About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Beck: Progressives Are "Enemies Of God"

January 26, 2011 1:33 pm ET — 221 Comments

Glenn Beck recently claimed that his show "hasn't been about hateful rhetoric." But on both his Fox News show and his radio program, Beck routinely goes far beyond criticizing the viewpoints of those who don't share his political ideology; unlike any other well-known political commentator, Beck actually claims his political adversaries are "enemies of God."

Beck Claims His Show "Hasn't Been About Hateful Rhetoric"

Beck: My Show "Hasn't Been About Hateful Rhetoric." From the January 21 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: And as I explained earlier this week, it is up to the individuals to solve the problems. That's kind of the history of the two years that we've been on Fox. It hasn't been about hateful rhetoric. It hasn't been about anything. It has from the very beginning been about solving the problem, the riddle about what is happening and what is the best way to do it. And I don't come to you as a guy who has the answers. I don't come to you as a guy who says I know everything. I don't. I clearly don't. I'm not a guy who says I get it right all the time because I clearly don't. But we try because I do believe that it was the Age of Enlightenment that gave us this enlightened document. We've lost the light. The documents haven't. We have. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 1/21/11]

Beck Professes Against Claims That God Is "On Our Side": "He's Not On Our Side, We Have To Be On His Side." From the January 21 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: Divine providence is different than manifest destiny. This means that no matter what happens, good or bad, if we do the right things, if we -- if we look at things and say it's going to be OK, as long as we're in tune with him. He's not on our side, we have to be on his side. Once that happens, no matter good or bad, no matter what happens we're going to be fine. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 1/21/11, via Nexis]

But Beck Frequently Demonizes Progressives As The "Enemies Of God"

Beck: Progressives Have "Tried To Destroy" God. On the January 21 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, Beck stated that the Founders sought to promote enlightenment, empowerment and entrepreneurship. He added:

BECK: There are another set of founders in America -- the founders of the progressive movement. They know this system as well. And they also know all thought is creative. So now let's just quickly look at what they've done. They have distanced God from people. They have discredited him, distanced him, made him into a joke, denied his existence or, at best, just confused him with social justice and everything else -- just confused him.

Jeremiah Wright is a political organization. That's not a church. That's for community organizing on politics. That's not a church. It certainly doesn't say empower the individual. It says empower the state and the state will provide justice for all. That's a political movement. So they've confused God at best and tried to destroy him everywhere else. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program1/21/11]

Beck: Progressives Are "Enemies Of God And Enemies Of Man's Freedom." During a segment on the July 14, 2010, edition of his Fox News show, Beck attacked "San Francisco radical Van Jones," liberation theology, President Obama, and Andy Stern. Beck also claimed "Michelle Obama told us exactly what Obama was going to do" when she said, "We're going to have to change our tradition, our history." He added:

BECK: We learn from our mistakes. We can't change our history into something that it wasn't, but it's happening. We've got to grab onto the truth and cling to it, but what is the truth? Well, the truth about the civil rights movement isn't the Black Panthers and the threats causing Congress to pass the civil rights, that's bull crap!

God did it, by working through people and inspiring people like Martin Luther King, and C.L. Jackson. And yes, white people like Bobby Kennedy and dare I say it, oh, my Gosh, I'm going to set the world on fire with this -- Roger Ailes.

I think he spent some time in the civil rights movement. He was with Martin Luther King a couple of times, people from both sides of the aisle, people of all kinds, all races, different levels of participation.

God led the cause because he is against oppression. But he does not conspire to work through hate groups. Stand up, stand together, stand with the truth. Stand with God. That is the one thing that they cannot fight. That is your only weapon is God. And he wields it, not you. You just stand behind him and just let him be your shield. It's the one thing that they don't have on their side. Now that's a pretty wild comment to make unless you go back to Saul Alinsky.

Do you know what the dedication says? Do you know what the front page says of this book?

Put it up here, "Lest we forget at least one over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical from all of our legends, mythology and history and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins, or which is which, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom."

You put this together with collective salvation. May I quote the pope? Put the pope, Pope Benedict, here is what he said about collective salvation: "Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine but demonic."

Stand with God, America. Stand with God. He will be our shield. These are not enemies of ours. They are not enemies of ours. They're enemies of God and enemies of man's freedom. He'll work it out. You just stand where you're supposed to stand and be peaceful. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/14/10, via Nexis]

Comparing Progressives To Satan, Beck Says They "Have Replaced" God. From the January 12, 2010, broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: If you believe in the, you know, the war in Heaven where a third of the angels were cast out and all of that stuff, it was about man's choice.

CALLER: Yes.

BECK: And he would provide a savior and Satan's plan was hey, I'll save everybody. Give me the credit. Give me the credit, I'll save everybody. I'll make sure that everybody returns home. It's going to be fantastic. I'll -- just take away their choice and give me the credit. Well, gee, I think that plan was rejected, and that's because God knew that failure was important for growth. He knew that we would fail and he would provide the failure so when we hit the bottom we would have a chance -- we would know there was hope for the only thing that really matters and that is redemption. Eternal redemption. 

But the progressives have so cut out God. And I showed you yesterday on television and last week on the radio that they have replaced God. They're taking -- rights are now created by Congress. Rights are not given to us by our Creator. They're created by Congress. They are taking the role of God. And so they're taking away our suffering. They're taking away all of our pain, all of the opportunity to fail. People look at failure in exactly the wrong way. Failure is the starting point of real, true success. If you don't fail you really don't have a lot of wisdom. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 1/12/10]

Beck To Guest: "Any Doubt In Your Mind That The Progressive Left Is Coming For The Kill On Religion?" During the October 15, 2010, edition of his Fox News show, Beck said of the Tides Foundation and George Soros:

BECK: I just wish we were a government-funded entity so we wouldn't have all these commercials because you just missed a fabulous conversation. We are talking about the "Story of Stuff Project." This comes from the Tides Foundation. Spooky dude George Soros. One world government. Yes.

He's now going into your churches. Ask your pastor or your priest or your rabbi. If you see anything like this going to your kids, run for your life. You are in the wrong church. I mean, unless you're environmentalist that worships, you know, Gaia or whoever it is now.

"Let There Be Stuff," a spirit-filled response to a consumer-crazed world. I want you to know that we do consume an awful lot. We consume -- we are worshipping a different god. Many of us, we are worshipping the god of stuff, the god of a logo or a label. We don't need it. We don't need it.

You know a society is screwed up when people will stand in line for the new cell phone that they -- they already have a cell phone. They just want that one. We are a little screwed up as a society.

Cal Beisner is here and David Barton, also with me. And we're talking about this upside-down world where we're now being taught in, not just schools, but now, in churches and synagogues. Any doubt in your mind that the progressive left is coming for the kill on religion?

CALVIN BEISNER, FOUNDER, CORNWALL ALLIANCE: Absolutely. Absolutely. And part of the reason is because traditional Christian faith and biblical faith in America has been the most resistant to the whole progressive agenda.

BECK: Yes.

BEISNER: Poll after poll has shown the people who have been most skeptical about things like, oh, catastrophic, man-made global warming, or about other environmental hypes and scares have been those people who assert the greatest belief in the Bible. [Fox News' Glenn Beck10/15/10, via Nexis]

Beck On Van Jones: God Said "I Shall Rebuke The Devourer For Your Sake." From the April 20, 2010, edition of Premiere Radio Networks' Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: I was telling you about Van Jones, and I said, do we run with this? Do we run with this because we don't know for sure, but all evidence -- and I don't know if we can verify this, this, this, but look at the connection here. Most of it we did verify. Some of it we couldn't and we never put on. But I believe them to be true but I don't say them because I couldn't nail them down. What stopped me from saying "I can't prove these things but"? I said to Pat -- I said something's wrong. What do we do? We both prayed. And we went home and both of us prayed again and then we both opened up our scriptures unbeknownst to each other until the next morning.

And I couldn't wait to see Pat because I had an answer. I said, you won't believe what I found. And he said, wait, wait, wait, me first about our conversation yesterday. I looked in Malachai. Look it up. Malachai 3:11. I'm paraphrasing -- I'll shall rebuke the devourer for your sake. To me this message was clear: "He's not an enemy of yours. How dare you think he's an enemy of yours. Freedom comes from me, God. Freedom, your rights, belong to me, not you. I will rebuke anyone who tries to devour them."

[...]

BECK: Read Ephesians 6:11 to 17, Ephesians 6:11 to 17. It's what we have to do. It's where we have to go. And it's what will save us. Use faith as your shield and put on the armor of God, and he will rebuke the devourer for our sakes. [Premiere Radio Networks' Glenn Beck Program, 4/20/10]

Beck Alleges 95-Year Progressive Plan To "Put A Poison Into Our Church." From the May 18, 2010, edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: No, no, no, no. We're going to correct its meaning tonight.

If you have a pencil and paper, get it out, because you're going to need to write stuff down tonight. You're going to learn stuff that you probably have never even really noticed. Then you are going to start noticing all kinds of stuff.

You have a priest, a pastor, a bishop, a rabbi -- you get them on the phone and tell them right now: Turn on the Glenn Beck program.

Progressives knew about 1915. They knew that they couldn't get their agenda through, because of three things: people knew the Constitution. Americans talked about it in 1915.

People loved the founders. We knew who they really were.

And the third one, people went to church. They had to put a poison into our church. Well, they've done it. I expose it tonight, and I give you the cure as well. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 5/18/10]

Beck Attacks Obama And Progressives: "When You Pervert The Gospel Of Jesus Christ, You Are Evil." From the August 23, 2010, edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: We're being pitted against each other on religion. And I want you to know this is -- this is part of the strategy. This is why we brought up Sojourners and Jim Wallis and Reverend Wright and I told you about social justice.

I told you that our religions are being hijacked. Religion plays a huge role in the progressive movement. You must have religion. If you can beat down religion -- why do you think that they've chased God out of the public square? And now Nancy Pelosi is talking about God all the time. That you have the president talking -- bashing the Bible. Who's Bible are we going to listen to now? And then talking about faith and religion. Why do you think this is all happening?

It's critical, it's critical. And these people -- and let me just -- let me say this. When you pervert the founding documents I think you're a pretty bad dude. But when you pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you are evil. And when you know you intentionally are doing it for power and control and money and a hidden agenda, and you lie, cheat, and steal every step of the way to do it, you are evil. 

Now let me show you Jim Wallis. Jim Wallis is a guy from Sojourners who has led a campaign against me. They are trying to pit our religions against each other. They are trying to -- I stood at the feet of Abraham Lincoln yesterday. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." They must have us at each other's throats.

