Beck the isolationist: "We are going to be Switzerland. That is what our founders wanted us to be"
March 12, 2010 12:19 pm ET
From the March 12 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.
Fair is fair, though. He's finally said something I can agree with. A huge amount of the money we spend on "defense" would be better spent at home, on education and infrastructure. However, just try cutting funding for any military programs, even ones that have been proven to be boondoggles, or try to close bases anywhere, and listen to the howls from lobbyists, senators and congresspeople.
The ODD thing is that we get only one commenter from the Right side of the fence at a time!
Today , there was Magcynic... then K1Dork jumped in .
I sometimes fell it is like a tag team match
or a Kung Fu fight!
K1dork is at his best today, very good talking point all with hard core flax!
I dunno, I'm not following this metaphor.
Don't forget the Lindt truffles!
Yum!
What about illegal immigrants? Should our tax money pay for their healthcare? Should we bill their country of origin if we treat them?
Okay?
My problem is with the people who just want somebody else to be taxed.
For someone making $150,000, the $15,000 represented by that same 10% tax is likely the difference between a nice house, and a really nice house in a better neighborhood.
The only way for it to actually be 'fair', is to recognize that the millionaire can afford to pay more annually than minimum wage worker, as a percentage of gross annual income. Simple enough.
Who has a greater stake in the survival of American Democracy? A guy making $300,000 per year who lives in a $2 million dollar house and sends his kids to private school, or a guy making $30,000 a year who lives in a crowded basement apartment with his wife and kids, who attend a crumbling, roach-infested inner city public school with overcrowded classrooms and badly-paid teachers? I mean, come on.
I'm a big fan of the 10x tax system. It's of my own devising, and so far as I know, nobody else has ever taken it up. Here's the basic idea: If you are the president of a company, all of your pay that exceeds 10 times the amount your lowest paid worker receives is taxed at 90%. Got it? So, if your lowest paid worker makes $25,000 a year ($12.50/hour), then everything after $250,000 is taxed at 90%. That applies to pay, stocks, dividends, any benefits the company provides such as housing or travel. Very simple. So, executive pay would fall, wages would be more nearly even across the board, the dollar would be worth more, and the average Americans, who are the ones that make the economy actually go, will see their standard of living go up. All because executives stopped making 400 times more than the people who made their company possible. I admit that this is a somewhat radical tax system, and will never be adopted. But, it nicely serves to help point out the unnecessarily wide gap between the haves and the have-nots in this country.
I think that the top tax rates under Reagan before the tax cut- around 60%-70%, I believe, were very reasonable. Clinton's tax increase in 1994 rescued the economy and balanced the budget. Bush's tax cuts butchered it. A "flat tax" would overburden the middle class and allow the people who can afford the most in taxes- and who benefit the most from society- to coast.
A progressive tax rate is the right way to go, as in, you earn more money, and probably get more from the country that you live in, then you might have to pay a little more (and the rich in the US aren't paying as much as you'd think due to loopholes, and so on - such as a story told by Warren Buffet that he paid less in taxes, as a percentage of his income, than his admin assistant did).
That's because you are an idiot. Or you simply don't care that 20% (for example) of the income of someone making $30,000 a year is a huge loss, while 20% of the income of someone making $3,000,000 per year has no effect on the ability to survive at all. Why that's such a difficult concept for you flat-taxers to get is really hard to understand. I can only guess that you understand perfectly, you simply DON'T CARE.
So a tax on the rich should impact their ability to survive?
He has nothing but talking points and lies.
Guess who said this?
George W. Bush.
It's been a right wing talking point for years.
Soze was suggesting that my comment was different than the right wing talking point. It's like you people can't even comprehend people who have their own ideas about things.
You posted a very old talking point which is false, soze called you on it, you said soze was wrong and then threw in your usual partisan pout nonsense.
I addressed what you said.
I know reading comprehension is difficult, but you should give it a try.
Health care?
Job?
House?
A place in the middle class?
Car?
A check from the government every month?
Any others?
Step Two- Read the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.
I don't see the right to a publicly-financed education anywhere in the Constitution, either. POINT PLEASE?
While we're on that subject, I'm just wondering . . . how many more of our rights that ARE in the constitution do we have to give up while we're at war with the turrists, so others {Iraqis, Afghanistanis, etc.} can be free?
Torture?
Extraordinary rendition?
Habeas Corpus?
Warrantless wiretapping?
Speaking out against the [GOP] president?
Any others?
Also, since we're talking about rights in the Constitution, tell us where it says we have the right to personally own a firearm. It doesn't.
