Beck's "war": Fox host responds to passage of health care reform with violent rhetoric
Glenn Beck has repeatedly used violent rhetoric in referring to the passage of health care reform. After the House passed the Senate's version of reform legislation, Beck stated that while the "battle was lost, the war is not over," and after President Obama signed the bill, he suggested that Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi supported "pick[ing] up a gun" to advance "revolution."
Beck uses violent rhetoric to describe health care reform
Beck: "The war is just beginning." During the March 22 edition of his Fox News show, Beck stated that after the House passed Senate's version of health care reform, "a lot of people in America are probably feeling a little defeated." He went on to say, "But I want you to know: Do not feel that way. The battle was lost, the war is not over. The war is just beginning."
Beck suggests that progressives support "armed insurrection." On the March 23 edition of his Fox News program, after Obama signed the reform legislation into law, Beck suggested that progressives support "armed insurrection" and asked, "Why would the president take up immigration right away, after he's just punched you in the face with health care?"
Beck suggests Pelosi and Obama support "pick[ing] up a gun" to advance "revolution." Also during the March 23 edition of his Fox News show, Beck stated, "You'd pick up a gun? Have you ever thought of that?" He then pointed to several pictures, including images of Obama and Pelosi, and stated: "These people have. Because possibly, maybe the question should be asked, maybe they're tired of evolution, and maybe they are waiting for revolution." Beck also said: "Haven't we just been spanked? Hasn't most of the country -- doesn't most of the country feel like they've been spanked over health care? You bet. I do, you do. A lot of people do."
Beck uses violent rhetoric to claim that Obama administration is "coming after" him
Beck suggests Obama administration may kill him. On the March 23 edition of his Fox News program, Beck said, "For those of you in the administration, who are coming after me ... remember, you've broken three [of the 10 Commandments], let's not make it four; thou shalt not kill."
Beck previously has suggested administration trying to "destroy" and silence him. Beck has repeatedly used violent rhetoric to suggest that the Obama administration is trying to destroy him and force him to "stop saying these things." For example, on the September 8, 2009, broadcast of his radio show, Beck stated: "You can try to put the lid on this group of people, but you will never silence us. You will never -- you can shoot me in the head, you can shoot the next guy in the head, but there will be 10 others that line up."
Yeah, I can't wait for said "adults" to be back in charge. They obviously have a firm grip on reality.
The idea that we can subvert the Constitution, the will of our Founding Father's is vile and deceitful. There will be a firestorm that will make the Reagan Revolution look like a picnic.
The battle WAS lost, but WAR will be won, Truth WILL prevail.
By the way, you've gotten your sides mixed up here - remember, it was you and yours who wanted to lock people up for daring to criticize the Great Holy Shrub and his Death Circus of the Sand.
Maddow last night showed a map from a wingnut website showing "targeted" congressional seats. All over the map were little crosshairs.
I guess someone's gotta get killed/seriously injured before these traitors end the violent rhetoric. Then again, they'd probably say that they had it coming.
And then, did you hear the latest story?
Some Tea Partiers posted the address online of a Congressman's brother's home, thinking it was the home of the Congressman himself. They then encouraged people to go to the home to let the Congressman know how they felt.
Well, today, the homeowners found the propane gas line to the gas grill on their back porch severed and leaking gas. The FBI and Fire Marshals are investigating!
Sounds like violent rhetoric led others to misbehave.
This man is so dangerous and Fox News PAYS him. Simply disgusting.
Where is Beck's actual evidence that the Obama administration is trying to destroy him, silence him and/or kill him? I mean honest to God proof not just his ridiculous imaginations. He's on the radio and TV every day spouting off. He's on the tour with O'Reilly and he's writing books. He got a permit to have a rally at the Lincoln Memorial this summer. Doesn't look like anyone, including the Obama administration, is shutting down his rights or his life.
Let's see him put the actual evidence out there for all to see. He also needs to stop using the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment for his own personal means just so he can make it appear that the Obama administration is trying to kill him.
Btw, on Beck's rally webpage he says, "Help give back to these men and women by donating to the SOWF at www.specialops.org and please, join us in Washington for the Restoring Honor Rally on August 28, 2010."
http://www.glennbeck.com/828/
While Special Operations Warrior Foundation sounds like a worthy sounding charity in of itself, people should be aware that "All contributions made to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation (SOWF) will first be applied to the costs of the Restoring Honor Rally taking place on August 28, 2010. All contributions in excess of these costs will then be retained by the SOWF."
http://firstgiving.com/glennbeck
What I didn't hear about were the death threats and threats of violence that forced Ann Coulter to cancel her appearance at Ottawa University. She even gave U.S. Ivy League schools a good word, stating that the students at those schools don't act as stupidly about her appearances than Ottawa did.