I've told you before that this is George Soros money, that this is nothing but a hidden progressive agenda, that social justice as understood by Jim Wallis and Jeremiah Wright and people like him, it is evil. He claims that there is no money coming from Soros. If I saw my name smeared on the Internet one more time on this, I mean it became laughable, because people actually believe George Soros isn't involved in this. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 8/23/10]

Beck: "You Need To Get Behind Him Because They Are Enemies Of Him." From the July 15, 2010, broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

CALLER: Hello Glenn. I just want to thank you for your letting all of us know and bringing light to the fact that, you know, these people with this particular ideology are not our enemies. They are our Heavenly Father's.

BECK: Yes they are.

[...]

BECK: So what was it that woke you up this? Or have you just been -

CALLER: Well, I'm a man of your faith. And, you know, I've been thinking that and, you know, I've talked to people, but when you said it it was just like a relief to me that this, you know, I need to do what I need to do, you know. 

BECK: Yeah. And you don't need to fight; you need to get behind him. You need to get behind him because they are enemies of him. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 7/15/10]

Beck Suggests Environmentalism "Replacing God" With The Earth. From the May 12, 2010, edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: They're now looking at absolutely everything, and the environment is the key. The environment will control -- because remember, what we're talking about is the Earth replacing God. Earth is the most important thing. So it's more important to save the Earth than it is even to save people. The Earth makes the decisions for us. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 5/12/10]

Beck: Progressives Have "Almost-Complete Plan" To "Destroy Our Faith." On the May 24, 2010, edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, Beck said, "freedom is on the run," and attacked progressives by saying they have an "almost-complete plan," through social justice, to "destroy the Constitution, destroy the Founders, and destroy our faith." From the broadcast:

BECK: Back to what I taught you on the 1915 progressives. They figured it out. They knew they couldn't do everything they wanted to do in 1915 because we were too tied to the Constitution. We were too tied to the Founders. And we were too tied to our churches. And so they changed history. They went in and all these progressives in the universities, they started to change the history books. They went into our faith with something called social justice. That is from the progressive movement.

Now you may not interpret it that way in your church, but you've got to understand the roots because that's what it is. It's redistribution of wealth. It cannot be found in the Bible, it cannot be found -- do you have the audio of what Bill Clinton said over the weekend? That everything is unsustainable and unequal. Excuse me? When were we -- at what point did we all decide that we're going to make the world equal? All men are created equal. It's what you do with your freedom, and right now freedom is on the run. It's -- it is a almost complete plan: Destroy the Constitution, destroy the Founders, and destroy our faith. What part haven't they done? What more do you need? [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 5/24/10]

Beck: "The Policies That Are Being Enacted In Washington" Are "Enemies Of God." From the July 19, 2010, edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: If you were at the American Revival on Saturday, that ain't nothing -- that is nothing compared to what you're going to see on 8-28. Make sure you join us. Forty days and 40 nights. It is not about politics, because quite honestly, we are not dealing with politicians. These are not -- the policies that are being enacted in Washington -- they are not enemies of ours. They are enemies of God because God is about freedom. God is about equal justice, not equal stuff in our homes. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 7/19/10]


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by RumpshakerSlim (January 26, 2011 1:38 pm ET)
      41  
      No Glenn. Progressives are enemies of you, and despite what you might think you're not God.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Egbert Souse (January 27, 2011 11:08 am ET)
           
        Beck is not my enemy. One may be able to forgive an enemy.

        I put Glennda more in the category of something like gangrene, air pollutants or poor gas mileage.

        Btw, what does Beck, if you will excuse the expression, think about enemies of Allah?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 26, 2011 1:43 pm ET)
      25  
      Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

      Go to hell, Glenn.

      -----------------------------------
      IMHO
      Report Abuse
      • Author by txthinker (January 26, 2011 2:10 pm ET)
        18  
        Go to hell, Glenn.
        I believe there is a special Neo-Con Wing of hell. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy are already down there, saving a spot for Glenn Beck and the others while they get crispy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 26, 2011 2:17 pm ET)
          16  
          They lowest plane of hell is reserved for traitors. These pious frauds are traitors to God. If there is an afterlife, they will be keeping company with Judas Iscariot, Marcus Brutus and Cassius Longinus. Of this I have little doubt.

          However, they will not be "crispy." The Nine Layer of Hell is filled with ice.

          ---------------------------------------------
          ;)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by achrispage6992 (January 26, 2011 4:25 pm ET)
            20  
            One of the easiest ways to decrease Beck's popularity among evangelicals is to ensure they are aware that he is a Mormon. I live in the south and I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever, the folks around here just love Beck but they think Mormons are a cult who worship a "fake" Jesus. It's amazing how these people live in a world where they purposely isolate themselves from objectivity and instead rely solely on subjective media sources. So many of them don't even know that the man who they think has all the answers is actually a cult member who worships a fake Jesus.

            The worst thing that could happen to Beck is for his audience to learn he is a Mormon. Notice how he doesn't advertise it but also notice how he verbalizes hard right evangelical ideology. You would think he would be proud of his religion and let his sheep know about who he is. He's mentioned it before, but it seems obvious to me that he purposely distances himself from it as much as he can. It's his downfall. It's the reason Romney will have such a hard time getting the GOP nomination. Religious bigotry is the achilles heel of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, noone on the left has the gonads to go ahead and play them against each other using religion. Let me tell you though, they wouldn't blink an eye to do it to Democrats.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by as promised (January 26, 2011 10:02 pm ET)
              9  
              And remember... he CHOSE his religion, and not that long ago. Needless to say he chose the most far-out extremist branch of Mormonism, a sect that even most Mormons do not wish to be associated with.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by blurider (January 26, 2011 11:46 pm ET)
                3  
                ..of course he could always say he made that choice while his brain was addled by the cocaine.
                Ya think many would judge that it still is?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by kafrank (January 26, 2011 11:53 pm ET)
                     
                  I'm wondering who, when in a cocaine induced state, would suddenly decide that being a Mormon would add nicely to his 'high'.

                  So he's the world's most boring man on "coke". Far too funny.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by indigo1968 (January 27, 2011 7:16 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Frankly, I don't believe that Beck is a Christian of any kind.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by robindianne (January 26, 2011 11:48 pm ET)
                   
                Could you please tell us the name of his extremist branch of mormonism? I hadn't heard this before and I would like to learn more about it. I thought he belonged to the largest sect. Thanks.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by kafrank (January 26, 2011 11:51 pm ET)
                 
              Perfect point. This guy brings out the most embarrassing "worst" in me and I find my personal rhetoric as shameful as his.

              Simply pointing out the truth should do the trick. Nice and civil.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by bonnielindstrom (January 26, 2011 7:16 pm ET)
               
            Someone's been reading their Dante - well done.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Eric_Arthur_Blair (January 26, 2011 11:49 pm ET)
            1  
            I personally do not believe in an afterlife, but ny idea of a perfect one is an afterlife wherein people, instead of getting what they hope for get what they fear they deserve.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Maimon (January 27, 2011 9:08 pm ET)
               
            There is no Hell. It is a construct made up from various things like Hades, Sheol and Gehenna. It only appeared later in both jewish and christian beliefs. Most images are based on a garbage dump outside of Yerusalem that was constantly on fire. It was also where leepers and other social outcasts gathered.

            So, I like to think Beck is going to Florida which is way worse.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by m.welker (January 26, 2011 2:51 pm ET)
          13  
          I don't want to confirm his belief in liberals hating religion, but the people who are most skeptical about scientific data are the ones who believe in a book which had its last additions made almst two thousand years ago, when the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Eric_Arthur_Blair (January 26, 2011 11:52 pm ET)
            2  
            Two thousand years ago, one of the Pagan Greeks (Erastosthenes, to be precise), not only proved the world was a sphere, but calculated its size reasonably accurately.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by nothingtoseehere (January 27, 2011 4:43 pm ET)
              2  
              Thank you for mentioning this. So many ancient cultures had incredible sciences and awareness of the world. And these cultures also had strong mythological or religious belief systems. I'm not saying that they were perfect. Just that the desire to analyze and understand our universe (science) has successfully coexisted with our systems for teaching morality and coexistance (religion) for thousands of years.

              I know this is a fairly tame observation in our heated political atmosphere. I just never cease to be appalled that there are cultural forces attempting to increase ignorance. I'm not particularly religious, but I understand (from a macro perspective) why it exists. And what Beck is doing is true to only one aspect of religion: that it (like any institutionalized hierarchical system) can be used to exploit and hurt its members.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by WestMassman (January 27, 2011 10:31 am ET)
        1  
        But God is not Glenda's god. Glenda's god is ---- Glenda!

        In my revised version of Hell, Glenda will have to find the Biblical truth then go around and make up to all the people he / she / it has hurt. That would be hell for him / her /it.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Major Tom (January 26, 2011 1:43 pm ET)
      14  
      ...and religion has never motivated anyone to kill before... /


      At this point isn't Beck just a liability for Fox?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 26, 2011 2:02 pm ET)
        10  
        He would be to anyone else... anyone who values their own credability and / or has a sense of civic responsoibility or journalistic integrity...

        -------------------------------------------
        ...but not FOX.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (January 26, 2011 2:12 pm ET)
        13  
        ...and religion has never motivated anyone to kill before...
        Tell that to the Crusaders and the Mujahideen.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (January 26, 2011 2:26 pm ET)
          12  
          Con, I heard Jewish lap-dog to the Christian Right Dennis Prager mention the Crusades the other day. He excused them as bad guys dressed up in religious garb. It's easy when you do that.

          Of course, the same people will tell their audience that totalitarian secular states commit their atrocities "in the name of Atheism", which makes the Good and Evil theme even more convenient.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by m.welker (January 26, 2011 2:57 pm ET)
            9  
            When does he demonstrate how people like Jim Wallis are distorting or perverting the Gospels? He just asserts they are and moves into the condemnation. It would be like a trial where the accused is indicted and then sentenced, without any trial ever taking place.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by curiousindependent (January 27, 2011 9:02 am ET)
              2  
              I think that his cult members have shown time and again that they do not require any proof that what he says is true.

              They have also repeatedly shown that any proof that he is wrong or lying will be flatly ignored.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 26, 2011 3:50 pm ET)
            4  
            He excused them as bad guys dressed up in religious garb.


            Like war recreationists? Hmmmm...
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Major Tom (January 26, 2011 2:33 pm ET)
          5  
          I included the / snark mark.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Conchobhar (January 26, 2011 2:40 pm ET)
            8  
            Embarrassed to say, I didn't recognize that as what it was. I'm not getting sound on this computer, so I thought you were quoting the Beckster. If Megyn can get away with claiming no one at Fux uses Nazi comparisons, that statement could probably come from Beck. (Face-saving rationalization #43)
            Report Abuse
    • Author by SacredSalad (January 26, 2011 1:46 pm ET)
      17 1
      . When you pervert the founding documents I think you're a pretty bad dude. But when you pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you are evil. And when you know you intentionally are doing it for power and control and money and a hidden agenda, and you lie, cheat, and steal every step of the way to do it, you are evil.

