Glenn Beck's Excellent Adventure
On both his Fox News program and his radio show, Glenn Beck has repeatedly likened himself to historical figures of note, including Socrates, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Benjamin Franklin.
Beck has repeatedly compared himself to historical figures
Beck: "Today is the first day I actually feel like Paul Revere." On the March 4 edition of his radio program, after raising fears that the nation is "in peril" because of efforts to reform health care, Beck stated that he felt like Paul Revere:
BECK: Health care, yesterday, was one of the more incredible things I have ever seen. This health care speech with the doctors behind him. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it. I don't understand how the rest of the nation doesn't see this. Or how they don't understand our nation, as we know it, is in peril. Today is the first day that I actually feel like Paul Revere. The British are coming. The British are coming. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 3/4/10]
Describing his frequent questioning, Beck stated, "I understood for the first time why they killed Socrates." On the March 3 edition of The Glenn Beck Program, Beck drew a comparison between himself and Socrates:
BECK: I understood for the first time why they killed Socrates. Because Socrates would go and seek out the, you know, the smartest people and he'd say, hey, so, answer this question. And he was really, honestly asking. But then they couldn't answer it, or they'd answer it like an imbecile and he'd say, OK, that's just stupid. Do you know any smart people? That's why they killed him. And I kind of understood that because when all of that was happening I kept going to the smartest people I could find and say, hey, so explain this. And they couldn't, or, you know, it didn't make sense to me, and I'd say, OK, I don't think that works. Thanks. And I'd go find somebody else. [The Glenn Beck Program, 3/3/10]
Beck: "I'm going to be called a hatemonger. ... They also called people like Benjamin Franklin a hatemonger." On the October 9, 2009, edition of his Fox News program, Beck stated that "illegal immigration is modern-day slavery" before likening himself to Benjamin Franklin:
BECK: Isn't it odd that here we are, transforming the Constitution that they argued about in 1787, and we're having the same damn argument. Except now we have new slaves, illegal immigrants, being used the same by the same people. Although the conditions are not as bad as they were. But it's the same damn argument. I know, I know, I'm going to be called a hatemonger for this, you know, conversation that we have, whatever, that's fine. They also called people like Benjamin Franklin a hatemonger. They said that he was crazy. I wonder if they've said that about me yet. Yeah, Benjamin Franklin was crazy, he was the first real abolitionist. Boy, that man stood up every single time. And in our modern-day slavery, I will be happy to be called crazy right along with Benjamin Franklin. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 10/6/09]
Beck compared his views on government to those of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On the November 25, 2009, edition of his radio show, Beck stated:
BECK: They say that I'm anti-government. No I'm not. I'm anti-corrupt government. I'm anti-out-of-control government.
[...]
It is only people that stand up against the government and do what our founding fathers told us to do, to be vigilant on our rights, those are the people, these are the times when you stand up, when you can stand up peacefully. Because if you don't stand up as you are losing those rights, as the government is growing in power, then unfortunately it becomes too late to stand up peacefully. How many times do I have to say: peaceful. As Martin Luther King did. Was Martin Luther King, was he anti-government? Well he sure took the government and turned it upside-down, now didn't he? He totally transformed the parties in this sys -- in this government. [The Glenn Beck Program, 11/25/09]
Beck: "Thomas Paine was ... kind of the me" of the revolutionary era. From the February 18, 2009, edition of Beck's Fox News program:
BECK: When the French Revolution started, the Americans were very excited. Very excited. We the people. We the people. And the French said, yeah, us too. Mon ami! It was so exciting that Thomas Jefferson endorsed the French Revolution, and Thomas Paine went over to support. Remember, Thomas Paine was kind of the -- oh, I don't know. My apologies to Thomas Paine, but kind of the me of the genera -- I mean, I can't think of anybody else. A guy just saying, "Hey, really, stand up. Come on. We can do it." He was kind of the -- he was the media guy, really. He just did pamphlets, the rest of us just do TV. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 2/18/10]
Glenn's on the air because there it's commercially viable. How would it not be with a few million listeners and viewers? He (at least once in a while) is the #1 program on all of cable TV in his time slot, beating out Sponge Bob. If you meant why is this fact true, perhaps it has to do with all the questions he asks every day that shared by the rest of America, and the breadth and depth covered attempting to find answers, especially if the White House isn't the one answering them. That's my assessment, if you want to make your own I would not rush to judgment only depending on snippets and excerpts of the program.
Yea, he asks questions that are on peoples minds. And he covers those questions in depth. However, perhaps people watch his show not because of the questions but because of how he answers them.
Perhaps, it has something to do with his volatility and ability to rile up a crowd.
Perhaps the very small portion of America that watches this guy regularly needs to listen to him in order to obtain a backstory in order to continue to live in fantasy land.
Perhaps people watch him in order to be outraged by stupidity, or maybe for the same reason that people watch Jerry Springer.