BTW, you have to go to Canada to get that story.
WTF?
The congressman's brother is not a "public figure." If the FBI finds the terrorist who did this, he ought to bring suit against the individual, Beck and Fox.
Quote from a fool who was protected by people willing to kill as you are also a fool protected by people willing to kill.
You stay classy highliter!
We have a military full of trained, professional soldiers willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. We have police officers who frequently put themselves in harm's way in the pursuit of law enforcement and civil defense.
We're talking about incitement and suggestions of taking up arms and violent revolution by irresponsible right wing media hosts. When your political movement is this morally bankrupt, the idea of inspiring violent acts to win political power may not seem as abhorrent to the right wing media consumer as it does to the sane and rational adults in this country.
In the United States of America, we don't kill to progress our political agenda. We are civilized!
Defend that statement. Who specifically is prepared to kill whom on behalf of epkklk851.
[27] "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [29] If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. [30] Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. [31] Do to others as you would have them do to you.
(Matthew 10:34-36)
Luke 22:36
In reading your responses, I interpret a belief that IF a time of transition comes (be it through revolution, political paradigm shift, or whatever) you see violence a superior response to pacifism. IF such a transition were to occur, and IF you would use violence as a means to an end (EVEN if that end be well-intentioned), would Biblical passages serve as your moral compass?
Yes, it's a loaded and hypothetical question, but one worth (civil!) debate/discussion.
-Glibness and Superficial Charm
-Manipulative and Conning -They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible.
-Grandiose Sense of Self
-Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
-Pathological Lying Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis.
-Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
-A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities.
-Shallow Emotions
-Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person.
-Callousness/Lack of Empathy Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Sounds a lot like Beck and his pal Limbaugh.
Remember the rise of Thatcher and Reagan and the fall of communism ment the end of history. For conservatives then and now, the struggle is over and we are forever in a time warp of conservative victory. Supposedly rule free markets and the liberation of oligarchs are to nullify the 60's and the 30's, while for some, a fundamentalist Christain God smiles downward on the project.
The problem for these conservatives is that they were after a big straw man all along. Most liberals and progressives actually accept capitalism but insist that we the people, through our elected government, take care of the side effects.
Sure there are some extremists on the left, but in general the Thatcher/Reagan crowd never understood that modern society is complex and high maintenence. Giving it all away to the market is a convienent way to avoid responsibility. Unfortunately for them and us the problems don't go away just because you want them to or your ideology demands it.
Beck sees war because he can't see anything else. The fact that he doesn't see the America he wants can only mean that, short of gouging out his eyes, he must gouge out a large part of our political legacy and discourse - the last 100 years of progressivism. Clearly for Beck, reality is too much for his ideology. Reality has to bend.
He reminds me of the Nazis that rejected Einsten because it was Jewish science. For Beck, progessives by definition are evil. He has said as much. For his followers, you would think the next step would be obvious.
You can be sure that Glenn, once he realizes it is not obvious, will explain it in long winded and loving detail.
If I follow Beck's so called logic, the next step for those evil liberals would be some kind of banishment or worse. In Beck's message, liberal/progressives are more than politically incorrect. They are like an evil cancer. I would think the next step for some of his followers would be something violent. Something significant needs to be done to stop the destruction of America that beck predicts is happening.
Beck, by painting so many influencial ideas and people with such a broad and negative brush, has backed himself in a corner. If so many of us are so evil, what fate awaits us? After a while the long winded lectures in loving detail won't make the progressives and their ideas go away. What's next?
They've certainly dug in their heels on the free market fundamentalism. I think it's even simpler then all that. Regulated markets have rules, and rules make it hard for the economic elites to cheat and steal and increase their wealth by any means necessary. Progressive, and even moderate thinking Americans stand in the way of a rule-free, rigged system. They've whipped the gullible masses into following this agenda, even going so far as to use violent rhetoric to keep the right wing media consumers whipped into a fearful frenzy.
You are correct on all counts..
Part of psychotic thinking is imagining how the world will react to his being gone.
Hey FOX, If he does go, can I have his blackboard?
You can thank John McCain, Sarah Palin, conservatives and the Republican Party for inviting this hate into the mainstream. Not only do they NOT denounce hate talkers, like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Tea-baggers and Sean Hannity they incite and encourage them with their own ridiculously outrageous rhetoric. They will have blood on their hands.
No one is trying to say that you can't hold these fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-American ideals of achieving political power through intimidation and violence. You are free to believe whatever you like in this great nation of ours.