      I guess Glenn Beck is evil.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by FGFM (January 26, 2011 1:49 pm ET)
      11  
      [W]hen you pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you are evil. And when you know you intentionally are doing it for power and control and money and a hidden agenda, and you lie, cheat, and steal every step of the way to do it, you are evil.

      Funny how Beck became a Mormon, given that Joseph Smith did just that!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by no,5 (January 27, 2011 2:51 am ET)
           
        Whenever I hear that name, the back-up singers in my mind break into the South Park chorus: "Dum dum dum dum dum!"

        http://preview.tinyurl.com/joseph-smith-S-Park
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cst (January 26, 2011 1:59 pm ET)
      14  
      He's just describing American electoral politics as an apocolyptic battle between the forces of Ultimate Good and Absolute Evil, that's all.
      No reason to think he's an extremist or a fanatic.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tbone (January 26, 2011 2:04 pm ET)
      8  
      Isn't is somewhere in the book of Joseph the Huckster that we heathens will get our due? Why get your panties in a twist?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Avicenna (January 26, 2011 2:10 pm ET)
      11  
      Glennie cannot open his mouth with a lie and/or contradiction. In this case, it's both, but here is part of his quote from above, and it is very revealing concerning his show on Fox. In Glenn Beck's own words, here is how he feels about his Fox show:

      "It hasn't been about anything."

      A lie and which contradicts the other nonsense he says.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (January 26, 2011 2:17 pm ET)
        9  
        Actually, he speaks sooth, in this case, witness The Bard:
        ROMEO
        Peace, peace, Mercutio, peace!
        Thou talk'st of nothing.
        MERCUTIO
        True, I talk of dreams,
        Which are the children of an idle brain,
        Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,
        Which is as thin of substance as the air
        And more inconstant than the wind, who wooes
        Even now the frozen bosom of the north,
        And, being anger'd, puffs away from thence,
        Turning his face to the dew-dropping south.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by blurider (January 27, 2011 12:02 am ET)
        4  
        Good catch!
        I noticed that too but then in the next sentence, he went on to try to explain what it IS all about which brought me to my idea about his cocaine addled brain.

        Often as not the man is a rambling, incoherent fool! How on earth do his listener/viewers overlook that little flaw and actually think of him as an 'educator'?
        I guess that's a reflection of their own intelligence and consistency of critical judgment?

        In their own anger and confusion they love what they hear!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Avicenna (January 26, 2011 2:13 pm ET)
      9  
      "They {Progressives} have distanced God from people," Glenn Beck lies. "They have discredited him, distanced him, made him into a joke, denied his existence or, at best, just confused him with social justice and everything else -- just confused him."

      Anyone read The Book of Mormon lately? Uh, I don't think Mormonism is a divinely revealed religion like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc., Glennie. Some would argue that Mormons have done much to distort God and his true Prophets. Get a grip, Glennie.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (January 26, 2011 2:18 pm ET)
        12  
        If Beck thinks God can be confused, he's created his god...in his own image.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by achrispage6992 (January 26, 2011 4:30 pm ET)
          5  
          Wow! That's simply an amazing assessment. I'm going to use that all the time now when arguing with hard right evangelicals. Thanks Conchobhar.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by stuya (January 26, 2011 2:56 pm ET)
           
        Normally I'd be inclined to press you on why you feel Mormonism should be singled out as a non-divinely revealed religion (or rather, why you take for granted that all the others are). Instead, I'll just quote Mark Twain on the book of mormon!

        Whenever he [Smith] found his speech growing too modern, which was about every sentence or two, he ladeled in a few such scriptural phrases as, "exceeding sore," "and it came to pass," etc. and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to pass," was his pet. If he had left that out, his bible would have been only a pamphlet
        Report Abuse
    • Author by irishbybirthmunsterbygraceofgod (January 26, 2011 2:24 pm ET)
      12  
      i cant be an enemy of somthing i do not think exists
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (January 26, 2011 2:50 pm ET)
        13  
        This seems to be a combination of confusion and dishonesty on the part of right wing fundamentalists, the idea that people who aren't religious "hate God".

        Set aside that polls show that the vast majority of Americans claim to be religious, polls that the religious right love to cite. Based on our electorate being pretty evenly divided, that would imply that most progressives are religious, meaning they love God.

        The rest of us have no feelings one way or another about their God.

        But look for this theme to be well-used following the murders in Arizona. I've already seen several articles and Youtube videos focusing on Jared Loughners supposed atheism.

        The problem with these attacks by the religious, as neatly as they work with their "God-hating" narrative, is that nihilists like Loughner, in my opinion, fall on the opposite end of the spectrum from typical atheists, further away than normal religious people.

        Genuine atheists don't care about God, any more than they care about leprechauns. We have morals and ethics that are independent of any supernatural judgement.

        Religious people love God, but can find themselves questioning God in times of trouble or confusion. They can feel betrayed by God.

        People like Loughner have the most extreme feelings about God. They hate that there is no God to control them, and don't see a purpose to life because of their missing God.

        It's the main reason that, although I use it as shorthand, for lack of a better term, I don't really like the word "Atheist". It implies something missing.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by WestMassman (January 27, 2011 10:53 am ET)
          1  
          to Andy Kreiss

          I have rather mixed feelings about your post.

          Let me begin by stating: I am a devout LIBERAL Christian. The reasons I believe are not important here, but, I do believe for good reason. It is because of my Christian faith that I am a liberal.

          The fundamentalists are welcome to their beliefs, but, their hatred of any one who disagrees with them is reprehensible. They are controlling and they twist the gospel. They cater to sick minds. for example "The Left Behind" series. Meant for sick minds and a total distortion of the Bible.

          I do agree with them on one point, one I think Liberals did not notice until late: There is a cultural war going on for the heart and soul of America. I agree, but, they are on the wrong side.

          I do find it funny that they hate science, but, use the latest scientific gadget to get their message out. the have a special hatred for biology, but, if they get sick, well take them to a hospital and get the latest care.

          In my world, even if you don't believe, God still loves you. After all God knows there are man good reasons not to believe.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by WilliamHolden (January 26, 2011 2:51 pm ET)
        8  
        Havent you heard? Beck has a direct line to God sponsored by Goldline.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Timmee (January 26, 2011 2:25 pm ET)
      9  
      Enemies of God? So while he doesn't advocate violence, he constantly tells the nuts of the world who the real enemy is. He tells them that everything they suffer in the world is the fault of certain key people and that their lives and children are under assault by an evil conspiracy. But no violence please. The left will destroy all you love if you don't take action immediately...but please no violence. They threaten your very life and can't be stopped through normal means, but please no violence.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 2:28 pm ET)
        26
      I can't find anywhere in which our Founders would have believed in the same thing that most progressives believe in. All I read from the Founders is how they set up a limited government that was tasked with very specific powers.

      It seems to me that progressives don't believe in limited government and are of the opinion that Congress' powers are expansive.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MiniTru (January 26, 2011 2:46 pm ET)
        15 1
        I can't find anywhere in which our Founders would have believed in the same thing that most progressives believe in.
        Then you haven't read anything.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 3:35 pm ET)
            15
          Show me how the views of government by our Founders match the views of modern progressives.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (January 26, 2011 4:44 pm ET)
            7  
            Your big mistake is believing that the Founding Fathers were politically homogeneous. They disagreed on a great many things.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 26, 2011 6:22 pm ET)
              8  
              "Your big mistake is believing that the Founding Fathers were politically homogeneous. They disagreed on a great many things." - pete

              Of course you are correct. But, as Mag seems to admit, he has read very little about the Founding Fathers. Like most Beckers, he gets all of his information from one source.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (January 26, 2011 4:57 pm ET)
            15 2
            The founders WERE the progressives of their day.

            Progressives today believe in the constitution and what it stands for. Republicans/teabaggers - not so much.

            And by the way, the constitution set up a SEPARATION of powers. There was nothing in there about "limited government" so you can toss that catchphrase in the trash where it belongs.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Arturus (January 26, 2011 6:19 pm ET)
                12
              Progressives would say that political and economic conservatism (but not cultural conservatism) is committed to political and economic elitism, with governance of a wealthy elite, by a wealthy elite, on behalf of the economic interests of a wealthy elite — by force, if necessary, but preferably by means of bribery, rigged elections, packed courts, and mass media propaganda. Recently, conservatives have sought an all-powerful "unitary executive" role for the Presidency, in keeping with authoritarian ambitions.

              http://www.progressiveliving.org/politics/definition_of_progressivism.htm

              This is completely OPPOSITE of America's constitution of INDIVIDUAL liberty. No, progressives do NOT beieve in the constitution except to use it...to destroy it and replace it with tyranny.

              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Maimon (January 26, 2011 6:21 pm ET)
                9  
                Wow...I guess you are right. A definiton on website and teh debate is over. Man, who knew how powerful a dictionary was. I guess I'll send one to Fox and it will be over.

                Sigh...
                Report Abuse
              • Author by eweston8542983 (January 26, 2011 7:06 pm ET)
                5  
                You've indited us and I know you have no time to present your case, busy important person that you are. So we'll go directly to a well informed guilty verdict against somewhere around a third of the population.

                So whats the punishment going to be Judge Arturus?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 26, 2011 7:08 pm ET)
                12  
                This is completely OPPOSITE of America's constitution of INDIVIDUAL liberty. No, progressives do NOT beieve in the constitution except to use it...to destroy it and replace it with tyranny.


                I have to ask, are you stupid? Because what you just pasted is what that web site states is the progressive view of conservatism. Oh wait - you aren't stupid, just disingenuous like many othe cons here. Why else would you feel the need to crop that paragraph from the original, which I'll paste the WHOLE graph...

                Progressivism vs. Conservatism

                Like other forms of Liberalism, Progressivism represents a commitment to the rule of law, with governance of the people, by the people, and for the people. Progressives seek such governance as the means to the greatest good of the greatest number. Progressives would say that political and economic conservatism (but not cultural conservatism) is committed to political and economic elitism, with governance of a wealthy elite, by a wealthy elite, on behalf of the economic interests of a wealthy elite — by force, if necessary, but preferably by means of bribery, rigged elections, packed courts, and mass media propaganda. Recently, conservatives have sought an all-powerful "unitary executive" role for the Presidency, in keeping with authoritarian ambitions.


                Oh and further up that post we have this...

                Fuller Definition

                We are now in a better position to offer a fuller definition of Progressivism: it is the specifically American development of Liberalism and populism that seeks social justice above all else, and specifically with reference to the obstacles posed to social justice by large corporations. Though Progressives strongly support civil liberties, the "progress" in Progressivism is thought to lie, most fundamentally, with ensuring, as the American pledge to the flag puts it, "justice for all".