Perhaps its because his program is the most entertaining program that comes on at his time.
Or perhaps kids think he is funny, I donno...lol
Beck comparing himself to Socrates is insulting beyond belief. He is not a good man. Sorry, Van Jones, I have no love for Glenn Beck.
News at 11:00
From the Mormonster: "Today is the first day I actually feel like Paul Revere."
Sorry Glenn - Paul Revere's assburn came from riding.
Your ass hurts from pulling "facts" from it.
Thomas Paine wrote "Common Sense". Glenn Beck speaks "Nonsense".
Thomas Paine is physically dead. Glenn Beck is brain dead.
End of similarities.
So, wouldn't that mean that nature abhors glenn becks mind?
Paine's writings were reasoned and logical, Beck's are rants which make no sense. Paine informed, Beck deforms.
Also, Socrates was a "radical", was he not? Beck would have been leading the charge against him as a socialist/fascist/Maoist/tsarist/progressive/radical. If you cannot see that one, perhaps you should do some more reading on Socrates.
If you want to make a weird claim that Glenn Beck resembles an historical figure, you probably shouldn't use somebody so prolific and cogent in is opinion as Thomas Paine. You'd know that if you'd followed your own advice and, you know, "read Thomas Paine and Glenn beck [sic] to compare their writing."
Now I'm not going to seriously argue that Beck is even similar to each classical liberal, they were incredibly different just among themselves (for their day). I'm not saying I agree, just get his viewpoint correct: It's shallow to say "End of similarities." Yes, Paine advocated for some collective privileges from the state/positive liberties (at least until he came back from France), Adam Smith advocated the now-marxist Labor theory of value obsoleted by subjective theory of value on the margin, John Locke was mercantilist, look at the division among the Framers even among things like the necessity of the Bill of Rights or monetary theory (compare Jefferson with Hamilton and Madison), etc. (See, I can regurgitate facts too.)
My point is you can't formulate opinions with out-of-context excerpts provided from an explicitly biased organization dedicated to doing so. I personally refuse to comment on people I don't independently follow or study (particularly certain MSNBC commentators).
If you turn off the sound it sort of becomes "news porn"
FOX News Porn
If you turn off the sound it sort of becomes "news porn"
FOX News Porn
I love how Media Matters runs with this great headline and then proceeds to cite 4 instances out of his 20+ year career of making comparisons of himself to other people. Because we all nobody likes it when someone compares themselves to historical figures, right? Obama has never compared himself to anybody, has he? Am I right? I'm right, right?
But, I do not think this red meat is just for the left who agree with MMFA. It is also red meat for the Beckers - Mag, kydem, kdork, etc. There is an interesting quality to these Beckers where they get their joy from defending Beck. Not defending his actual indefensible statements or beliefs, but just defending him in general.
It's an entertaining circus sideshow.
As as soon as Beck's millions of viewers get that, we can move on.
I have to reluctantly agree. It reminds me of Morton Downey, Jr. and then Jerry Springer. As ridiculous as it is to watch, there is some entertainment value to it. I imagine eventually it will become old and we will all yawn and move onto the next crazy thing. But there is something about these phenomenons when they come along that I find quite fascinating.
These are all within the past 6 months, from his current radio & TV gigs.They're all pretty crazy, too.
1. Today is the first day that I actually feel like Paul Revere.
2. Socrates would go and seek out the, you know, the smartest people and he'd say, hey, so, answer this question... And I kind of understood that because when all of that was happening I kept going to the smartest people I could find and say, hey, so explain this.
3. I know, I'm going to be called a hatemonger ...They also called people like Benjamin Franklin a hatemonger.
4. It is only people that stand up against the government and do what our founding fathers told us to do... How many times do I have to say: peaceful. As Martin Luther King did.
Beck is crazy as hell. If Beck knew anything about any of the people he has compared himself to, he wouldn't have done it. Today's Socrates comparison takes the cake. If he had wanted an accurate comparison, he would have compared himself to the loopy and gibberish speaking Oracle of Delphi instead of Socrates.
It's a mistake, isn't it.
Come on, you can tell me.
That is particularly delicious coming from a devout Becker. Do you really not see the irony in constantly defending Beck while decrying picking apart every single statement someone makes, Mag?
When conservatives post, there is disagreement, you're heartless and evil, so you have to be asked to back up every word, I mean, you just have too, as if that matters because it won't be accepted anyway.
But hey, dems da unwritten rules here, so if we don't like it - we can hike it.
If you want people to agree with your opinions post at News Max or WND.
That's all.
Dishonest paid troll.
Proven to be both multiple times, over and over.
Someone who has no credibility, and is very upset about that.
Too bad, so sad.
Stop lying, and stop behaving like a dishonest paid troll and you won't get treated like a lying, dishonest paid troll.
Don't worry, I don't ask you to backup anything because I enjoy watching your claws come out, it's fun.
But keep 'em coming, I wouldn't want it any other way.