The Constitution lays out the foundation for what we base our laws on. We make laws according to that framework, not specifically what is within the document as a whole, because if we did that, there are a lot of things that could then be considered "constitutional" and yet, which are highly illegal. Such as...
Tell me where in the Constitution it states we can't use drugs like cocaine, or heroin.
Tell me where in the Constitution it states that gay people can't get married.
Tell me where in the Constition it states that murder is illegal?
We could do this all day.
An education!
You obviously have no clue who uses the emergency room and why they use it. I recommend asking a couple doctors or nurses. Or maybe use the google.
Actually I don't think that tax dollars pay for emergency room treatment for indigent citizens or immigrants. The hospitals absorb the costs and add it into the cost of all other hospital procedures and other billable expenses, which drives up healthcare costs for everyone, including insurance companies who pay for it. That in turn drives up premiums for all insured. So every consumer of health care ends up paying for uninsured patients who turn to their only alternative, i.e., emergency rooms.
How about it, k1dork?
Plus, I think it's ironic that you defend Islam, the tentes of which go against your "progressive" ideolgies probably even more than conservative Christians in America.
You just contradicted yourself. You claim you're only going after radicals or extremists, and yet you refer to a monolithic "Islam" that I'm remiss in defending. You're explicitly saying that all Muslims hold antiquated, arch-conservative beliefs, which is no more true than the same assertion about Christians.
If you think I'm lying, DO LIKE I DID and ask some Muslims what they think about "progressive" issues like gay marriage and abortion.
I do feel wierd some times that my life experiences seem so strange to people. I think it's sad that the fact that I have been exposed to many diffferent types of people is so strange to people, but I can understand it given our history in this country.
Learn English.
The term is "couldn't care less."
For an English major, you sure don't know proper word usage, do you?
He's classified as a sex offender.
. We get MANY Muslims coming out of prison through here.
Two questions for you:
1. How many is MANY ?
2.the Muslims that come through you,
are they prisons coverts or born and raised Muslim?
"Many" is up for debate. We've had a few come through in the last few years, but they are definately a minority.
This is America. If I am to be free to pursue my faith, and my view of Biblical morality, I must also allow the Muslim to refrain from alcohol and pork, the atheist to believe there is no God, etc., etc. Muslims may practice whatever they believe, so long as they harm no other, and do not disturb the peace of our society, and so long as they do not try to force their beliefs on others.
You don't know anything. Yet you keep typing. Proving that brains are not required for typing. Well, at least you provided today's science lesson.
I do not agree that we are guilty of this, but if you do, fine.
1. Throughout the 19th century, the United States systematically used deception and force to steal millions of acres of land from the Native Americans, first East of the Mississippi, then West.
2. In the same century, the US forged "relationships" with every nation from Mexico to Cape Horn (except the ones already under the thumb of England or France) propping up friendly governments in order to promote the spread of American business interests in Central and South America
3. Near the end of the century, the US Government seized control of the Hawaiian Islands in behest of sugar interests.
4. After the Spanish-American War, the US established an American-lead government in the Philippines and hunted down and killed thousands of Filipino "rebels." The US also imposed trade and other economic restrictions on the "Independent" island of Cuba and other Caribbean islands, enforcing these restrictions with marines in repeated invasions between 1900 and 1930. The US also joined European nations in crushing the Boxer Rebellion against foreign influence in China and in enforcing the "Open Door" to China, leaving that population at the mercy of US and European commercial interests. Most of the nation of Mexico was carved up by US businesses from cattle to coal and oil, and it's dictatorial govt propped up by those businesses, with the approval of our government.
5. After World War II, the US blocked the promised "unifying" elections in South Vietnam, instead propping up one brutal (but Anti-Communist) dictatorship after another in that nation until the end of the Vietnam War.
6. The US- through the CIA- overthrew elected governments in nations from South America to the Middle East, and in Africa as well. Until forced by popular opinion to shift it's strategy, the US supported the Apartheid govt of South Africa in order to maintain access to it's diamonds- and to support it's anti-Communist government.
I could go on and on, but here's the point: History isn't about what you "believe." It's about the facts. They don't change because you don't want to face them. They are unpleasant, but they are no less true because you plug your ears and stick your head in the sand.
--k1dork
This is why people give up trying to discuss things with you. You said that you don't "believe" that the US is an Imperialist nation. I gave you evidence that it is, and always has been. You respond with "the FACT is that the US invented NONE of these things...," which I never claimed.
In short, having been shown evidence of the shortcomings of your "beliefs," you chose to change the subject.
That is not the behavior of someone who wants an honest discussion. It's the behavior of someone who is pathologically dishonest and incapable of admitting error.