                You all lie so effortlessly...
                Report Abuse
                • Author by congero6189599 (January 27, 2011 10:59 am ET)
                  2  
                  Thanks Old Ben for finding that. They most certainly do lie effortlessly or just deny proven facts.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by achrispage6992 (January 27, 2011 12:47 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Unbelievable....not wait...it's believable. I can't tell you how many times I've caught conservatives doing the same exact thing at my local newspapers comments section. I guess they think everyone is as dumb as they are.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 27, 2011 1:31 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Ouch. If Aruturs had an ounce of shame, that would have stung.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by rms (January 27, 2011 9:32 am ET)
                4  
                "Progressives would say..."

                You got off to a pretty bad start here because I don't know of any "progressive" who espouses what you seem to think they/I should espouse.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Adendrools (January 26, 2011 5:30 pm ET)
            9  
            How about all of these veiws magmoron? You have absolutely no effin' idea. The Fathers were the progressives dipsh!t.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by beDecent (January 26, 2011 2:46 pm ET)
        14  
        All you read from the Founders is how they set up a limited government?

        They did a lot more, look into it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (January 26, 2011 2:54 pm ET)
          18  
          Mag probably got the Teabagger's Konstatooshin Kliff Notes.

          Article I: You could has a gun, and not to paying lotsa taxes, and praise jesus. The End.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by WilliamHolden (January 26, 2011 3:00 pm ET)
            5  
            Amen.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by wookie (January 26, 2011 4:05 pm ET)
            9  
            Things like the Whiskey Rebellion should have settled the case about what the founders meant by "levy taxes" and "well regulated militia". The wingnuts however, as they showed with the Texas school books, simply invent a past and then defend it from the evils of open debate.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 26, 2011 6:26 pm ET)
          4  
          When he says that is all he's read, he really means that is all that Beck has told him. Like most Beckers, he only knows what Beck tells him to believe.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (January 26, 2011 2:53 pm ET)
        11 1
        The founders of this country were progressives Mag.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 3:35 pm ET)
          2 9
          Show me how the views of government by our Founders match the views of modern progressives.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jarossiter (January 26, 2011 3:48 pm ET)
            10  
            Show me how the views of Government of Abraham Lincoln matches the views of the Founders.

            The Founders were the progressives of their time, as they belived the power flowed upwards from the governed not downwards from the governors.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 4:22 pm ET)
                11
              "Show me how the views of Government of Abraham Lincoln matches the views of the Founders."
              - I haven't even made it to Lincoln yet. I'm still reading a ton about the Founding.

              "The Founders were the progressives of their time, as they belived the power flowed upwards from the governed not downwards from the governors. "
              - And that's not at all how Congress treats the country today. Congress puts themselves at the head of a pyramid with the state governments, the local governments, and finally the people all groveling at its feet for tax money.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by datruthfarmer (January 26, 2011 5:15 pm ET)
                9  
                "I'm still reading a ton about the Founding."

                Yes, this one sentence explains all of your previous posts.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (January 26, 2011 9:55 pm ET)
                4  
                You have absolutely no idea what progressivism is about if you believe that pablum that you posted. Progressives do feel that it is the government's responsibility to look out for the welfare of ALL citizens of this country and to protect the weak from the strong.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (January 26, 2011 10:24 pm ET)
                3  
                You haven't made it to Lincoln yet? Didn't you learn about him and his philosophy in school???
                Report Abuse
              • Author by curiousindependent (January 27, 2011 9:35 am ET)
                4  
                We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Verily, we seem to have distanced ourselves from Justice, except where it applies to the very wealthy and powerful. Insuring domestic Tranquility seems also to have been tossed out.

                We provide for the common defence of Iraqis, and I would surely like to have someone show me where in the UNITED STATES Constitution that is provided for.
                Promoting the general Welfare I would think should include ensuring that ALL Americans have access to those things that actually promote their welfare, you know, things like adequate health care, nutritious food, clean air and water, etcetera.
                The Blessings of Liberty seems to be taken by some to mean "I can do what I want, and f#@k anyone that is harmed, as long as I have mine".
                Of course, when Reagan racked up enough debt to last well into the 21st century even if we did NOTHING new, he began the screwing of our Posterity, and George W was happy, with the help of a majority Republican Congress, to continue that screwing.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by achrispage6992 (January 26, 2011 4:44 pm ET)
            20  
            Sure. We'll start with "Promoting the General Welfare." We can easily discuss the ideas of Alexander Hamilton and even some of Jefferson. Then we can talk about the Treaty of Tripoli which specifically states that the United States of American was not founded upon the Christian Religion.

            Do you really want to play this game? You guys are so pitiful. You are trying so hard to portray the founders and the beginning of this country as these perfect people who lived in a perfect government. It's the basis of your entire political philosophy. You want to convince people that by accepting your policy ideas we can return to the perfect world of the founders and 18th Century America. You idiots simply dismiss historical reality relating to the vast inequalities that existed in this country and continue to exist. Well let me tell you, its wasn't conservative policies and ideology which eliminated slavery. It wasn't conservative ideology which led to the Civil Rights legislation. It wasn't conservative ideology which ended child labor, prohibited monopolies, gave women the right to vote, ended land ownership as a pre-requisite to vote, gave us interstates, clean water, etc, etc, etc.

            You conservatives live under this delusion that we can only obtain perfection by either returning to the past or standing still. The ignorance of conservatives never cease to amaze me. why don't you go ahead and tell us what conservatism has done for this country besides take it to the brink of destruction?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (January 26, 2011 5:00 pm ET)
              7  
              <APPLAUSE>

              MagCynic is still in high school. At least I hope so. For his sake.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Mychyl (January 26, 2011 6:18 pm ET)
                   
                Judging by his comment above:

                "I haven't even made it to Lincoln yet. I'm still reading a ton about the Founding."

                ...I would be willing to wager middle school, or possibly late elementary. I don't know many people who haven't studied Lincoln making it so far as early high school.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by curiousindependent (January 27, 2011 9:42 am ET)
              4  
              You are trying so hard to portray the founders and the beginning of this country as these perfect people who lived in a perfect government.
              They seem also to view the founders as omniscient beings who could take into account cultural and technological advances not even dreamed of in their times. Not suprisingly, a large number of the people who believe this are the same ones who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and that the MEN who actually wrote it were inspired by God to take into account any changes that might happen throughout the lifespan of the human race.

              Of course, one has to wonder, if these folks truly believe that the Bible is, in fact, God's own words dictated to and written down by men, why are women allowed to speak in public, among other contradictions.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by achrispage6992 (January 27, 2011 12:55 pm ET)
                2  
                I agree. I know Chris Matthews is not the most popular media personality here at this site, but I think you and others would really like what he did to the leader of the Tea Party movement the other day. It was a discussion relating to Michelle Bachman asserting that the founders fought hard and ended slavery. Matthews tore this guy apart and made one of the most compelling arguments relating to the Tea Party ideology I've heard. It's obvious why they try to embellish the founders and the point in history when this country was founded. It's a part of their ploy to circumvent logic and rely on emotion. I would suggest that everyone watch this exchange.
                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/chris-matthews-michele-bachmann-balloon-head_n_814033.html

                If that link does't work just google Matthews Bachmann Balloon Head.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by jarossiter (January 26, 2011 3:06 pm ET)
        12  
        You're thinking of the Articles of Confederation, which was replaced by the Constitution, because the Federal Government laid out in the articles was TOO weak.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (January 26, 2011 3:12 pm ET)
          12  
          Wingnuts never understand that the Constitution was written to give the federal government more power than was granted under the Articles of Confederation.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jarossiter (January 26, 2011 3:15 pm ET)
            8  
            Its wilfull ignorance
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 3:34 pm ET)
            1 14
            True. The Constitution gave the federal government more but limited power. How about you make the argument that Congress views itself as limited.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jarossiter (January 26, 2011 3:39 pm ET)
              8  
              How about you tell me what the "General Welfare" clause means and how it leads to limited government?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 4:29 pm ET)
                1 8
                Thomas Jefferson
                Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
                James Madison
                With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
                James Madison
                …[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
                James Madison
                If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.
                It's quiet clear that the Founders set up a limited government with limited - but specific - powers. The General Welfare clause has been taken to mean Congress can do anything for any reason. They've forgotten that it must be kept general and specific to the welfare of the nation as a whole, not specific localities, groups of people, or industries.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by WilliamHolden (January 26, 2011 4:50 pm ET)
                  10  
                  Before you accuse anyone of having beliefs against the Constitution, you may wanna acknowledge that the Constitution is open for interpretation and discussion.

                  The Founding Fathers didnt speak on all topics with one voice. If I remeber correctly Alexander Hamilton had a different take on General Walfare. A term like General Welfare is a typicall example for a term used that can be interpreted differently.

                  So please, do us a favour and accept different takes on the Constituion. The Constitution changes over times, has been adjusted and will continue to change.

                  Personally, I had a huger issue with the Bush Administration that imho violeted the Constitution in taking away human rights while I think Healt Care doesnt take anyone huma rights away and falls for me under General Welfare.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 5:10 pm ET)
                      10
                    "you may wanna acknowledge that the Constitution is open for interpretation and discussion. "
                    - No it's not. The Founders set it up as a fixed document with fixed powers. The ONLY way to change it is through the amendment process. The second you consider it a "living" document, Congress no longer becomes limited by the Constitution. Instead it is only limited by the imagination of the one interpreting the document.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (January 26, 2011 5:17 pm ET)
                      12  
                      No one interprets "THE DOCUMENT" except the Supreme Court. And their power to interpret "THE DOCUMENT" is enumerated in "THE DOCUMENT".

                      The Founders set it up as a fixed document with fixed powers.

                      Lying about "THE DOCUMENT" isn't going to get you into Teabagger Heaven.

                      I recommend having a one-on-one session with your high school government instructor. You've got alot of misconceptions to get rid of. Think of it as "constitutional therapy".
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Andy Kreiss (January 26, 2011 6:54 pm ET)
                        12  
                        That's one of my favorite wingnut talking points.

                        For a couple of hundred years, scholars, lawyers,professors, philosophers, politicians, writers - some of the greatest minds on the planet- have been debating and interpreting the constitution.

                        But every right wing numbskull with a couple of hours of beck U. believes they have it all figured out.

                        One of them recently posted at this site that the document should not be interpreted. It should be obeyed just as it reads.

                        It's so child-like, it's almost cute.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by TheWillofThePeople (January 27, 2011 8:10 am ET)
                        3  
                        except the Supreme Court. And their power to interpret "THE DOCUMENT" is enumerated in "THE DOCUMENT".


                        Um... No it isn't. Article 3 says that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of legal questions. It wasn't until Marbury v. Madison that the SCOTUS got authority over interpreting the Constitution.