Do you have a source to back up that claim?
You don't find it the least bit ironic that a staunch defender of Beck would be so sensitive about his every single word being picked apart? Come on. I know you are smarter than this. Some of these Beckers have no hope, they will never see Beck for what he clearly is. But, I know you are smarter than this.
Barack Obama is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. We tend to make comparisons between present leaders and past leaders.
Glenn Beck is a low-brow media personality. Can you really not tell the difference?
How many do you want? MMFA said "repeatedly," and that's accurate.
Because we all nobody
Speak for yourself.
likes it when someone compares themselves to historical figures, right?
Wrong. A person can do so if the comparison is apt. With Beck, of course, it never is.
Obama has never compared himself to anybody, has he?
I don't know. If you're really that curious, look it up yourself. But even if he did, he didn't do it repeatedly or make a comparison that looked utterly ridiculous.
Am I right? I'm right, right?
Unlikely. You are, however, starting to sound a bit shrill and unbalanced. Beck is apparently wearing off on you.
I really thought were were going to have a "GET OFF MY PHONE" moment the other day.
As was noted, many writers, including Beck's new best friend, David Barton, will make up quotes to fit their agenda when they can't find one. Be wary of quoting Barton's crap . . . he's had to retract many of his historical quotes because he just pulled them out of his backside.
You also linked a Wikipedia article which had a warning that the information had not been verified and called The Cat a "bit*h." Your link was subsequently proven to be incorrect. Did you apologize to The Cat?
BTW, you didn't prove any of the folks wrong, but they quite handily proved YOU wrong.
People were implying that our Founders were just a bunch of white, racists who only wanted slaves for personal gain. I provided a link to an article that contained actual, real quotes from some Founders that negated this theory. People hear that Thomas Jefferson wasn't a racist - yet still held slaves - and there mind gets blown.
So Washington was racist when he freed his slaves, provided education for them, and supported a program that would let slave soldiers leave the army with their freedom and muskets? That was racism to you? Thomas Jefferson was a racist when he proposed legislation in 1774 that would free the slaves in Virginia? That was racist, too, to you?
Besides, if your Thomas Jefferson and you inherit your estate and the slaves on it, what do you do? Do you set them free illegally in Virginia? Or do you keep them, treat them well, and work to free them like he did? It's not so black and white so to speak.
Look, Jefferson was a great man, but like every great man, he had flaws. One of them being that he held slaves until the day he died.
You claim he treated them well. By his standards and the standards of the time, maybe he did. But he sold slaves to pay debts. He had some slaves flogged.
It might have been a better life living as one of Jefferson's slaves, than being "owned" by someone else, but it was still slavery.
Washington did not free his slaves, not until after the death of Martha who lived longer than George.
You're always claiming that you do your homework and that we don't. This is just one more example of your sloppy work.
First point is that while I do appreciate some of the ideas presented by some of the founders (bear in mind also, "the founders" were all individual people with their own thoughts and ideals), even those I agreed with the most had some inconsistencies with the idea of liberty and natural rights. However, you needn't feel offended by this fact. I don't think it's wise to say, this man said something so it must be true, for he was a great man. I also don't think it's wise to dismiss all points made by a horrible man for only the reason that the man is horrible.
The second thing I'd like to point out is that revisionist history (at least what I understand it to be) is the search for truth beyond the point of view of the ruling class, the conquerers, is it not?
BTW, the fact that Jefferson's conscience bothered him about owning slaves doesn't get him any points here. He wrestled with his conscience, and won.
I'm sure he knows about wrestling, but conscience is a concept most on the right haven't grasped.
If they were really against slavery they could have set their slaves free.
Slaves were set free all the time for various reasons. They were called Free Negros or, after the Cival War Freedmen.
Although I will say that Washington and Jefferson were a product of their times, I personally don't think that absolves them of the fact that they did own slaves.
Just because it was legal to own slave and have indentured servants doesn't mean the pratice wasn't morally corrupt.
I agree with you there, Mag. I truly believe what would be considered racist today and a few hundred years ago are two completely different things. It was also probably not such an easy thing to just release your slaves back then. It's not as if they had a whole lot of choices in life other than slavery. Hell, we didn't really allow blacks into labor unions or mid-management positions anywhere in this country until about two generations ago.
I think it is important to always keep that in mind, though, Mag. The writings and beliefs of our founding fathers should always be kept in their perspective. They never had any idea that the experiemental government they were founding would even last this long, nonetheless the particular issues we would be facing today. We should keep that in mind when we are arguing about a public option in healthcare or gun control or drug laws, etc.
You really need to find better history books than the revisionist ones Beck reads.
As for Jefferson, yes, when he was a member of the House of Burgesses, he made the proposal that slaves be emancipated, but it didn't pass. 'Course, at the time, he had almost 200 slaves. He never emancipated them. He either gave them as "gifts" or he sold them. After he died, the estate sold over 100 slaves. Sorry, but anyone who gives another human being as a "gift" or sells them . . . not a good person.