However, most progressives and liberals and many moderate centrists are concerned that the public airwaves are being used to incite violence to further a political agenda when the normal democratic means of honest debate and voting fail them.
Sounds more like the current conservative movement is trying to silence the left by creating an atmosphere of intimidation and violence.
Want a crying towel?
Aside from that, maybe you should go to Glenn's website and read some of the hate emails he gets from libs. I think you guys take the cake for the hate speech.
Maybe you need to get away from the web of lies that is liberalism. Constant chaos and confusion tends to fog the brain and interrupt clear thinking.
Beck has been in the public eye since he was 12. He, too, is an open book. All you have to do is look.
Wow. That tells us all everything we need to know about Beck and his Beckers. Priceless.
Really? You don't see the problem with that statement at all? You Beckers are so cute.
If, for instance, someone were to clip your posts just short of showing full context for a remark you made, in order to characterize you as something you're not, would you respond?
If your remarks are about a widely held position across many different religious beliefs, and have been condemned as wrong nearly unanimously, would you have the courage to continue saying them?
Glenn Beck hasn't had the courage to allow an on air response to his charges. (and newsflash: he never has or will) He's been condemned by multiple churches and faiths, and as the scolded dog usually does, he's putting his tail between his legs, focusing on one person to smear rather than the entire religious population, and hoping to ride this out until it goes away. This is why you Beck fans are interesting, because you'll ride along and defend every word, blasphemy or not, lie or not, slanderous/libelous or not. It's a sad cult that he's got.
Truth is the truth and hate has nothing to do with it, unless you want to cause harm or death with the words you use.
This is the motivation behind these people's attacks. What else can it be? The president is only doing what he campaigned on... nor has he done anything wrong.
You don't want to acknowledge it but hate is why they have a problem with this black president. The color of his skin is what they hold against him.
So you can pretend to be stupid all you want.
News flash for ya, the color of Obama's skin is what got him elected in the first place. Had he been white, he never would've made it through the dem primaries.
Hahahahaha...whewwwwwwwwwwwweee...hahahaha.
Keep em' comin' that was the best one so far of the day.
I'm unsurprised that you have difficulty with long words.
The hate for Obama far exceeds that of any hatred of Reagan and Bush Jr. Heck the hate is dozens of times the size of any hatred of Nixon even.
And what has he done to earn it? It 's all based on lunatic perceptions on what is actually going on and what may happen. No evidence suggests that Obama will be close to ever doing ewhat the Teabaggers fear will happen so We on the left can only conclude one thing.
They hate the color of Obama's skin and the size of the brain in that skin.
McCranky and Bible Spice had nothing to do with it?
No credit for Obama running a better campaign? Of course not, that would run against republican logic where anyone who isn't 100% white cannot possibly have fought for and earned what they achieve.
The republicans just dusted off the tired old affirmative action and entitlement arguments and applied them to the current President. Should we be surprised that the right wing media consumers have bought it without question...again.
Yeah, the idea of a rich white guy getting elected is just too bizarre to fathom. There is no precedent! The sky would turn orange and dogs will start to meow! I know that I was going to vote for the white woman, but Obama has a black father, so he was more entitled. It was affirmative action or some such, not a well run campaign.
/sarcasm
Isn't it amazing what right wing media consumers will tell themselves in order to justify their beliefs?
On how many points can one man be wrong? I know everybody don't admire Obama, but Obama got more votes than the other candidates. That's why he is the president.
Judging by the words being used; the opposition to this president is based largely in nonsense. No professionism at all.
Do you not hear the silly stuff coming out of Republicans mouth? They conduct themselves like immature children. Despite the foolishness and stupidity from these haters, Obama stand strong and tall and it is clear who is the superior thinker, and it is clear who should be the one in charge.
You have never seen Republicans act this out of control, until the black man became president. This may be a coincident to a pea-brain like you but it is obvious to anyone with common sense.
It was Obama's message that got him elected, he just happens to be a black man, you dummy.
You can also stop with the "black man" routine, since if it weren't for Repubs who jumped party lines to vote for him, he wouldn't be here. Remember, he's only half-black, so who's to say that those who oppose him aren't opposed to his white side?
Also, you can stop stealing the words of others in here. It strips you of your credibility and just makes you look like a "dummy".
There is a fair amount of silly stuff outlined in this letter. All of the bits of red text are links.
Yeah. Just another in a long line of black presidents elected by that damn overwhelming minority. The black man always keeping pongo down.
Now please explain how you think your response addressed my observation that Obama wouldn't have been the dem nominee if he was white. Simply because I think race played a positive factor in his journey to the white house does not mean I have ill-feeling toward him because he's black. Are you not bright enough to understand this line of reasoning?