                        Normally, Foghorn, I like your comments. I suspect Mag's obtuseness is driving you to distraction at this point and screwing up your usually thoughtful posts.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (January 27, 2011 11:35 am ET)
                             
                          Thanks for the correction (and the nice words). I'm an admitted amateur on constitutional stuff.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by achrispage6992 (January 26, 2011 5:20 pm ET)
                      8  
                      That is such ridiculous thinking sir. Using your argument we must assume that the founders didn't want any restrictions on the second amendment. So, according to your ideology, violent felons and crazed schizophrenics should be able to walk into any store and buy a handgun no questions asked right? WRONG. EVen the most staunch conservatives on the SCOTUS interpret the Constitution to mean what they think it means. Do you think that when Scalia votes to constantly erode our 4th amendment rights he isn't interpreting the Constitution?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by WilliamHolden (January 26, 2011 5:28 pm ET)
                      9  
                      How come it is not? Is it something like the Bible? Because nobodoy interprets the Bibly either.

                      What do all the constitutionell lawyers do all day? They surely cant be discussing the Constitution since you just enlightened me it´s not open for interpretation and discusssion.

                      On a sidenote how do you suggest in the future the Supreme should make decisions. Build a time machine and bring the Founding Fathers back, maybe? But I am telling you, the Founding Fathers
                      would also have to interpret their own words.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by raddave43 (January 26, 2011 9:59 pm ET)
                      4  
                      The Constitution IS NOT a fixed document, never has been and never will be. Tell me this, in over 200 years, why has the Supreme Court not attempted to define the term "General Welfare" and leaves it up to Congress to decide what falls under that term?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Maimon (January 26, 2011 11:42 pm ET)
                      2  
                      Yes a fixed document that they amended IMMEDIATLY.

                      And if you think a document written by men, white men, could speak for eternity without issue, you are totally misguided.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by jarossiter (January 26, 2011 5:01 pm ET)
                    5
                  It's quiet clear that the Founders set up a limited government with limited - but specific - powers. The General Welfare clause has been taken to mean Congress can do anything for any reason. They've forgotten that it must be kept general and specific to the welfare of the nation as a whole, not specific localities, groups of people, or industries.

                  And thus the health care law is constitutional.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 5:08 pm ET)
                      13
                    "And thus the health care law is constitutional."
                    - It's not though. Obamacare doesn't actually provide anything. It is a regulation. And, even then, it isn't a Constitutional regulation because it is not interstate commerce. There are laws and rules specifically set up to prevent people from purchasing health insurance from different states.

                    You are referring to universal health coverage that applies to everybody across the nation with no government mandated qualifications. If you are a citizen, you get health care. That's it. I wouldn't like that and I think it would end in failure, but at least THAT would be Constitutional.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by n'est-ce pas (January 26, 2011 5:36 pm ET)
                      13  
                      Heh. Actually, the Affordable Care Act allows people to buy healthcare insurance across state lines. Ouch. You fail...again.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by curiousindependent (January 27, 2011 9:47 am ET)
                        1  
                        Besides which, Aetna is my insurance company. Are you trying to imply that they only do business in Texas?
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 26, 2011 6:33 pm ET)
                      5  
                      Ahh, now we all see. One person does get to interpret the Constitution. Mag gets to. For everyone else. How precious.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Andy Kreiss (January 26, 2011 6:56 pm ET)
                        9  
                        That's typical of the righty approach.

                        " The constitution is not open to interpretation! It means exactly what I see when I interpret it."

                        I don't even think they're being dishonest, I think they really are that self-absorbed.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by raddave43 (January 26, 2011 10:02 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Actually it is interstate commerce because that insurance policy will cover you in all states in the country.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by TheWillofThePeople (January 27, 2011 8:35 am ET)
                      4  
                      Moreover, Mags, I have to ask... What do you think Progressives are all about? Because if you can say this:
                      universal health coverage that applies to everybody across the nation with no government mandated qualifications. If you are a citizen, you get health care. That's it... THAT would be Constitutional.

                      But also this:
                      I can't find anywhere in which our Founders would have believed in the same thing that most progressives believe in.

                      Then I would say you don't have the faintest idea what Progressives stand for. Maybe we should examine what you think we believe in.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by TheWillofThePeople (January 27, 2011 8:16 am ET)
                    4  
                    I'm not so sure about the individual mandate being constitutional...

                    That said, you know what would be? Medicare for all!

                    If the prerequisite for federal taxing and spending is that it be for the general welfare, then there's no question that Medicare for all would be totally constitutional. Even if we forced it on people. I say scrap the mandate, go back and craft some real legislation that puts everyone on the government plan, then negotiate your way to a public option.

                    Its what they should have done in the first place.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by curiousindependent (January 27, 2011 9:50 am ET)
                         
                      Excellent idea.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 27, 2011 1:39 pm ET)
                         
                      The individual mandate is constitutional and will be eventually upheld. Even though I am not a big fan of it. Because it is not written as a mandate. It is a tax that you get a tax break from if you have health insurance. If you choose not to have health insurance, which you can do, you will pay the tax. This tax will, theoretically, pay for at least a portion of the inevitable healthcare you will certainly use someday.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by achrispage6992 (January 26, 2011 5:04 pm ET)
                  6  
                  "The General Welfare clause has been taken to mean Congress can do anything for any reason."

                  Huh? That's a flat out bald face lie. And now you come here and play Constitutional scholar and thankfully interpret it for us? Thanks but no thanks. Again, this ideology of people like you in which you have this delusion that the founders were perfect people who had beliefs just like you is ridiculous. Now, your whole charade is that we must return to the America the founders wanted. First of all the founders were a very diverse group of men. Some like Hamilton felt that a strong central government was paramount to our success. To dismiss this reality is delusional. Secondly, whether you like it or not, government has done wonderful things for this nation sir. It sure wasn't limited government and conservative ideology which ended slavery, or enacted Civil Rights legislation, or gave women the right to vote, or ended child labor, or ended monopolies, or oh....what's the use? There is no changing your delusional thinking about the founders and 18th century America. It's an exercise in futility.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 5:12 pm ET)
                      10
                    "Huh? That's a flat out bald face lie."

                    Is it? Answer me this. What can't the Congress do in the name of the General Welfare?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by achrispage6992 (January 26, 2011 5:35 pm ET)
                      10  
                      First of all you made the statement that it has been taken to mean something. Yet you never indicate who or what is doing the "taking" in this instance. Essentially you are making the assertion that somebody or some group of people have come together and declared that Congress can do whatever it likes under the general welfare clause. That sir, is a bald face lie. In case you haven't been awake in some time, you need to understand that many Congressional actions pertain to the Commerce Clause and Elastic Clauses not the General Welfare portion of the preamble.

                      Regarding your question, All I can tell you is go read Article 1, Section 9.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by raddave43 (January 26, 2011 10:05 pm ET)
                        2  
                        General Welfare is not only mentioned in the preamble. it is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, giving Congress to act in the interest of General welfare of this country.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 26, 2011 6:38 pm ET)
                    5  
                    In fairness, chris, Mag has made it abundantly clear that he is a very young man still learning about the very basics of our government and civics in general. Don't get too upset. Many of us, myself included, had these purists thoughts of ideology when we were young and knew nothing about how the real world works. These are the kinds of minds that are perfect for the simplistic and utterly ridiculous world that Beck sells everyday. Hopefully, Mag is in middle school. Because even by high school, he should really know how silly some of these things sound.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (January 26, 2011 5:10 pm ET)
                  7  
                  It's quiet clear that the Founders set up a limited government with limited - but specific - powers

                  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

                  It's a teabagger term. Please toss it in the garbage. Thanks in advance.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 5:13 pm ET)
                      7
                    Did you not read all the quotes I posted from the Founders that talk about limited powers? What do you think that is?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 26, 2011 5:21 pm ET)
                      9  
                      Did you not read all the quotes I posted from the Founders that talk about limited powers? What do you think that is?


                      Talk that didn't make it into the constitution?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 5:27 pm ET)
                          9
                        Ugh. So what are you arguing then? That the Founders wanted a government that wasn't limited by the Constitution?

                        I've provided quotes that back up my assertion. The least you could do is back up your beliefs.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (January 26, 2011 5:33 pm ET)
                          11  
                          You're being intellectually dishonest again. The constitution separated and limited powers to the 3 branches of government.

                          There was NO mention of "limited government".

                          You're conflating two entirely different definitions of limited.

                          You've provided nothing but generalizational pablum and limited this limited that crapola.

                          So I ask you: Please provide the EXACT quote in the constitution that provides for limited government.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by WilliamHolden (January 26, 2011 5:46 pm ET)
                            4  
                            Exactly, the power is limited through seperation and limited by the human rights.

                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 26, 2011 6:47 pm ET)
                          4  
                          HaHaHa! Mag, you are adorable. Now, you are arguing that when you were suggesting that the Constitution stated a limited government you were only arguing that the government would be limited to the three branches specified within the Constitution? Wow. You cannot even be intellectually honest with yourself, can you?

                          That Beckerism is a tough religion to live with, I can tell. You have to keep twisting yourself into pretzels just to keep from admitting your prophet is a degenerate liar with nothing but profit as his motive.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by curiousindependent (January 27, 2011 9:58 am ET)
                             
                          Mag. Don't you think that those ideas, if they were agreed upon by ALL of the framers of the Constitution, would have actually made it into the Constitution? The fact that they did not indicates that, while some may well have agreed, the consensus was that they were wrong. When you have a bunch of people contributing to a project, not every idea gets used.

                          The ideas that do not get used are scrapped, not held in abeyance until someone can dredge them back up and claim that they were intended to be in there. Of course the person who birthed the idea intended for it to be used, but when he put it forth for consideration, it was not adopted.

                          Why else do you think those things weren't in there? Maybe they ran out of parchment?
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (January 26, 2011 5:22 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Yes, and their quotes are not part of the Constitution. Come on, I really wanna know - you are still in high school, right? Anyway, you're intellectually dishonest. You conflated quotes with the actual language in the constitution.

                      They're not the same thing, idiot.

                      And if you are still in high school, accept my apologies for calling you an idiot.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 5:27 pm ET)
                          9
                        So even though the Founders clearly believed in limited government, they set the Constitution up so Congress wouldn't be limited by it?

                        Please explain.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by WilliamHolden (January 26, 2011 5:33 pm ET)
                          3  
                          Please explain, how dare you interpret the Constitution by the intentions of some of the Founding Fathers?

                          Too funny.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by foghornleghorn (January 26, 2011 5:36 pm ET)
                            5  
                            Sad, really. Mags actually thinks the founders were teabaggers hell bent on limited government, even though limited government doesn't appear in "the document".
                            Report Abuse
                    • Author by n'est-ce pas (January 26, 2011 5:22 pm ET)
                      9  
                      A very selective collection. For instance, the Hamiltonian view was not represented. Instead, you cherrypicked two anti-Federalists to represent all the "Founders." You do know that while George Washington was president, Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause was the one that the Congress worked under, don't you? Of course you did, since you told me that you're a bona fide Constitutional scholar....
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 5:28 pm ET)
                          10
                        I can test your knowledge with on question.

                        Do you believe the Founders were for a limited government?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (January 26, 2011 5:38 pm ET)
                          7  
                          Do you?

                          I don't, because limited government does not appear in the document. And I prefer to follow the document rather than some random quotes the founders may or may not have said.