Read history, MAG. REAL HISTORY.
I'm not sure where you got your information, presumably from one of Beck's revisionist history books, but Washington's slaves were not treated any better and, by some reports, were treated worse than other plantation owners.
You need to read your history better.
For the record, I learned this in American History class in junior high and high school. Guess you were absent.
how does this support your assertion that they yad no choice? Considering that slavery had already been abolished in most of Europe, and that it was a few southern states who would keep slavery despite the independence they themselves desired, how again does the article you linked to support the idea that the founding fathers had no other choice?
Beck's comparisons of himself to historical figures are delusions of grandeur, not necessarily a symptom of being an evil liar.
Wouldn't Rachel Maddow or Ed Schulz be more apt comparison?
Hey, your getting better. You slipped that in there all nice and quite like.
Too bad that Obama has not compared himself to any past presidents.
The above is in response to Mag's post below. ugh!
By the way, it doesn't matter that Obama compared himself to past Presidents. I could care less. My point is that we shouldn't make a big deal when anyone compares themselves to historical figures. Let them think what they want and not make them out to be some evil liar if we disagree with them.
Is it twenty? Do they need twenty?
The 4 there are actually pretty egregious overvaluations of his self and what he does, it's worth pointing out.
---Evidence that Beck has multiple personalities.
He compares everyone else to Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and others.
---Evidence of paranoid delusion.
Barks like a dog.
---Evidence that he is trying to connect with his real species.
---Evidence that he is trying to connect with his real species."
Hey, that's not fair! What an insult to dogs everywhere! Even the beat-up old junkyard dogs are upset about that.
---Evidence that he is trying to connect with his real species.
No, he was just comparing himself to Lassie.
I'm not sure who "Gleen Beck" is, but I've listened to Glenn Beck on the radio for years and watched him when he was on CNN. He has, over the past couple of years, become increasingly paranoid and dishonest. He pulls stuff right out of his backside. He says things which have absolutely no basis in reality. He is becoming increasingly frenetic and disjointed in his thought. If you believe that he "tells it like it is," you should run, not walk, to the nearest mental health facility.
BTW, the "fair and balanced" meme? Even Roger Ailes has admitted that the White House has legitimate complaints about the false coverage on Fox.
Oh, and I wouldn't comment on other folks' spelling when you have a glaringly misspelled word in the first line of your post.
Oh, and if you think these people are "conservatives," then you are no conservative, just a Fox/hate talk radio groupie. These folks do not convey conservative thought in the least.
You misunderstand . . . Beck, Fox and the hate talk radio folks are NOT conservatives, Jensee. Nothing they convey has a thing to do with true conservative thought. NOTHING. If you believe they do, you are no conservative, just an uninformed groupie. I'm thinking that you are probably the latter.
That "free speech" crack is complete nonsense. You're here, making your stupid comments, and no one is taking your precious rights away. Same for Beck - he's still spouting his nonsense every day. The same right that allows him and you to bloviate nonsensically allows those of us who aren't nuts to respond. No one's right to free speech is being taken away. I see this all the time from you bedwetters. What is is with cons who think free speech means they should be able to say whatever they want without criticism?
Wow, now I know why you are defending Beck! You're just as nuts as he is.
However he can rant all he wants in whatever venue he can muster up, and we can write his sponsors all we want. If the sponsors stop supporting his show, they're exercising their rights too. This is very simple to understand.
By the way, you know that Phil Donahue had the highest rated show on MSNBC, but they removed him because of his anti-war stance. MSNBC had the right to do whatever they wanted with their programs. I'm sure you were outraged about his "free speech" being shut down. Although it wasn't. They just cancelled his show. He's still outspoken and can talk as much as he wants.
No, I have a firm grasp of the Constitution, you do not. There is NO Constitutional limitation on free speech. It would be un-Constitutional, you dolt.
The Supreme Court often has ruled on the boundaries that bracket our rights. It's a shame that as with most of your posts, you've missed that key point.
What you are butting your head against is called the free market. TV is about selling advertising space. And that's really all it is about. So, if there is something on the TV, and enough people would rather it not be on the TV, they are free to let the advertisers know that by supporting the programming in question, they are in fact working contrary to their own best interests. That's the free market at work.
If enough advertisers stop funding a show, it begins to lose money. Then whoever is paying to have that show produced has to make a decision. To go on anyway, and hemmorhage money, to change to program so that it is less objectionable, or to close the show down and find something else to fill that time slot. It's really pretty straightforward.
Now, if the federal government marched in, turned off the cameras, and forbade Glenn Beck from broadcasting, THEN there would be a First Amendment case to present to the Supreme Court. Absent that, though, it's all about the money, just the way the Faux Cons like it. Unless, of course, things don't go their way. Then they turn into giant crybaby victims, and demand justice, even though they wouldn't know it if it smacked them in the face like a dead fish.