"You act is if the US is solely guilty of such things." I don't know how I "act" that way- all I did was respond to your assertion. I didn't claim that the US invented Imperialism, or was the only Imperialist nation, and you know it. You are just dishonest and almost frighteningly incapable of accepting the fact that you make misstatements.
Do you think America today desrves such a label?
As well, nowhere in his post does he claim that the United States invented imperialistic behaviors. Where are you getting that from? Or is it your seemingly inbred characteristic to accuse others of something, anything, when they're demonstrating that you're incorrect with what you're writing?
Furthermore, is claiming that the U.S. is not the sole adherent to imperialism somehow meant to justify such actions? That it's okay for a nation to commit such actions because they're not the first or only one to do so? Are you personal morals like this as well? It's okay to kill and rape and steal because you wouldn't be the inventor or such things, nor the first to do it?
Again- there's just no point in arguing with this clown. When you prove him wrong, he just tweaks the subject. Prove him wrong again, he tweaks it again. In another thirty minutes, he'll be telling us that what he MEANT was, he doesn't believe that the United States is made out of Imperial Margarine, and darn it, we can't convince him that it does!
Am I so wrong for thinking this?
Dork, the following may come as a complete shock to you -- brace yourself.
EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD IS NOT OBLIGATED TO AGREE WITH EITHER YOUR "CLASSIC OPPRESSIVE" DEFINITION OF THE WORD "IMPERIAL", OR WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE USA IS AN IMPERIALIST NATION.
For example, ask someone in Iraq -- they may feel quite differently . . .
That is like me saying that the US is not a slave holding nation. Sure, America once held slaves, but not now.
I do not beleive that we are currently an imperialist nation in the classic oppressive sense of the word.
English Major. Suurrrrrre.
That's "citing" -- and, if you don't want to consider the Philippines during the McKinley administration, perhaps you'll consider the following during the current one:
Puerto Rico
Northern Mariana Islands
US Virgin Islands
American Samoa
Guam
US Minor Outlying Islands {Howland, Baker, Midway, etc.}
Oh, and thanks for the lesson on word use. I'm certain that I'm the only one who has ever mis-typed something in these forums.
Since you believe that we a currently an imperialistic nation, how would you recommend that we end it?
You say that something that is Red is Blue. I provide evidence that it is, in fact, Red. Your response is "well, if you believe it's Red, what should we do to make it Blue?" Who the hell do you think you are? Do you really think that you are so fascinating that you are worthy of endless amounts of attention which accomplishes nothing?
Now you want me to give you ideas on how to end something that you won't even admit exists. Why should I bother?
If you think we are, I'm asking what we should do to end it?
It is NOT an imperialist state. We are NOT an imperialist country.
"You people are fools." Then please, give up on us. There's the door.
US Virgin Islands are another example.
Puerto Rico.
Samoa.
And so on.
With that one remark you've invalidated everything that you could have said about this topic. You've shown conclusively that you're that you're not willing to talk, or debate, or learn, if the information is coming from somebody you don't like. And then you have the unmitigated gall to claim that you listen and learn from people in debates? That's if you even bother responding to this, which is unlikely given the cowardly, ignorant responses that you spit out.
Or maybe you'll respond that you're being like that because he is? That your ethics and morals and responses aren't predicated on what you believe is right, but how others behave. You'll do something you think is wrong and bad to somebody else, because they've done it to you? You'll respond like an ignorant ass to somebody because you can claim that is what they did to you? It'll be interesting to see if you choose to go that route and invalidate your morals as well as your intellect, dubious as it is judging from the comments that you post.
By the by, I find it a shame that if your story is true and you're exposed to many different types of people, that those people have to experience such a bigoted, ignorant little coward such as yourself. You're a sterling example, judging from your comments, of what America has always claimed to abhor.
I was NOT wrong. We are NOT an imperialist nation, any more than we are a slave holding nation.
Oh, never mind, Mr. English Major.
Beck is just babbling more lies. Or he doesn't understand what he's saying.
Also, Ahmadinejad doesn't have as much power as you think, which is why he ratchets up the crazy and puts on his little show. Not for YOU but for his own people, specifically the religious right.
Too bad "zionist regime" to him means ANY Jews in power in Israel.
How telling the truth makes me, in your words "a RINO," escapes me, though. Am I supposed to believe and parrot false talking points in order to qualify as a "conservative"? If so, WOW!
Where am I misunderstanding you?
Kahmenei is the voice of the "religious right" in Iran, correct?
Ahmadinejad has protesters in the street, getting international TV coverage. Nearly all Iranian liberals and moderates wish to see him ousted. Who is left to be his friends? Who stands in the way of rioting, deposition or military coups? The religious right. He works hard to please Kahmenei and the other clerics. Just like when GWB said "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq" they play to the "base".