                          Your turn.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 26, 2011 6:55 pm ET)
                            2  
                            What is adorable is the way Mag begins these arguments by suggesting that no one can interpret the Constitution. It must be taken literal. Then he proceeds to do nothing other than interpret the Constitution for us. And when he is called out claiming something ridiculous that he is too ignorant to realize is ridiculous (such as the Constitution specifying limited government) he just keeps twisting and twisting and twisting. It reminds me of when his prophet, Beck, was dressed down and given an intellectual thumping by that brain trust that is the View. Funny, but hard to watch.
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by Adendrools (January 26, 2011 5:38 pm ET)
                          5  
                          I believe they were progressive. that is what the above article is about right? Troll, or should I say......Dumba$$
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by achrispage6992 (January 26, 2011 5:39 pm ET)
                          7  
                          I can test yours. Do you believe some founders were for a strong central government?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by n'est-ce pas (January 26, 2011 5:45 pm ET)
                          6  
                          I believe that the "Founders" would have slapped you for deifying them. Other than that one unified position, no, I can honestly say that the entire group was not for any single interpretation of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton wanted a strong central government, as did George Washington, Governeur Morris, and Ben Franklin. James Madison waffled on the subject, but came to agree with Jefferson that the Federal government should be pretty much a coordinating body, rather than a supreme law of the land.

                          Really, your problem, besides a really shallow understanding of the history involved, is trying to stick your hand up the butt of the framers and make them all say the same thing in concert. The number of widely different opinions represented in the Constitutional Convention numbered roughly the same as the number of delegates. There's a reason the Constitution is so vague and open to interpretation, it's a mass of concessions and compromises that only barely received enough support to be ratified.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 26, 2011 6:50 pm ET)
                          4  
                          "I can test your knowledge with on question." - Mag

                          Wow. Just....wow. I cannot believe the level of arrogant ignorance it must take to maintain that kind of belief system. That Beckerism is rotting your mind and your soul, Mag. Give it up while there is still an ounce of hope for you left.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by curiousindependent (January 27, 2011 10:04 am ET)
                          2  
                          Do you believe the Founders were for a limited government?
                          How about I test yours.

                          You do realise that the framers of the Constitution voted, argued, and came to consensus on what would be included and what would not, and the quotes that you dredged up didn't make it in, right?

                          Do you believe that the ideas of INDIVIDUALS that DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE CONSTITUTION because they were not consensus ideas should be used to interpret it now?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by Maimon (January 27, 2011 9:11 pm ET)
                             
                          Yes they sought to limit pwoer for many things: the states, The State, executive, congress, senate and the judiciary.

                          They in no way implied or envisioned "small government".
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 26, 2011 6:44 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Poor Mag. He actually thinks the website he copied and pasted those quotes from was the Constitution. I know you are still very young and learning, Mag, but sometimes it is hard not to feel sorry for you.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by n'est-ce pas (January 26, 2011 5:15 pm ET)
                  8  
                  The General Welfare clause has been taken to mean Congress can do anything for any reason.
                  While you were frantically Googling the term "limited government," which does not appear in the Constitution, did it not occur to you to Google the term "General Welfare," which does. Because you really don't know what it means if your statement is actually representative of your understanding.

                  The Constitution specifically says that Congress can lay taxes and make laws for, among other reasons, to promote the General Welfare. The clause is currently considered a limitation on the taxing and spending power of the Congress, designed to ensure that taxes were only levied for purposes that benefitted the whole country. The question of whether or not a tangible benefit manifests from Congressional action is the sole province of the Congress to determine. As the plain language of the clause has no other limitations upon it, random quotes from dead guys don't matter. The words of Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson carry no legal authority. The only thing that matters is what's to be found in Article 1, Section 8. And what's to be found there confers great power upon the Congress to lay taxes and spend to promote the General Welfare.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by achrispage6992 (January 26, 2011 5:41 pm ET)
                    4 1
                    N'est-ce pas has just put Magcynic in CHECK MATE. The debate is over folks.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 26, 2011 6:57 pm ET)
                      4  
                      If only Mag were bright enough or humble enough to actually learn from these lessons. But, that is the sad part about Beckerism, you can never learn from your mistakes when you refuse to admit they are mistakes in the first place.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by jarossiter (January 26, 2011 6:22 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Thank you.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by Maimon (January 26, 2011 11:03 pm ET)
                  4  
                  I think you need to read the entire body of their works and those quotes are somewhat taken out of contexts. Especially Jefferson, who was an absolute progressive.

                  Many of the framers of the Constitutions were supporters of limiting STATE power. They saw the neccessity of a strong central government in many instances.

                  But hey, educate yourself and believe what you want. Just don't try to sell the distortion as truth.

                  The idea has always has always been about balance, not about "Small Government, or Limited Government"
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (January 26, 2011 3:31 pm ET)
        9  
        Is that you're way of saying Progressives are evil, mag? That nearly half the country is wrong and is actively engaged in destroying the country?

        That's what Beck is saying. You seem to agree with him.


        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 3:35 pm ET)
            11
          They aren't evil. Well, most of them aren't evil. Their beliefs simply aren't Constitutional.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (January 26, 2011 4:01 pm ET)
            15 1
            I'm a Progressive. According to you, I don't believe in the Constitution? Go F**k Yourself, B**ch.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 4:23 pm ET)
                11
              No need for rudeness. Argue against me with your principles.

              How do you justify your beliefs against the Constitution?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by roundhouse (January 26, 2011 4:49 pm ET)
                19 1
                My beliefs against the Constitution? F**k you and your loaded question.

                Nah, where I come from you get your *ss kicked for talkin' smack about a person's patriotism like that, so f**k off. And stop whining that I'm rude, you were being a jackwagon and got what you had coming. Deal with it.

                I mean seriously, who do you think you are acting that way? Simply because we reject your rightwing perversions of the common good, you think we are anti-contitutional? You're just a p-rick.

                I came from the farm, we worked the land; loved our land and took care of it. We helped our neighbors and family; made sure they never went without when we could help.

                That's how I view America, that's how progressives see America and our government. We are in a partnership to lift up one another. We believe in effective government, mutual responsibility, broad prosperity and a better future. We believe that our government is there to protect us from the elite domination of big business and empower us to succeed by providing a world class education and healthcare. If you can't get with that, don't you dare try to tell me that my beliefs are against the constitution.

                Jerk.


                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 5:16 pm ET)
                    11
                  Progressives don't believe in the limiting power of the Constitution. They believe that what must be done in the name of the common good must be done regardless of - what they think - are arbitrary limits in the Constitution.

                  Take the federal minimum wage laws for example. Congress has the power to regulate commerce amongst the several states. If I'm employing everyone from the same state, how can Congress have the authority to mandate what I can and cannot pay them?

                  These are the sort of principles I'm referring to when I say progressives don't believe in the Constitution.

                  But, yeah, get all butt hurt about your assumptions of what I'm saying to you personally.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (January 26, 2011 5:29 pm ET)
                    9  
                    Progressives don't believe in the limiting power of the Constitution

                    How can progressives not believe in something that doesn't exist?

                    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LIMITED GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

                    These are the sort of principles I'm referring to when I say progressives don't believe in the Constitution

                    Like Roundhouse said, you're a jackwagon, pr*ck, and a jerk. And a clueless constitutional scholar.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by n'est-ce pas (January 26, 2011 5:32 pm ET)
                    6  
                    Well, your first paragraph is not true. Progressives have a different interpretation of the General Welfare than, apprently, you subscribe to. But our interpretation jibes with the most recent Supreme Court precedent, and with what current member of the SCOTUS have said on the matter, so I suspect you won't win that war.

                    The Federal minimum wage was upheld by the SCOTUS because the power to regulate of interstate commerce also includes the power to exclude goods and services produced with substandard wages. You don't really have a leg to stand on, here.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (January 26, 2011 5:35 pm ET)
                    9  
                    Ha! Now you're acting all innocent, like you weren't instigating. Whatever.

                    Look. This isn't the same country it was in the 1800's. Our founders knew that progress would be made and wrote our constitution in broad terms with that evolution in mind.

                    I'd be willing to bet that you'd use the same argument concerning unions today. I bet you'd try and tell me that, since 19th and 20th century progressives instituted child labor laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws and overtime laws we no longer need unions to protect workers rights. Think about it.


                    how can Congress have the authority to mandate what I can and cannot pay them?


                    That's a ludicrous hypothetical given that monopolies are rightly illegal. But I'd have to say that the general welfare of your workers outweigh your individual want to pay them dirt wages.


                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by jarossiter (January 26, 2011 6:32 pm ET)
                    7  
                    Conservatives believe Corporations are people.

                    Where is that in the Constitution?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Maimon (January 27, 2011 12:54 am ET)
                    1  
                    Yes like Nixon, Reagan and Bush Jr, who broke the law and abused their powers and deceived Congress.

                    Agains stop denying reality, why is everything on the right true? theyhave shown they are failures in so many ways:

                    Security
                    Economy
                    Diplomacy
                    Conservation
                    Limiting corporatism
                    Etc...

                    I've listed a ton of examples about each topic before and I will again if you want.I just don't feel like repeating myself.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by rtejon (January 27, 2011 1:07 pm ET)
                       
                    Home schooling isn't what it used to be.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by syrabell (January 26, 2011 5:33 pm ET)
                     
                  I have to agree, let's get back to the rural American ideals of barn building, community crop harvests, etc...

                  Once was a time when lending a helping hand was the rule not the exceptionable.

                  So why so much hate for those that want to lend a hand to the less fortunate, there for the grace of god go I, is a phrase that comes to mind.

                  Oh by the way I don't believe in organized religion, I don't need a carrot hung out in front (christian heaven, jihad's 40 vigins) of me know that leading a good life is reward enough.

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by Timmee (January 26, 2011 4:02 pm ET)
            9  
            It's not a matter of beliefs. I wish the true believers would stop trying to deal in the realm of pure ideology. You don't know what people "believe" or think is true about the world.

            Suddenly everyones a constitutional scholar. Good thing the agenda of the neolibertarian align so perfectly with the billionaires and multinational conglomerates.

            Keep the government weak.

            It's just to bolster your opinion you want to claim the constitution....but you don't really seem to know that much about it.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (January 26, 2011 4:16 pm ET)
            9  
            There are two HUGE assumptions built into your statement, neither of which seem plausible:

            1) That you could accurately describe the beliefs of progressives.
            2) That you could accurately argue the constitutionality of those beliefs.