I'd give you the same advice, but I'm not sure you'd be able to distinguish your head from your a#$
Also, if you say guilty white voters, you run the risk of exposing yourself as either a racist or an idiot. Or both.
The "attacks" you refer to are simply fabrications in the minds of people like you who have no other defense for BO's dishonesty, lack of integrity, and marxist behavior, except to lash out at those who choose to put a spotlight on it.
Did you forget that he is only half-black? He ran a deceptive campaign, claiming to open the health care negotiations to the public "so we can see who is really holding up the process". Right. I don't care if he was red, yellow, black, or white, he still lacks the character it takes to be a great leader.
BTW, you can be stupid all you want, but at least be honest about it.
Do you even know what Obama's intellectual class is? I have yet to see him look presidential when his teleprompters aren't in front of him. He even needed the TP when he spoke to the elementary students. Hilarious! That is real intellect there, for sure.
You would have to have common sense to understand logic. You are far an inferior thinker to be considered. All the thumb downs you get should give you a clue.
Obama is a "socialist", "antichrist", "Marist", "hate white people", "communist", hell I can go on forever with all the names he been called by hateful people, such as yourself. Have these things been said or just in my mind? You can't even be honest with yourself.
If you think Obama "lacks the character it takes to be a great leader", that's your opinion. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. That "truth" of the matter Obama beat ALL challengers to the throne, AND Obama continue to prove he was the better choice (with actions and deeds).
Let me see you speak the truth for once. In the meantime expect to continue to receive more thumbs down.
I do have to say, though that I am having a hard time understanding you. You really have no room to call anyone an "inferior thinker" judging by your twisted logic. And let me put myself down to your level and agree with your statement, "just because you say it doesn't make it so".
Wow, you really do drink the kool-aid. Just remember what happened to Jim Jones' followers when they made that man their "messiah".
You are driven by stupidity, ignorance and hate. Obama is the president of ALL the people of America, including infidels such as yourself. Jim Jones was a "religious" figure who deceived a flock, big difference. You people are sooooo stupid, to try to make an argument like that. It is worthless talking with ignoramus.
Infidel? Isn't that hate speech? Yes, he is my president too, and I respect the office, but I don't have to respect the man. You know, the way you did not respect the man who held the office before Obama did.
Obama's "followers, as you call them are nothing more than citizens. Jim Jones is a "religious" man who deceived his FLOCK. You will never understand that.
Infidel is not a racist term. It simply means: You can never be reformed.
Your way of thinking is inhumane and ungodly.
Jim Jones didn't have a "flock", he had followers, as does Obama.
or the marxist card
or the 'he was not born in the US' card
or the he's a muslim card
or the ACORN card
or the Bill Ayers card
Keep trying, tho.....
Race and hate can never be reduced to a card game. Just because you don't understand why your leaders are now acting bizarre, don't expect the thinking man to be as naive.
"the color of Obama's skin is what got him elected in the first place" - pongo
Wow. Look up congnitive dissonance, pongo. It might help you understand your own rationale a bit. Not to mention your admitted need for reinforcement of your beliefs.
There's no racial bias in my views on this issue, no matter how desperately you read into my comments.
And yes, I do question my opinions. It's called being prudent, and exercising a little humility. Are you 100% certain in all your opinions?
". . . some of the hatred coming at him is due to his race?"
I agree that "some of the hatred coming at him is due to race." I don't agree that the majority of the opposition is due to his race, and also believe that his policies leave lots and lots of room for legitimate opposing views. What I see here, as exemplified in the original post to which I responded (by manofmystique), is race-baiters who attempt to dismiss opposing views by broadly brushing the majority of the opposition as bigots.
They'll be convinced of anything to justify their worldview. They can't accept that Obama ran a great campaign and that he is a helluva good public speaker. They must always percieve that their side is right and superior. We had eight years of a president who was a poor public speaker and to be fair we gave Bush 43 a lot of flack for his verbal faux paus...In order to feel superior, they have to use these "teleprompter" and "he only won because he's black" justifications.
rights of workers-crippling our employer through outrageous demands for programs and benefits that are not earned.
bargain collectively-threaten him with lawsuits or go on strike if our outrageous demands are not met.
Funny how so many of the companies with union workers are the ones who have gotten in the most trouble. Unions are not needed anymore since they successfully lobbied to put enough regulations into place so that all employees, both union and non-union, are protected.
Good you made that clear for all to see and you wonder why you remain on the lunatic fringe. Thanks!
As for unions, please tell me how someone sitting in a job bank is earning his/her pay? Tell me how teachers sitting in a rubber room are earning their pay? Tell me why so many businesses using union labor have gotten into trouble? Why didn't Ford and Toyota suffer the same troubles that GM did?