Hey buddy, my constitutional right to a national television show is under attack. So is yours. Time to take to the streets.
What ? I can't read your post, it's been made invisible or deleted by the MM jackbooted thugs.
"He is neither paranoid nor is he delusional"
You're right on that. But he plays a paranoid, delusional lunatic on TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJkxBLgd5Hs
He sure looks like one of the greatest minds in history to me...
I'm sure if Thomas Paine was born into this era, he would have been a drug inhaling "zoo crew" shock jock too!
BTW... saw Countdown, and apparently Hollywood Sarah (replacing 'jus plain folks' Sarah) is looking at doing a 'reality' show.
Beck needs a HUGE dose of reality. He definitely has a tendency to elevate historical figures to a ridiculous degree.
I'd love to go to the future 50 years just to see how Beck will be looked upon in a historical manner. I wonder if the Fox pundits in 50 years will compare themselves to Glenn Beck?
Congratulations on buying his smear on the word 'Progressive'.
Oh, and the man's name that Beck called the "kind of me" was Thomas Paine. He is SPINNING in his grave because of Beck's constant invocation of his name to support Beck's lunacy. He was NOTHING like Beck.
Why are you bringing Olbermann and MSNBC into the conversation? This conversation is about Glenn Beck's lunacy. You are making the assumption, wrongly, that just because someone recognizes the signs of mental illness in Beck and is informed, that they automatically watch Olbermann and MSNBC.
I didn't defend anyone. I just reminded you of the discussion at hand.
(from Alaska, BTW)
Oh boy. That explains a lot.
He's not only a liar, he's an uneducated, STUPID liar.
Is that you, Glenn? If so, why couldn't you spell your own name????
It’s been pointed out numerous times that Glenn Beck’s statement(s) about Van Jones being a “convicted felon” were false. It’s taken four months, but Glenn Beck has finally admitted that he was wrong – that Van Jones IS NOT a convicted felon as Beck previously stated – thus proving that Beck is a shoot first, research later and admit fault much much much later (if at a all) type of commentator.
Whoops!
Wrong. Show some proof.
Yeah, I'll bet Jensee is hoping that bintx's research is as shoddy as Beck's. I don't think his luck is that good.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
This would be you. You are NOT a conservative in the least.
Irony much?
So it's not like he just quit school for nothing! :D
You doofus. That's required here. This is a liberal site - we require that you back up baseless allegations, or we make fun of you for being a doofus who thinks he can make baseless allegations without backing them up!
read the Salon artical on this fool and you will see what this fool is all about. and yes i am from phx az and have heard and known about this fool since the early 80s.
Actually Martin Luther King got the government to pass new laws, but whatever.
I didn't know Ronald Reagan was a Progressive.
Why are you so willing to give yourself up to the corporations who just want to turn you into a serf?
Dude, you really, really do need to turn off the TV. You're losing touch with reality.
Why do you hate America?
Wow, you sir are just full of ironic statements.
Oh, and a lot of other stuff, too.
He's a troll, who wants to derail threads so that we don't talk directly about Glenn Beck, but waste time talking about this troll!
I swear, this is NOT rocket science.
I swear, this is NOT rocket science.
But even though my dad liked him, he was in balance, very slow to respond to the market crash and too steeped in his free market ideas to be effective. He was therefore a lousy president. (sorry, dad!)
But even though my dad liked him, he was in balance, very slow to respond to the market crash and too steeped in his free market ideas to be effective. He was therefore a lousy president. (sorry, dad!)
#1 - The government hasn't done anything efficiently or wisely in 100 years? What planet are you on? Why don't you support the military and the troops?
Ooooooops.
#2 - Statistically speaking, do you get dumber by the word or by the second?
And that's just one quick example out of many possible examples in many facets of government said to a person likely for the current wars. Get it?
And it's no surprise you're ignoring everything I said BELOW.
You've got nothing. Just cheap anti-government rhetoric.
Interstate Highway System
era: 1950's-present
Proposed by Roosevelt and erected by Eisenhower (a liberal Republican), the Interstate system was a big government project. As much as anything else in the post WWII era, the Interstate is responsible for tremendous economic growth, prosperity, and has spawned an entire culture.
GI Bill
era: 1950's
This act of Congress enabled millions upon millions of Americans to get college educations, something that most Americans had never had the opportunity to do previously. An entire generation of leaders, scientists, and business people owe their education to the GI Bill.
Labor Laws
era: 1930's-present
An end to child labor, 40 hour work weeks, the right of employees to collectively bargain, overtime pay, workplace safety, all of the things we take for granted today are thanks to liberal laws passed in the first half of the 20th century. It was the conservatives who fought tooth and nail against the end of sweatshops and exploitation.
Marshall Plan
era: late 1940's-1950's
Foreign aid is a popular scapegoat these days. Those who would cut it should look back at the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe, and is the major reason that Communism never made it past East Berlin.