            I'd bet you really don't know very much about the Constitution. Like most wingnuts, to it's just a prop.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 4:24 pm ET)
                12
              "I'd bet you really don't know very much about the Constitution"
              - Try me. I would place my knowledge of the Constitution against yours any day.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by n'est-ce pas (January 26, 2011 4:50 pm ET)
                9  
                And yet you didn't accurately describe the beliefs of progressives, and you did not accurately argue the constitutionality of such beliefs. Deflection fail.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 5:12 pm ET)
                    11
                  Deflection? And you don't even want to attempt to test your knowledge of the Constitution against mine. How cute.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by oneleft (January 26, 2011 5:13 pm ET)
                    10  
                    who's a good boy? who's a good boy? MagCynic is a good boy! yes he is, oh yes he is! sick 'em boy! sick 'em! what a good boy.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by n'est-ce pas (January 26, 2011 5:18 pm ET)
                    6  
                    Test your Google skills, you mean? We're on an Internet forum, you moron. And the original question stands:

                    You said that the views of progressives are unconstitutional.

                    I said you wouldn't be able to accurately describe the beliefs of progressives, or to accurately argue the constitutionality of such beliefs.

                    Your response? I know lots about the konstitooshun. See, that's called deflection. You should Google that like you've Googled everything you "know" about the Constitution.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by achrispage6992 (January 27, 2011 1:25 pm ET)
                      2  
                      D@mn you're good. I've been married for nearly 42 years and now I think that I may have a man crush:-)

                      You know, I am by no means a Constitutional Scholar. I have taken the time to try and objectively inform myself on the issue but I'm by no means an Alan Dershowitz.....In fact, I doubt I have 1% his Constitutional knowledge. At any rate, I don't know the scope of your knowledge on this issue but I can tell you that I have learned from you. Thanks.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by oneleft (January 26, 2011 5:09 pm ET)
                6 1
                who's a good boy? who's a good boy? MagCynic is a good boy! yes he is, oh yes he is! sick 'em boy! sick 'em! what a good boy.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (January 26, 2011 5:29 pm ET)
                    8
                  Let's play copy and paste..

                  who's a good boy? who's a good boy? MagCynic is a good boy! yes he is, oh yes he is! sick 'em boy! sick 'em! what a good boy.

                  who's a good boy? who's a good boy? MagCynic is a good boy! yes he is, oh yes he is! sick 'em boy! sick 'em! what a good boy.

                  who's a good boy? who's a good boy? MagCynic is a good boy! yes he is, oh yes he is! sick 'em boy! sick 'em! what a good boy.

                  who's a good boy? who's a good boy? MagCynic is a good boy! yes he is, oh yes he is! sick 'em boy! sick 'em! what a good boy.

                  See? I'm creative, too. We're all creative. Hooray!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by The_Cat (January 26, 2011 8:36 pm ET)
                    6  
                    At this point, MagCynic, I'm not laughing with you; I'm laughing at you.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by oneleft (January 26, 2011 9:46 pm ET)
                    5  
                    he's such a good boy! he wants to talk so bad but he can only bark! he's so cute! sick 'em boy sick 'em! what a good boy!
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Maimon (January 26, 2011 6:29 pm ET)
                8  
                LMao...I bet your dad is also tougher than my dad?

                -Did you go to school in Constitutional law?
                -Did you go to school in Constitutional History?
                -Did you got to school in political science focused on constitutional theory?
                -Or are a person that is self educated? If so what books did you read, did you vet all your sources? Dod you think you could write an articles of 3000 words that would be able to stand up to scrutiny?
                -Or do you simply seek sources that agree with you?
                -Or do you feel you are right?


                Just because you think you understand something doesn't mean you do. Often times people are blinded by ideology and would rather "interpret" documents to suit their own beliefs.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by achrispage6992 (January 26, 2011 5:14 pm ET)
            6  
            Aren't "constitutional????" A belief that African Americans are people instead of 3/5 of a person is not Constitutional Mr. MagCynic. It's ridiculous for you to come here and define others arguments for them and then attack them. Isn't there some kind of name for doing that?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by n'est-ce pas (January 26, 2011 5:34 pm ET)
              4  
              It's ridiculous for you to come here and define others arguments for them and then attack them. Isn't there some kind of name for doing that?
              That's wingnut debate tactic number 1. I don't know why it is, but they just keep on constructing strawmen.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by achrispage6992 (January 26, 2011 5:45 pm ET)
                3  
                That's it straw man arguments!! Gosh, I knew there had to be a name for engaging in such flawed logic.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by n'est-ce pas (January 26, 2011 6:11 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Yeah, it's their go-to. What I don't get is, even when direct contravention of their strawman appears in the very same thread in which they constructed it, they still try that tactic. It's like some deep, deep flaw in their reasoning that cannot admit that someone's argument could possibly have any validity, so they unconsciously alter it so that it's easier to knock down. I don't know if it's dishonesty or insanity, but every wingnut I've ever argued with has tried it on me.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Timmee (January 26, 2011 8:24 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Yes...it's dishonesty...intellectual dishonesty.

                    The whole point of the strawman falicy is to exaggerate the argument to the point that it's absurd and easy to counter.

                    Report Abuse
      • Author by peace2u (January 26, 2011 5:10 pm ET)
        3  
        Beck: Progressives Are "Enemies Of God"

        so MagCynic will you be joining Beck at the next
        W.B. Church rally ?

        Beck can hold the " GOD Hates Progressives " sign
        while you rub his shoulders
        Report Abuse
      • Author by xlrrp173 (January 26, 2011 5:21 pm ET)
        5  
        Hey MagCynic. What the f**k does your post have to do with Becky saying that progressives are the "Enemies Of God"? Is that the best you can do to change the thread?

        You are truly and azzhole.

        Reported: OFF TOPIC.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 26, 2011 6:20 pm ET)
        1  
        All I read from the Founders is how they set up a limited government that was tasked with very specific powers. - Mag

        We know, Mag. You have proven over and over and over again that your reading has been very limited.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by TheWillofThePeople (January 27, 2011 7:56 am ET)
           
        I can't find anywhere in which our Founders would have believed in the same thing that most progressives believe in.
        - MagCynic

        Yeah but you can't find your a$$ with both hands and a map, so...

        You have to get over this idea that the founders were some kind of monolithic, single-minded entity. Ever read the federalist papers? They disagreed a lot. Especially over the general welfare clause in article 1, section 8. Washington, Hamilton, and others supported a broad interpretation of the clause, involving greater congressional scope, while Madison and others favored a more narrow interpretation, which would further limit congressional authority.

        Jefferson wrote that "The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised."

        Turns out the Supreme Court sided with a broad interpretation. Matter settled.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by beDecent (January 26, 2011 2:29 pm ET)
      9  
      Oh, so neither Republicans NOR Democrats should have the keys to the car that is America; just give them to God and sit back, buckle up, take a nap if you're tired--we'll get there when we get there, God's got it all under control.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rtdavis11200 (January 26, 2011 3:16 pm ET)
      6  
      America is the only country that would allow an insane drunk to take up airtime and radiotime on a daily basis.

      Anyone with a brain can see that Beck is ill.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Mychyl (January 26, 2011 6:30 pm ET)
           
        And why not? The same demographic has given a pill-popping psycho airtime for... how many years now?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Barry S G (January 26, 2011 3:50 pm ET)
         
      I think the strangest statement in this article is Beck's claim: "But when you pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you are evil." I'm sorry but the LSD church is not Christian, but a pervsion of the Gospel. Adding the Book of Mormon to the canon makes the LDS a cult or nonChristian religion. It is outside the basic beliefs of Christianity which have survived for 2000 years. Yes, there are disagreements on certain points of theology between various denominations, but all have held to the basics of the Church.
      So, Glen Beck, who is a Mormon, has condemned himself by his own words as "evil."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by phredicles (January 26, 2011 4:41 pm ET)
      1  
      But hey, don't be violent, listeners!

      WINK!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by o rly (January 26, 2011 5:24 pm ET)
      2  
      The part right at the end made me lol hard, "God is about freedom". The Christian god described in the bible is most definitely NOT about freedom! This progressive doesn't mind at all being the enemy of Gawd.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Mychyl (January 26, 2011 6:32 pm ET)
           
        Depends on which book you're reading from. Remember, THE BOOK was written by a couple dozen authors over the course of thousands of years, if we're to believe what we read. (Don't tell the fanatics in the church that, though... they think God invented the printing press and dropped off a bound copy at the first pope's feet.) There's a lot of different Gods written in that BOOK. >.>
        Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (January 26, 2011 5:32 pm ET)
      2  
      It is really interesting to "read" his actual words and get the fact of his insanity. Go to the video and listen to him. The ravings of a complete madman. The term "drivel" comes to mind. God is about freedom! My show is not about anything! I don't have the answers, but gee...etc., etc.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Maimon (January 26, 2011 5:33 pm ET)
      6  
      Funny how progressive are "enemies of G_D". That is the same language that jihadist use. Hmmm... I bet Beck thinks he has esoteric knowledge too. And he thinks the apocalypse is imminent. And that only those that listen to him will be saved. Beck is the " Ha Yamin El_him" which is literally " The Right Hand of G_D". I imagine in future episodes people will refer to him as " Bene ha El-Him", literally " The Son of G_D". Then another will refer to him the Meshiah or messiah (G_D's annointed). I guess we need to pay attention for the signs. Anyone got the perfect red heiffer?

      What/whose G_D is he talking about? I'm fairly certain some Christians don't consider Mormonism a religion and they certainly don't always equate the Christian G_D with the Mormon G_D.

      Beck's goal is to have himself and listeners appear to be on G_D's side. It is away to have "AUTHORITY". It is as if Glenn Beck is speaking for G_D in this instance, or has access to G_D's mind. This is a way of controlling the narrative and framing it.

      The Christian Bible, the Hebrew Bible and the Qu'ran all specifically tell their followers to hate atheists and Idolaters. Also, if you look at american evagelicals/fundemnetalists like Falwell, Pat Robertson, Reverend Moon, etc... They blame all tradgedies on our nations lack of faith, for sinning, etc...

      This was the way the ancient priests in paganism explained fires, earthquakes, etc...It is common practive that I had thought we had out grown. Opppssss.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by outsiderdude (January 26, 2011 5:49 pm ET)
      3  
      I often wonder what people like Beck would think of god if he/she was a democratic president. I imagine he'd be on the air every day saying things like "can you believe our president just gave that 5 year old leukemia" or "why would our president make it snow so much this year" or "what kind of president would send a hurricane into a town that already struggles financially".

      Instead, God, who is much crueler than Obama, is the one he blindly follows
      Report Abuse
    • Author by truth4me (January 26, 2011 7:26 pm ET)
      4  
      The only "thing" glennda is interested in people worshipping is him. Oh, and PLEASE buy his "stuff". What a buffoon!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (January 26, 2011 9:36 pm ET)
      2  
      If progressives are enemies of God, then how come the Almighty Deity created evolution?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by GDub215 (January 27, 2011 1:07 am ET)
         
      Since when did a man who grew up as a part of one religion, and lived in a world of sin then by his own admission joined a church to be with a woman not that long ago, become the authority on who is against God and and who is with God, what is evil and what is not evil? Does this clown know what BLASPHEMY is, because he does it on a regular if not daily basis.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bobklahn (January 27, 2011 5:31 am ET)
      2  
      Remember this, social justice is a Catholic principle.