Are you sure you want to use toyota as an example? Too funny dude. Tell me why have workers pay stagnated or decreased yet their productivity increased. Why has job security diminished along with vacation and sick pay. Workers in job banks because they were layed off it was an agreement they fought for and won. GM I'am sure saw some benefit to it because it kept a ready made pool of workers trained and ready to be used at a moments notice.
Why is that you blame workers for the problems of GM and not the strategy and policies of the management. Hummers,big SUV's?? What about the enormous bonuses of the CEO's. You cons are all the same. Just like Abu-Gharib you talk about personal responsibility and self-reliance but it's always the privates and workers who pay. There is class warfare and the rich is winning,stop whinning.
Pathetic.
His comments are all the same. Rich people are mean, and white people hate Obama. He's not bright enough, or educated enough, to come up with anything else. It may well be that he's a failure in life, and has never lived up to his own expectations. Therefore, point the finger elsewhere is his motto, blame society and those more successful for his shortcomings. In real life, he's called a loser. In far left language, he's the victim of racial/economic discrimination
Yeah, if only he could be reasonable about race and understand that Obama only got elected because he was black. Are you really not able to see your clear hypocrisy here, pongo? Baffling.
"dosent playing the race card get old?" - hi
I don't know, hi. Perhaps you should ask pongo. He clearly has no problem playing the race card with absolutely ZERO evidence to support it other than it fits the narrow narrative he allows himself to see the world through. Pathetic.
Unless your head was stuck up your butt, (which it may well have been), you cannot have missed the enthusiasm for breaking down yet another racial wall.
Given his youth and sparse resume, his race gave him the needed boost to defeat the odds-on frontrunner who early on was widely predicted to be the winner.
Get it, Twit.
"Given his youth and sparse resume, his race gave him the needed boost to defeat the odds-on frontrunner who early on was widely predicted to be the winner." - pongo
That's your proof? So, JFK was only elected because of the excitable prospect of electing the first Catholic president? Keep twisting that pretzel of logic, it ain't making any more sense.
Your fallacy of class warfare is just another leftie talking point. A target word. Every person in this country has the opportunity to get rich if they work hard enough. What is your excuse?
GM was unsustainable as a company. It was destined to fail. How many companies can afford to keep a "pool of workers trained...."? What a waste, considering the turnover of union workers is so low. Bad management, bad judgment of board members, unions, and stockholders, all had a hand in it. Apparently you don't know the policy of CEO pay for publicly-held corporations. It is decided by the members of the board. If you want to see something really interesting, look at the members of the board before GM went under. Also, members of the board are voted in by stockholders. How much stock did the union workers hold? Could have exercised that right if they really wanted to.
I'm sorry pongo, but these don't apply to the passage of HCR. Conservative ideas and policies have failed this country for a long time.
I don't have unwavering and complete confidence in this new attempt at health insurance reform, but can we at least give it a try before complete and total hysteria and condemnation.
Can't you see the level of political discourse has been dragged down into the mud with this all consuming hatred and obstructionism?
He has said it many times, "call and prove me wrong", but nobody ever calls...it's lonely being right all the time....
That's like saying you have to prove me wrong by standing on your head and reciting the book of Job.
He's not 'right' simply because no one plays his game with him.
Rev. Wallis doesn't need the airtime but Beck has said Rev. Wallis is Obamas spiritual advisor. Why wouldn't he want to expose and debate Obamas spiritual advisor especially when that person has challenged him? Beck is a coward and can't back-up what he says. The red phone rang he just didn't let YOU see it. Must be shocking to someone who knows for sure Becky has told him everything. You sure are proof of P.T. Barnums axiom about fools.
I can understand why you want to pretend it didn't happen. I am sure it is tough when you, doughboy, are too immature and ill-equipped for the real world so you build this false narrative of the world for yourself to live in that enables you to feel warm and safe only to have it crushed by the likes of Whoopi Goldberg. It's alright. Take your medicine, assume the fetal position, and repeat "Beck is infallible, he is my leader" one hundred times and you will still fall asleep eventually. Then you can pretend reality is all just a bad dream and Beck is still pure and you are still his valiant warrior.
"I would not expose him to my audience either. There is no reason to debate, it's clear that they think differently, and both have made their opinions." - doughboy
You still have the best Becker quote ever. I could not post anything to explain the Becker mindset better than that. Priceless.
As far as his appearance on The View, maybe you should listen to his show the day after the appearance. It was a good one. He was very polite to them during their show, and refused to take the bait that they threw out. They took a simple misunderstanding and turned it into a circus sideshow in an attempt to label him a liar and get some ratings for themselves. Do you know that Walters called him a few days after and apologized, telling him that he was right about the incident on the train?