Environmental Laws
era: 1970's-present
The environment has gotten much better thanks to liberals. Bald Eagles fly once again thanks to endangered species laws, most rivers and lakes are clean again due to anti-pollution laws, and frequent smog days are a thing of the past in most big American cities.
Food safety laws
era: 1910's-present
Ever read Sinclair's "The Jungle?" That's what things were really like before food purity laws were on the books. Today cases of food poisoning are rare, and consumers know that whatever they buy is safe to eat.
Workplace safety laws
era: 1930's-present
Long hours in unsafe conditions are much rarer today than in the past. Tragedies such as the Triangle Shirtwaist fire and child labor have been eliminated by liberal and progressive legislation.
Social Security
era: 1930's-1970's
This program has provided three generations of Americans retirement benefits, and nearly eliminated poverty among the elderly. The program has been weakened by Republicans since the 1980s, but for years it did its job to a T.
Economic Growth
era: 1950's-1960's
Liberalism and economic prosperity go hand-in-hand. Unlike the pseudo-boom of the 1980's, the 1950's and 1960's were a period of sustained and real growth for all sectors of the economy and all social classes. Taxes were fair, government worked, and America prospered under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Space Program
era: 1950's-present
It was Kennedy who challenged us to make it to the moon, and it is under his and Johnson's administrations that the space program took off, with numerous benefits to American industry and peoples' standard of living, not to mention national pride. If you are reading this on a computer, thank the space program and the liberals who got it going.
Peace corps
era: 1960's-present
Kennedy inspired thousands of Americans to ask what they could do for their country, and the Peace Corps is his most visible and effective legacy.
Civil Rights movement
era: 1950's-present
Liberal ideals drove the biggest change in American society since the Civil War, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. All Americans who believe in freedom and opportunity cannot help but be inspired by the valiant struggles of MLK and others. Also recall if you will that the major opponents of civil rights were conservatives.
The fight against Totalitarianism
era: always
World War II was fought by all Americans; liberals and conservatives fought together the evil of Nazism. The ideal we fought for was freedom and the dignity of the individual against totalitarianism. Under the leadership of Roosevelt and Truman, we won.
The Internet
era: 1960's-present
Not a liberal program per se, but rather a government one, which people like you equate as the same thing. The internet is a good example of what a government program can do when allowed to work.
The Tennessee Valley project
era: 1930's
The Depression-era government program bought electricity to thousands of impoverished families in Appalachia, prevented floods, and created thousands of new jobs.
Women's right to vote
era: 1920's-present
Before 1920, half of America's population could not exercise the essential duty of citizenship.
Universal Public Education
era: 1890's-present
The reason America became so strong economically is because we educated our citizenry. Public schooling is the true melting pot of America, where every student, regardless of economic background can be taught the basics of citizenship. It is no coincidence that since Reagan, as conservatives have greatly weakened the public school system, American students have scored lower and lower on tests and our civic society has started to unravel.
National Weather Service
era: 1930's-present
This is one of those things you never think about, but you are glad its there. Far from just forecasting the weather, the NWS also provides vital data to pilots and sailors, and the NWS satellites and observation posts provide the raw data that all other weather forecasting services (private ones too!) depend on.
Scientific Research
era: 1940's-present
Much of the great discoveries in science have come about through grants from the government. This is not to say that scientific genius depends on Washington, but the fact remains that pure science is expensive, and private industry will often not fund experiments which don't have a direct commercial potential. From Salk's polio vaccine to today's Human Genome Project and Hubble Space Telescope, the government is an important partner in scientific discovery.
Product Labeling/Truth in Advertising Laws
era: 1910's-present
We take it for granted that if a claim is made publicly for a product, it's reasonable to assume it's true. Plus, every time we check the ingredients on a can or package of food, we should mentally call down blessings on the liberals who passed the necessary legislation over the anguished howls of the conservatives, who were convinced such info would be prohibitively expensive, and too big a burden on business.
Public Health
era: 1910's-present
Government funded water and sewage systems are an important part of modernity. In addition, organizations such as the National Institute of Health and the Center for Disease Control play an important part in maintaining the national health and preventing epidemics through research, vaccination programs, etc.
Morrill Land Grant Act
era: late 1800's
This act is the reason why nearly every state in the Union has a large public university. These centers of learning have educated untold millions of Americans. If you went to a school with a state name in it, then you were helped by liberalism.
Rural Electrification
era: 1930's-1960's
This allowed remote, rural areas of the country the basic convenience of electricity. I am sure that those of us using computers on the internet, sitting in our air conditioned homes, under our electric lights consider electricity a basic necessity - one that the pure market would never have found profitable to provide to isolated farming communities.
Public Universities
era: 1890's-present day
Put a college education within the reach of nearly every American. In addition to education, many of these institutions have played key roles in all kinds of scientific research and been a strong influence on our entire society.