They are crazy, but they aren't stupid. They know that an attack on Israel means suicide by a unified coalition of Israeli, American and European forces, no matter if relations with Israel have cooled.
Anyway, thank you for clearing that up. I agree with you.
I'm just not as informed as people who DIDN'T KNOW THAT AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAD BEEN BEHEADED.
That's directed at me, folks. Of course, Mr. Dork is misrepresenting what I have posted, which was that there aren't lots and lots of Americans being beheaded. The only one I recall is Daniel Pearl and he wasn't even a soldier.
I'm still waiting for Mr. Dork to provide examples of soldiers being beheaded recently. I guess there aren't any.
Okay, seriously, when you use "fool" as an insult you sound somewhere between a pretentious glibertarian high-schooler and Skeletor.
"Whatever."
"Fool."
"I couldn't care less."
Hint- starts with a "k", has a numeral in his name, ends with "dork."
Why are you defending such a person?
No, you're wrong. I argued that I didn't know of any soldiers who were beheaded. The only one I knew of was Daniel Pearl. Than you had a hissy fit, and finally couldn't provide any examples of soldiers who were beheaded in the last few years.
I would assume that if mass beheadings were going on it would make the news. I pay attention to the news, and haven't head of any recent beheadings.
So again, I ask: which soldiers have been beheaded recently?
Do you think that Khameni is a nice guy who wants prosperity for Israel?
See, that's why nobody wants to "converse" with you.
I can admit to mistakes. I figured the link I posted above was the recent one without checking the date. My bad.
The problem is that he didn't say what you said he said. What he said was:
Oh, well that's different. He means no harm.
Israel is the bad guy. Nevermind that EVERY ARAB STATE that surrounds them has attacked them at some point. It is the "zionist" regime that is bad.
Other than those rocket attacks last year, no Arab state has seriously attacked Israel since they kicked the butts of Egypt and Lebanon back in the 1970's.
The rest of your post is patently false, also.
When George W Bush called Iran, Iraq and North Korea the "Axis of Evil," did that mean that their destruction at the hands of the United States was inevitable?
Would the rest of the world have been justified in using those words as "proof" that the US wanted to wipe the USSR, Iraq, Iran and North Korea off the map?
It's like....we're either torturing detainees or we're giving them candy bars and bale television.
It's either...."he said they're going to wipe Israel off the map", or..."oh okay, so Israel are the bad guys".
Having said that, Ahmadinijad is not the head of the Iranian government, the mullahs are. He is simply a figurehead. They make the decisions.
Also, Sister Sarah's interest in Iran is simply to fulfill what she believes is Bible prophecy. She WANTS to create a situation in which Iran attacks Israel, because as an "end timer," 2/3 of the world's Jewish population has to be wiped out and the remainder converted to Christianity.
Glad that's cleared up.
It's not my opinion, it's theirs.
Well, you ARE a Beck groupie.
You SURE that's a road you wanna take?
BTW, how do you know? Are you there?
Earth to MagCynic:
Misspelling "OLIGARCHY" and putting up pictures on a blackboard does NOT constitute "evidence."
And, he might have more time to cite any "evidence" he DID have -- if he spent less time barking like a dog . . .
Fascist Italy . . . where the term originated
Beck is very supportive of corporate interests, even to the extent that they are given preference over individual interests. That's fascism.
So we won't tell teenagers in Africa to avoid condoms and pursue abstinence? I'm all for that.
So we'll leave Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm all for that.
There is your history lesson for the day you insane lunatic. He would not survive five minutes in my history class.
Good, I can't wait, I'm a big fan of chocolate and yodeling and unregulated banking... actually I just like chocolate, a lot, I can do without yodeling, and as far as unregulated banking is concerned, it's a way for bankers and those who own banks to launder money and then to embezzle deposits when nobody's looking, looking over their shoulder that is, which is what they call regulation I guess.
Then there's his lackey standing up and actually disagreeing with him, and Glenn shouting him down and lecturing him about Woodrow Wilson.
There's the obvious flip-flop of all of a sudden being an isolationist.
Ohh man! Priceless stuff! lolol
Becky -- you're saying the Founders wanted us to be someone who did business with the Nazis??
B-b-but Becky -- you're always saying the country is "turning into Nazi Germany", and you're always calling the President a Nazi {when you're not calling him a Socialist, Fascist, Kenyan, Muslim, or racist, that is} . . . are you now saying that being a nazi is a good thing, or that the president being a nazi is bad but good for the rest of us, or . . .
. . . wingnut logic: it makes my head hurt . . .