What you saw on The View was a man who could have ripped all those ladies a new one, but didn't because he's a decent human being. You may not believe that, but that doesn't really matter now, does it?
He admitted he was a liar because he was being polite...and then...and then they blew the fact that he admitted he was a liar all out of proportion...and the next day back in the safety of his own show he was able to trash them and didn't have to be so polite...and then....Walters called him and told him he was the coolest, bestest, smartest man I know....and then....they just wanted ratings....and he's a decent human being....and then - Glenn Beck is infallible, he is my leader! Glenn Beck is infallible, he is my leader!
Wow. You really should be a case-study. There should be a team of scientists and sociologists studying your thought patterns. It is amazing. But remember what Beck has taught you - "there is no reason for debate". Question everything! Except what Beck tells you, then question nothing.
Lies of Glenn Beck:
Nov. 12, 2009 - "Do you know in the health care bill, we're now offering insurance for dogs."
The bill had a provision creating a Public Health Workforce Corp that would provide scholarships and loan repayment assistance for public health professionals, including veterinarians. The reason being that issues with animal-borne diseases (mad cow, swine flu, etc) it was felt it would be a responsible step to create more, better trained folks to deal with animal health. Makes sense to me, but it is NOT insurance for Rover or Fluffy.
July 22, 2009 - "I mean, we've got czars now," Beck said during his July 22, 2009, program. "Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."
Major lie. John Holdren was on of three folks to author a college textbook 30 some years ago called "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment". There is apparently a section in this book called "Involuntary Fertility Control" in which the authors DISCUSS coercive means of population control among which was putting sterilants in drinking water (does such an agent even exist?) however the authors in no way advocated, endorsing or proposing such a tactic. In a section discussing population law, they argue that compulsory abortions COULD be come law IF a population crisis became severe enough to endanger society. Again in no way advocating, endorsing or proposing such a thing.
He also claimed the the head of SEIU was the most frequent visitor at the White House, a lie based on incomplete data. Claimed that Mitt Romney's health care is bankrupting Massachusetts (a plan very similar to the one passed by the House), when in truth the deficit was caused by an unforeseen shortfall of revenues. At least according to the president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Plus, according to a professor of health and policy management at Boston University, the increse in the number of folks on unemployment have also added to the commonwealth's financial woes. Massachusetts would be facing this deficit even without its healthcare program.
I could go on, but all of this stuff is out there, it just takes a tiny bit of research. I try not to take anything any talking head says at face value without doing that tiny bit of research. And I wouldn't waste my time calling Mr. Beck on his prop phone.
Finally, why call Mr. Beck when he knows damn well he is lying?
Soros must be shelling out huge bundles of cash to keep this propagandist campaign against Beck going. Too bad that KO spilled the beans on the attempt to "catch" Beck in a Lonesome Rhodes scenario--although they were wasting their time anyway. There is nothing about Beck's life that he hasn't already told his fans long ago.
Beck doesn't have to tell us anything about his life. We know enough about him by the hate, ignorance and stupidity he puts on display over the airwaves.
As long as you are willing to defend stupidity, you leave a lot to be desired too.
Beck is nothing more than a shock jock. His ratings rely on saying the most offensive ugly things he can think of. As evidenced by the their dip since the racist brouhaha died down.
It doesn't take rocket science to see what Soros' intentions are.
And you no this how? You are scary.
Hey look...is that a massive, well funded right wing media machine complete with multi billion dollar think tanks, cable channels spouting 24/7 propaganda, and a near monopoly on AM and FM radio stations across the country?
That's nothing! Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Dick Morris, and the various think tanks couldn't possibly be actually doing what evil Soros (cue thunderclap and woman screaming) is accused of doing!
GOEBBELS' PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA
Based upon Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda by Leonard W. Doob, published in Public Opinion and Propaganda; A Book of Readings edited for The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.
1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.
2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.
b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.
c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences
3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.
4. Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and action.
a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence
b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions
c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself
d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity
5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign
6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.
7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.
8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.
9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.
10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy's prestige or lends support to the propagandist's own objective.
11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.
12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.
13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.
b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment
c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness
14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses
b. They must be capable of being easily learned
c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations
d. They must be boomerang-proof
15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.
16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat
b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves
17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated
b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective
18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.
19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.
________________________________
Guess we have to ask ourselves what the Objective is.
Doesn't seem to me the defeat of Socialism is a viable option,
unless the introduction (perpetuation) of the Corporate state is the alternative. Surely they wouldn't want to obscure that as a reason for the distrubution of their "facts"? Turns out, that the major beneficiary of National Socialism is the Corporate Aristocracy, socialism in this case being more mis-information.