Bank Deposit Insurance
era: 1930's-present day
About 1934, as part of extensive New Deal banking legislation, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to provide federal insurance for bank deposits. This was instrumental in restoring confidence in our nation's banks, and remains so to this day.
Earned Income Tax Credit
era: 1970's-present day
Reduces the tax burden for working families who make under $28,500.00 You have to earn income to get it. It is not a handout. It's a great incentive for families to stay off welfare. But when Republicans took over Congress in 1994, they had to find a way to pay for their capital-gains tax cut, and EITC was their ticket to success. So, the Republican majority voted to cut this program by $29 billion over a certain time frame. And guess what? They eventually raised the taxes on lower income working families to pay for it.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
era: 1940's-present day
The world's foremost authority and defense against infectious disease and epidemic is a department of the United States government. You're welcome.
Family and Medical Leave Act
era: 1993-present day
This is a program which mandates that you have the right to job leave to take care of sick family members, or to have a child. Many conservatives were opposed to this valuable piece of legislation. Perhaps they were opposed to family values?
Consumer Product Safety Commission
era: 1972-present day
These guys regulate consumer products for safety. Everything from sharp (and edible) baby toys to flammable pajamas have been taken off the market due to the work of this commission. It was significantly weakened under the Bush administration, but the Obama White House is fixing that.
Public Broadcasting
era: 1930's-present day
Millions of our children have learned from shows like Sesame Street, 3-2-1 Contact, and Mister Rogers (and so many more). Millions of adults continue to learn from shows like Nova and Frontline. PBS and NPR have served to enrich our national culture and inform our citizenry (which is precisely why conservatives hate it and pretend it has a "liberal bias"; an informed electorate tends to vote Democratic).
Americans With Disabilities Act
era: 1990-present day
Civil rights for disabled citizens. It is fair, just, and it is the law of the land. Credit where credit is due: former Senator Bob Dole helped push this through, a rare nod in favor of liberalism from Mr. Dole.
If you actually believe life was better before these accomplishments (all of which were brought to you by "big" "liberal" government), and would like to go back to a time before them, then you, sir, are a fool.
You guys are the best. Keep up the great work. I stopped watching the Three Stooges (ABC, NBC, and CBS) now I just read the MM comic strip.
Murdoch's Morans ? I'd never heard that nickname for the FoxNation site.
We're all in "denial that history is being re-written". Now, he's trashing the "First Progressives", (Becks enemies), FDR & Wilson again. See, our children are being taught that they were actually GOOD men and that FDR brought us out of the depression..TREASON!!!
Oh God..now it's "indoctrination" time...I thought that was tomorrow??!! OK, I've had enough of this BS...hopefully Nurse Ratchett will tear herself away from Beck long enough to hand me my headphones....
I use a portable media device so I can lisen to music or watch a movie.
It helps keep you sane when they tune in Fox News.
What Beck is pushing has nothing to do with real history, it is the revisionist history of Cleon Skousen and his new best buddy, David "if I can't find a quote to support my thesis, I'll just make one up" Barton. There has been no change in the school systems since Obama took the oath of office, so I'm assuming that you are really angry at GWB, right?
If you believe in Glenn Beck, you really do need professional help. The man is a lying, uneducated, lunatic who is trying to scare uneducated folks like you in order to keep his cushy job.
Well, if the shoe fits?????
Other than that, most of the people around here are very open minded.
Based on what I've seen on this site, the reason most people here don't care for Glenn Beck very much is because he is using fearmongering to push a personal agenda.
He has been caught multiple times either lying or taking someones statement out of context. I could go on but; why bother.
If you are true believer, nothing I, or anyone else, can say or show you will change your mind.
Somehow, I think that is a sign of a closed mind.
So why again are you here if you didn't want to engage in debate or present any defense of your idol?
Just asking.
Darn toot'n —cause Ol'Ben knows what turkey poop looks like...and so do we!
Erm... really? You wonder this? I call BS.
http://mydd.com/users/yodafone/posts/paine-was-a-socialist
You make no effort to back up your opinions, and have surrounded yourself with strawman arguments.
But I really love you man!
First of all, have you ever read the constitution ? Seems it would be much easier if you did rather than demand people show you how Obama violated it.
Many times the Fore fathers said government should be small, that they should work to keep its citizens provided for in basic needs and free of obsticles for freedom, equal opportunity and let the spirit of individualism roam freely.
Government was NOT to rob the fruits of a person's labor and there is much about the limitations of what government can do in regards to what they can pay for, or take on the responsibility of.
In Obama's world, he is taxing the heck out of people to pay for a socialist agenda that violates people's rights and liberties. Increased taxes for out of control government spending. We as citizens didn't approve alot of the waste this government has spent on. LIke $700 million to a company to build a virtual fence....which doesn't work..or $2 million for Pelosi to shutter her family around on jets...when she's pretty well off herself. Like the waste of American tax money to bail out failed businesses and violate the free market and assault capitalism.
