusion about the haves and have-nots, see this thread, wherein our inebriated student of Carrol Marks rallies to the defense of Glenn Beck, as Beck whines that seahawks doesn't pay any taxes, and seahawks agrees with beck because he thinks he pays too much in taxes.
It's a real mind-bender.
Tells you all you need to know about BJ fan's brand of Christianity, doesn't it?
BTW, major Christian groups are coming out in protest of your hero's stupid comments regarding leaving churches where social justice is taught. That's what Christ taught . . . to teach otherwise would be sacrilege.
Once again, you've shown your lack of intelligence.
"Social justice' is a construct of Marxist liberation theology. Christ NEVER espoused it (now I know you are not a Christian).
Christ preached fealty and obedience to his Father. St. Josemaria taught us that the concept of social justice was an attempt by the Communists to undermine the Church.
The Republicans in the Spanish Civil War (I hate those Republicans) tried to bastardize and corrupt the Church because it was a source of strength for the Falange and the Carlists. It was the benefactor of the Republicans - Stalin - who wanted to erode the power of the Church, he tried to put man above God by injecting the cancer into the CHurch.
You should study the writings of St. Josemaria - they inspired and sustained the Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War (was was a de facto religious war).
Socaial justice is a Marxist code word - it should be taught only in teh concept of guiding people to reject it.
You are the one who seems to have a problem with economics, history, religion, philosophy and political ideology.
BHO was waterboarding compromises our values - it does not compromise mine at all. Not waterboarding terrorists is risky and we can't afford to take that chance. There is nothing for us to lose by waterboarding, but everything to lose by not waterboarding.
Torquemada taught people to think of waterboarding as a sort of rebaptism. Obviously waterboarding and Christianity are not inconsistent. Waterbaording has been used to defend Christianity.
If you are going to uphold the Inquisition as a Christian ideal, then you do not understand Christianity or the teachings of Christ at all. Spain's status as a 'Christian nation', whatever that means, is completely irrelevant. Teaching waterboarding as a form of baptism is also no more relevant than teaching crucifixion as a form of carpentry. Both are torture. Both are wrong. Past use does not justify current practice. There is more biblical support for slavery than there is for torture.
The Pope defines what Christianity is.
After 11 3/4 years in Catholic Schools (moved during one year and had to finish out in public school), I can say unreservedly that BJF is not a legitimate Catholic.
"Exigit sinceræ devotionis" This was a Papal Bull signed by His Holiness Pope Sixtus IV on November 1, 1478. This Bull has never been rescinded, ergo it remains Canon Law to this day.
This explicitly authorized Fernanand and Isabella to conduct an Inqusition. Under the aegis of this canonical authority, they appointed Tomas de Torquemada the Holy Office of Grand Inquisitor.
Your comments about the doctrine of ex cathedra are correct, however this dogma was only proclaimed in during the First Vatican Ecumenical Council in 1854.
Prior to 1854, Pope's governed by Papal Bull. These were edicts which carried force majure under Canon Law.
I repeat that Pope Sixtus IV directly authorized the Inquisition, including waterboarding. The Catholic Church was pro-waterboarding in 1478 and Pope Benedict would rescind "Exigit sinceræ devotionis" if he opposed waterboarding. He could do this tomorrow.
Since he hasn't, waterboarding is the impramatur of the Catholic Church.
Still think I'm not a Catholic or didn't major in history?
If anyone actually reads it, I would be happy to debate it with you. However, if you aren't going to read it, I'm not interested in your comments as they will be based on ignorance.
Congratulations, the innert00bz are full of morans.
But you, seahawks123, have to be one of the most proudly ignorant posters I have ever seen.
~
Rush Limbaugh was criticized today for his "joke" about Behar, and you said pretty much the same thing:
OK, seahags -- I'll keep that in mind the next time you or one of your fellow wingnuts brings up Sen. Byrd's KKK association . . .
<snark>
You are dishonest.
Just figuring this out now? You must be new here.
Mother Teresa was not strictly speaking a philosopher - she was a humanitarian. Did you see the tape? It doesn't seem so.