--seems to me, looking through the mumbo jumbo Beck & his ilk are preaching the supremacy of the Corporation over a government, of the people, for the people, and by the people.
It is they, whoever "they" might be that determine the truth, just as Mr. Goebbels taught them.
My question is this: Is the constitution itself a document about socioeconomic theories? Does it require unregulated free-market capitalism for everything? If so, show me where it says that. If in the the worst case, the majority were to want more socialism, ala some western European nations, how is that unconstitutional? Isn't it a fact that the socioeconomic systems used to run the nation are separate and distinct from the constitution which dictates governmental and political structures and delineates state vs. federal vs. individual rights? Does the constitution dicate specific socioeconomic systems and structures?
Why does it seem impossible and unacceptable to these people that we continue being a constitutional democratic republic while constantly reforming our socioeconomic systems, making some of the more vital ones partially "socialistic" in nature? I don't see any contradiction between selectively and partially socialistic socioeconomic systems and our constitution.
If somebody would please just educate me, I'd appreciate it.
Oh, and plenty of people have private property in a Socialist society. Don't confuse it with Communism please.
I said "selectively and partially socialistic socioeconomic systems," ala some of the best Western European nations and Canada whose people rate highly on holistic measures of individual happiness. By selective I mean those systems that are "sacred" like care of the human body, national defense, education of young minds, etc. By partial, I mean maintaining free market alternatives even for such systems. For non-"sacred" widgets and services? Yes, by all means, keep free-market, slim-to-no regulation systems in play.
My real question is: Why can't people have intelligent debates that entertain a mixed society aimed at making its citizens happier? When did we forget the "happiness" in the credo: "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of [what was that?] Happiness"? Why must every issue and every person be forced into either an all or none box?
Your comment comes from that black versus white, good versus evil mentality. Try to expand your brain beyond binary thinking. Remember that partially and selectively socialized nations like Sweden, Canada, Denmark, etc. don't resemble Communist China, or Cuba or the now defunct USSR in the slightest. Who would want that nowadays? Think along those lines...
The constitution does limit federal powers, but it gives The People, and the three branches of government the power to determine what the word "limit" means at any given point in time. Right now, like it or not, your side is losing, and The People are putting progressives in power who may perhaps give the federal government selectively more powers at least for a time.
It's how a democratic republic works. You don't always get your way. Oh, you don't like it? Move. Somalia has a nice small federal government will very limited power and involvement... lots of guns, nice growing theocracy, etc., you'll love it there.
I wrote "It doesn't mean the government can't institute social programs.
Then you wrote "Using your argument, no federal social programs would ever be constitutional"
Discussions are pointless with someone who either can't read or posts falsehoods because they can't back up their argument.
You decide which you are, I am not interested.
What about my main points?
Never mind...
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig, you get dirty; and besides, the pig likes it."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Adios.
By your argument, we should abolish police and fire departments. They are a blatant expansion of government into the private lives of the citizenry. I want to drive 90 MPH on the highway, why does that policeman want to infringe on my right to drive my vehicle at the speed I choose?
Why not just abolish the justice system while we're at it? The Military? The department of transportation? All of these things are expansions of government, and require funding through tax dollars right? By your thinking that's socialism too. Why not just get rid of democracy and let the free market decide everything then? Let the amount of money a person controls determine the level of justice they can buy.
I thought we fought a revolution a few centuries ago to make this land free of control by hereditary wealth.
Conservatives have been trained to see everything as a rigid wall. It's an "US" against "THEM" mentality and it has allowed so many of them to be convinced of this free market fundamentalism even against their own and the nation's best interests.
right ON...I challenge you to examine these issues in a more open minded and less rigid manner. Contrary to the caricature of liberals created by right wing media and think tanks, most of us believe that capitalism is an imperfect economic system that must be regulated (as all creations of men are imperfect), but it is the best one we got. We also reject the Utopian theories of libertarians who refuse to recognize that we live in a society, and believe we exist as a series of disconnected entities. Does that mean that everything every libertarian says about any topic is automatically wrong and must be roundly rejected? Of course not...that's ignorant folly. For example: libertarians share with liberals the concept of separation of church and state. Does that mean that liberals must now support state run religeon? Clearly that's not the case.
That being said...there are elements of socialism that have exsisted in our American democracy long before Karl Marx was born. Marx was in fact influenced by Jeffersonian democracy. It's foolish to think that because he took those concepts too far, that we must now purge them wholesale from our system of governance.