What about this whole push to force legislation on global warming when its never been proven to exist to this very day ? lies, false reports, inaccurate data, covered up emails and data proving otherwise..... The government has enacted legislation to force citizens how to live, what they are restricted from doing, what products they can buy, etc....all an infringement on the market and on our liberties to make our own choices. This Obama care is another abortion coming down the pike and Obama just won't give up on the idea. Instead of include Republicans for a fair bi-partisan effort, he shut them out back in May and is only now offering to talk to them since his plan won't pass without some help.....but he isn't willing to actually discuss many changes so he gets what he wants...NOT what American citizens want.
He had interferred with the mortgage sector, helping ACORN to violate good lending standards, but now whining about the banks and trying to demonize them for what he helped make them do under threats from Janet Reno. He's playing one side off the other and while he keeps people ticked off or confused, is pushing for legislation that violates our right to choice and lifestyle in America. All of which was spoken against by the Fore Fathers. You'd blow your mind if you sat down long enough to read the Federalist Papers.
Washington and Jefferson were golfers? Who knew?
In Obama's world, he is taxing the heck out of people to pay for a socialist agenda that violates people's rights and liberties
Lie #1. Big lie as well.
..or $2 million for Pelosi to shutter her family around on jets
False outrage #1. The plane was requested as a security need.
The government has enacted legislation to force citizens how to live
This is actually true. You can't be a nation of laws without, you know, laws that people must obey. That's kinda the role of government. Civics anyone?
NOT what American citizens want (health care reform).
Lie #2. Most people are in favor of health care reform.
helping ACORN to violate good lending standards
Lie #3.
Some romantic blather on our forefathers. No thoughts on their concern for protecting aggainst the ursurpation of power by small powerful parts of a population?
Code for taxes bad, a strong centralized government bad
To bad your part of the group who'll go back to pre shrub tax rates. The rest of us got a small tax break.
That fence has no fan here. Pelosi's jet has reasonable reason's for existence. Unshackled capitalism lead directly to our near financial meltdown. It tends to lead there without effective and enforced regulations.
97% of the scientific minds researching GW disagree with you.
All kinds of rules connected with living in a modern state. Perhaps something in or arround the Horn of Africa might suit your taste's. Been pointed out that the GOP inserted many amendments to the bill, still won't vote for it. Beyond a push pol or two a majority have supported much beyond the current bill. Pol honestly about single payer and see what you get.
Your complaints are becoming mutually exclusive. Full of debunked talking points. But its all good if you can scare one more american citizen.
Disliking a law doesn't make it unconstitutional.
A law passed after your side loses control of the legislature doesn't mean you were not represented. A tax passed by a legislature controlled by a party you oppose is not taxation without representation.
I could go on, but I'm not under the delusion that you have a clue about how the Constitution works and what is an unlawful deprivation of rights.
Please do not interpret anything I've said here as implicitly or explicitly conceding that your statements above remotely resemble reality.
Oh, and I'm one of those folks who is conservative . . . that doesn't mean that I agree with the non-conservative platform of the Republican Party. Based upon your posts here, you aren't a conservative, either, just a right wing authoritarian. Two different things.
Is that the 60% that voted for Obama?
Show some facts. This is just crap you heard on Fox. Completely FALSE.
"Why?" - MrHennessy
Now, that is the Becker brain at its best. Just precious.
Becks raisins could not possibly compare with a real patriot like Thomas Payne! I don't remember Thomas Payne making a fortune on his patriotism either!
...and making millions while you do it.
I spent quite a bit of time with it in law school.
Also what you're saying is not how debate works. You don't get to make baseless claims which are "true" unless the other side refutes them. We're not in court. Undisputed allegations are not admitted as fact. You talk about Obama wanting to infringe on peoples' rights and liberties. What do you mean? The right to be sick and bankrupt? The freedom to be disabled and destitute?
You're on your own with the global warming thing. Despite the huge consensus that it is occurring, what is the worst that will happen if we plan for it? We might actually catch the Chinese in developing new energy technology, and while reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
And ACORN? Really? Newsflash, they don't lend people money. And Obama's relationship with them has never been more than passing.
Over and over again, you conflate Obama with a loss of freedom. I know Rush, Sean, Sarah, Glenn etc. say that. But just like them, you never qualify your accusation. You know what I consider losing freedom? Being jailed indefinitely without trial or charge. Being denied access to an attorney. Having my privacy violated without a warrant. Being shouted down, threatened and branded things like "unamerican" "the enemy" or "disease" by ultranationalist hate mongers who don't like my opinion. We both know which party does that.
In Art. I, section 8, the right likes to capitalize, underline and boldface "common defence" while acting like "general welfare" doesn't exist. This selective parsing of Congress' powers manifests itself in the jaundiced belief that it is patriotic to decimate a foreign country for no reason, while it's government oppression to help your countrymen.
I really don't understand the disconnect.
The right trusts the Uncle Sam with nuclear weapons but not a social program?