Do you really think she is the only one in teh BHO administration who loves Mao? You are naive if you believe so.
Wow, must suck to be you.
What Mao-like policies is the administration pushing?
He was also a dictator, a murderer, and a paedophile.
"What Mao-like policies is the administration pushing? "
Redistribution of wealth.
$700 Billion CASH found in Baghdad, Iraq
Hey, Glenn...Eric Massa on line one. ;>)
Beck: (in foreign accent) No Beck here. Ees wrong number.
Reagan effectively installed a revolving door at the White House through which key advisers passed on their way to lucrative jobs as lobbyists--and subsequent indictments for influence peddling.
How quickly we forget Saint Ronnie.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/editors
Yes, you are being an ass for saying that -- especially since, it isn't true . . .
As far as whom President Obama has as advisers and staff, he did the same thing that all of the other presidents have done. He chose the people he wanted for those jobs. Right-wingers said nothing about GWB's choices, so STFU. Right-wingers all of a sudden want new rules for President Obama for everything, and what have their efforts brought them? The lowest poll ratings among the president, the democrats, and republicans. So, the only conclusion a right-winger can draw from these poll results is that, "We're winning!" The president has higher ratings than either political party. The sh!t you all are selling about President Obama, the American public isn't buying, but keep on deluding yourselves.
Try researching some of this BS before you post it.
Anyone has an absolute right to be a Communist, and I have an absolute right to oppose their ideas and attempt to defeat them when they run for office.
Chasing underage boys and doing cocaine is unambiguously against the law. Torture is a grey area. If it is done for purposes of the personal entertainment of the torturer, it is wrong and immoral. If it is done to protect national security, it is perfectly acceptable.
The only name that springs immediately to my mind is Van Jones, who at one time did espouse communist beliefs, but no longer does.
Torture? Not a grey area. According to international law, international treaty, and the laws of America, it is as illegal as cocaine and pedophilia. The ends can never justify the means, Bobby Jindal fan. Basic axiom of civilization.
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
And signifying nothing.
Macbeth Act v Scene 5
Glen Beck is the embodiment of a non sequiter. His rants defy any thought process known to humanity. I have a nagging feeling that watching him in action is a spectator sport akin to visiting Bedlam in a bygone era.
When I was a kid, my parents told me that you are known by the company you keep. Barry certainly keeps some interesting company. I can only logically conclude that Barry agrees with these loons. He is one of these loons.
You know, BJ, simply saying something over and over and over and over, doesn't make it true.
You tried this with the "many experts in forensic grammar have determined that Ayers wrote Obama's book". That was a bunch of garbage you pulled out of your butt. Completely and totally made up. You just thought, "y'know, maybe if I just SAY this over and over, I can make it be true!"
Unfortunately, that doesn't work. At least not with anyone who has half a brain. If you wanna go find some right-wing sight where you can sit with your buddies and nod at how smart you all are while you repeat false talking points, your delusion that SAYING it makes it true, might serve you better.
Please, please, please, let it be soon!
I don't mind having a rational disagreement with someone. Take somebody like Juan Williams for instance. I definitely don't always agree with him, but I respect him because he's clearly so rational and level-headed. He actually thinks about things and really evaluates the facts in order to establish an opinion.
People like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and BJ are completely at the mercy of their emotions, and so they'll believe anything, without question, as long as it appeals to the emotions they are feeling.
Like, "Oh, you say Bill Ayers wrote Obama's book? I like the way that sounds! Oh, you say Anita Dunn worships Mao? Well that certainly validates my feelings. I'm on board!"
First I am parotting talking points - now I am pulling things out of my butt. There seems to be an inconsistency here. I can't be doing both - which is it? Am I repeating talking points of fabricating thigns out of whole cloth? The two are mutually exclusive.
Are you claiming that Frank Marshall Davis was not subpoenaed by HUAC? Are you claiming that Davis was not an influential childhood mentor of Barry?
Here is Frank Marshall Davis' FBI file:
http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Frank_Marshall_Davis_5.pdf
Are you denying he was a Communist? Barry admitted Davis was his mentor. What did I say that was untrue?