Pure socialism and pure unregulated capitalism are both extreme positions and neither one of them is going to create a just American society. I can say with certainty that those on the left who believe in a complete and total socialist system are a tiny, fringe minority. Most of us are firm believers in capatilism with common-sense regualtion for the vast majority of our economy, and elements of socialism where it has been proven to stregnthen and protect the well being of the citizenry (police and fire departments come to mind).
The idea that there is "no private ownership" in a socialist system is factually wrong. As is the statement "socailism can't exist without goverment that runs opposition to the consitutuions limited power of government.
Your other statements seem to indicate that you think that the Constitution of the United States FUNCTIONS like the articales of confederation, leaving States independantly totally soverign, which they are not. The other articiles in the consitution including those that give it the right to lay taxes alongside the right of the independant states to lay taxes, the afformentioned commerece clause giving the federal goverment the right to regulate activities which are to large to be confined to a single state, and the elastic clause, DIRECTLY authorizing the governemnt to exapand its powers as appropriate to remain a FUNCTIONAL governing body.
I bet you are familiar with Jefferson's "goverment which governs best governs least" Even as a staunch democrat I too find this to be totally true. However, there is an idea implicit in the saying: That goverment has the fuction of GOVERNING.
You realize that with the exception of the navy that no goverment entity in the history of the United States has been created without there having been serious social perogative for its creation? (Even the standing army was not created without signifcant protest).
What people like Mr. Beck don't seem to get is that the history of America is the lifestory of a PROGRESSIVE nation. We keep giving people more freedoms and liberties. Like say, the freedom to not have to live as a serf of your employer because you otherwise would lose your health insurance.
Beck is actually an anti-patriot. He is stirring up the sort of hatred against correctly and justly elected officals and seeks to usurp the will of the people with the will of those who think exactly like him. That is the defination of an oligarch, a facist and a tyrant.
Sweetie, you really need to go look up what socialism actually is and how it differs from communism.
However, socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, are all economic and political theories. In reality, there has to be a mix of all of it for America to work properly. Very few Americans on the left want America to become an actual socialist state - but rather to adopt some aspects that work. I think it would behoove the right to understand the same about a libertarian state or free-market state. Somalia is a libertarian state. It is a disaster.
Lots of these ideas sound wonderful in theory. But, as adults hopefully we move beyond to the point of reality where we understand theories are good for books and Beck TV shows. In practice, we are stuck dealing with reality. And in reality, we should take the ideas that work from each theory and put it into practice. At least in my opinion. I think that is the moderate center where most Americans live. Not in an ideological fervor.
"Keep on doing what you're doing, get the same results".
Fox in a nutshell? Ok. You've got 40 to 50% of the country leaning right and many in that group hating the very ground the liberals walk on. Sound like a market there? Ratings equal dollars and viewship equals ratings. Chu ching!
Why SHOULD Glenn or Sean or Fox 'n Friends stop doing what they're doing when it's obviously working.
The hate crowd has to turn to someone for inspiration, confirmation and "news" and it's sure not going to be MSNBC.
As they used to sing in the old Ghost Buster's movie,
"Who you gonna call?"
Fox. This theory may not be correct, but I bet if Glenn Beck explained it on the chalkboard .. perfect sense it would be!
Any Moron who watched the Show would know that he was not inciting anyone to Violence but was instead criticizing those who did during the 60's - Namely a certain Weather Underground Member who is friendly with our President.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER
The fact is he is against violence because he knows that it could result in martial law.
The ones promoting violence are the socialist activists.
Of course this requiers the main stream media asking the companies why they still purchase ad time on Beck and what demographic they expect to appeal to.
Too hard....
• Nigel Coleman (incorrectly) posted Tom Perriello's address with a recommendation to pay the Representative a visit
• Ted Nugent tells an audience that Obama and Hilary can "suck" and "ride" his machine gun
• Mike Vanderboegh "if we do a thorough job of breaking Democrat windows, I am sure that the GOP will profit from the example"
• Daniel Knight Hayden
• Gregory Girard
• James O'Keefe
By no means a complete list, just a quick sampling.
In the name of TV ratings, Glenn Beck goes on TV and knowingly and willingly to provoke people to contemplate acts of violence and revolution in the name of “liberty” – as if we don’t have enough problems with crazy people in this country. Then there are all these Tea Party People that will meet in an armed meeting this April 19 – the anniversary of the domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma City. Ridiculous talk of succession. Then there is Sarah Palin who says it is “time to reload[your gun]” ; her “hit list” of people democratically elected officials. It is chic now to talk to using revolutionary innuendos.
I appeal to each and everyone of you, if this hate sounds appealing to you, you have no idea where hate likes this leads. .