      Living wage is supported by the Catholic Church. Universal health care is supported by the Catholic church. Even the right to unionize is supported by the Catholic church.

      And the Catholic church opposes the death penalty, and opposed the invasion of Iraq.

      IOW, Beck must be anti-Catholic.

      Use that.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cate123 (January 27, 2011 6:16 am ET)
      1  
      Which "God" is that Glenn?
      Could you be a little more specific?

      (The reason I ask is that Alqaeda tell us the same thing - though they don't make any 'progressive' distinction.)

      I am so confused.
      Enlighten me.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NoNannyNeeded (January 27, 2011 10:26 am ET)
        5
      The postings listed under this topic has proved Beck right. I've read the all the posts and not one reflects anything from a Christian perspective. It's either dismissing God or making fun of the belief in Him. So if the majority of people posting here are Progressive/Liberal and no one posting anything positive regarding God, a logical conclusion can be made that Progressives God do not favor God. it's clearly stated in the Bible if you do not follow God, then you follow the enemy.

      There are many discrepncies between Progressive Ideology and the Bible. There is no such thing as "collective salvation" except for people who create such language in order to promote their own agenda. God wants a personal relationship with each individual. Never does Jesus say to give your money to the government so they can take care of everyone. He says for the individual to serve or to give for the glory of God, not gov't. Jesus also said you need to work to earn your keep. If you don't work-you don't eat! Jesus wants to you to turn to Him for you needs, yet Progressives want people to look to the gov't for to take care of their needs. If God created us with free-will, why do you think he would design a system of gov't that calls for certain people to make decisions for us? Certainly the Creator of the universe would be better suited for that job than a government employee!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dkylep (January 27, 2011 11:03 am ET)
        3  
        You're a truly terrifying individual in your unbridled hypocrisy.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (January 27, 2011 11:20 am ET)
        2  
        You need a nannie and the dossage of your psych meds increased.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 27, 2011 11:41 am ET)
        3  
        So if the majority of people posting here are Progressive/Liberal and no one posting anything positive regarding God, a logical conclusion can be made that Progressives God do not favor God.


        How could you have read everything in this thread and post something so idiotic? I mean fairly early on we have this from a liberal...

        In my world, even if you don't believe, God still loves you. After all God knows there are man good reasons not to believe.


        So why would such a good christian lie?

        Never does Jesus say to give your money to the government so they can take care of everyone.



        Hmmmm...

        Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.

        You're just the christian taliban.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NoNannyNeeded (January 27, 2011 6:59 pm ET)
             
          I agree God loves you regardless if you believe in him or not but if you don't accept Jesus eventually he will allow your heart to harden and will not be able to accept the Holy Spirit. This won't keep you from going to hell. He loved you enough to send his Son so that you may live. if he gave his own Son and performed such miralces do you really think God "understands" why we don't believe in Him? Is that doctrine or your opinion.

          Let's start with Verse 15..Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar
          15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”
          18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

          21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

          22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

          Before you quote the scripture that you admit are unfamiliar with it's best to know the context of the verse.

          You're trying to trap just like the Pharisees did. They know the
          law but they didn't know the heart.

          Christian Taliban? Name calling only happens when someone is too emotionally involved and doesn't have the logic to stand on.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 27, 2011 9:42 pm ET)
            1  
            Emotionally involved? Nah, I find the belief in supernatural beings and such to be silly. But as an atheist, I can objectively asses both positions and guess what? There isn't much different.

            Christian Taliban? Name calling only happens when someone is too emotionally involved and doesn't have the logic to stand on.


            Really? You seem to want a nation that is a christina theocracy. Please illustrate how your desire to have "christina nation" is different than the taliban wanting a muslim theocracy.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (January 27, 2011 11:42 am ET)
        4  
        You're forgetting one thing, nanny -

        Jesus was a liberal. The biggest liberal that ever lived.

        You wrote:

        Jesus also said you need to work to earn your keep. If you don't work-you don't eat!

        Funny, I don't remember that passage in the bible: "Thou shalt work to earn you keep. If thou dost not work, then thou shall starve".?!?!

        Then again, I'm not a bible thumper. Can anyone help me?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NoNannyNeeded (January 27, 2011 7:11 pm ET)
             
          Really? check out Thessalonians 3:10. Proverbs is full of the importance of work, planning and preparing for the future. 1 Timothy Chapter 5 describes that a person who doesn't provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever. It also instructs who were should help and to avoid idlensess as people can get into that habit.

          Again, progressivism and Christianity have nothing in common. Tweek the language a little and to people unfamiliar with the Gospel will actually believe you'll go to heaven just for being "good".
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 27, 2011 11:10 pm ET)
               
            So, you admit that foghorn was, in fact, correct. Since you are clearly incapable of refuting his assertion, we will assume you are conceding the point.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by tbob777 (January 28, 2011 1:42 am ET)
               
            Don't quote Paul. He was just a homophobe who wrote some letters that are being used as the 'Word of God'. Just letters folks. They are Paul's vision of Christianity. I think Jesus and Paul would have had some major differences. People who spend most of their time with Paul should be called 'Paulians' and not Christians. What about the theory that many theologians have that Paul was a closet homosexual with a 'thorn in his flesh' (gayness) that vexed him night and day? He didn't like women and railed against homosexuals. He never married. What about dear Timothy?
            So you believe in a God who sends people to heaven or hell based on their 'public profession of faith in Christ'. I guess all those who died without doing this are going to hell. So you believe in a God who loves to torture people. There is no hell. God would never be like that. Hell is a new testament and medieval invention. The old testament speaks of Gehenna (a waiting place). No hellfire and brimstone there. Good old Paul in the NT strikea again.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (January 27, 2011 11:48 am ET)
        1  
        "Certainly the Creator of the universe would be better suited for that job than a government employee!"

        I couldn't agree more. If you can find this creator, could you have him get in touch with us? Until then, that government employee will have to do.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 27, 2011 1:49 pm ET)
        2  
        I hope your nanny doesn't let you stone your neighbors for growing two different crops next to each other. Also, hope your nanny doesn't let you lock your sister in the basement while she is menstruating because she is unclean. Also, hope your nanny doesn't let you keep slaves. Clearly you need a nanny since you are so ignorant and simple minded you just attempted to tell us the only way to be a christian or believe in God is to follow the Bible literally. All reasonably intelligent adults feel very sorry for you and yours.

        "If God created us with free-will, why do you think he would design a system of gov't that calls for certain people to make decisions for us? Certainly the Creator of the universe would be better suited for that job than a government employee!" - Nanny

        Jesus was an anarchist? That's a first. OK, now I'm back to laughing at you.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Trip (January 27, 2011 7:23 pm ET)
           
        QUOTE: "Jesus also said you need to work to earn your keep. If you don't work-you don't eat!"

        This is not correct, but, in fact, is the opposite of what the Jesus character advised in the bible.

        Jesus taught His followers to go out and preach and to live off of the charity of others.

        Luke 10:4 - 8
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Maimon (January 28, 2011 12:22 pm ET)
        1  
        So?? G_D is owned by Christians. I'm sure Jews, Muslims and Hindus might find that problematic.And I'm not sure Beck is talking about the Christian G_D, seeing as the Mormons have the last and definitive revelation according to their beleifs.

        There are many discrepancies within the Christian Bible, the Hebrew Bible and any sacred text.

        Funny Jesus said all kinds of things many were quotes from other people like Rabbi Hillel and Shammai.Infact, the Golden Rule is one of the quotes that is thought to be Hillel's

        And, what if progressives don't beleive in G_D. That does not necessitate that they "hate" G_d or are "G_d's Enemies". Though the Bible does say atheists are scum, so does the Qur'an. But those same books are plagued with many errors so...

        Also, the question of what being "free" mean is debatable. AM I free to play guitar or cook on the Sabbath..NO, Am I free to believe what i want? ....No...For a G_d that you claim gave you "free-will",He sure wants you to bow and follow alot.

        Free-will is now something all chritians beleive in.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (January 27, 2011 11:17 am ET)
      4  
      Every American with a Founding Fathers Fetish ignores the most basic principle. That no document cobbled together more than 200 years ago could cover every eventuality in a nation with more than 300,000,000 people, flying machines, nuclear weapons and demented cable TV hosts.

      The people responsible for what became our constitution worked together and made what they thought to be the best compromise at the time. It codified the principle that only land owning, white men could vote. So for many years, ten percent of the population had a say in how our government was to function.

      And to scream every day that every bit of progress comes from the private sector ignores the fact that if that were the truth, we'd still be living in company towns and shopping at company stores. Our kids would be working the night shifts in mines and factories and our life expectancy would be 50 years.

      To say that the private sector would have benefitted anyone other than the owners of industry is a delusion.

      I'd love to find out how many people who hold these views can trace their families history and say that everything everyone of their ancestors earned in their lives had noting at all to do with government.

      There is no one whose family has been in this country for more than 75 years who could make that claim and be telling the truth.

      And you can count me among those who are enemies of the god to which Beck refers. He is an evil bastard.

      How can anyone claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ and hold the views that people like Beck, Palin and Limbaugh have towards their fellow man?

      Do they know who said the following?

      "Whatever you do unto one the least, you did to me."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Cate123 (January 27, 2011 11:44 am ET)
        3  
        How can anyone claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ and hold the views that people like Beck, Palin and Limbaugh have towards their fellow man?

        It is simply baffling. Isn't it?

        But then people have been killing people over god and gods since recorded time. Christianity has just as bad a history as Islam. ALL religions become a human heirarchy of power, with varying ( convenient)
        interpretations of their scriptures.

        It is one thing to be personally inspired into a better life by spiritual teachers and principles. It is quite another to twist those principles to control and dominate others.



        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (January 27, 2011 8:13 pm ET)
          1  
          Amen.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by villabolo (January 27, 2011 9:48 pm ET)
          2  
          "It is simply baffling. Isn't it?"

          NO IT IS NOT BAFFLING AND THE SOONER YOU STOP BEING BAFFLED THE BETTER.

          I'm not just saying this in hyperbole or to score points. We have to realize that we're dealing with psychopaths and narcissists in the clinical sense of the word.

          But unless we've done some real research into what psychopaths and narcissists are and how they interact with people, those words will be mere abstractions floating in our 'baffled' brains.

          The sooner we realize that psychopaths actually have a part of their emotional brain that is biologically dysfunctional, the sooner we realize that we are dealing with something that is intrinsically evil.

          When this realization sinks in, we will stop wasting our time merely repeating the obvious over and over, ad nauseum. We will realize what doesn't work with these people, namely, any form of reasoning or appeal to standards of right or wrong. It will dawn on us that we will be in a fight for our very lives.

          First; Google Psychopaths and Narcissism and learn all you can stomach about them.

          Second; realize that even though psychopaths are about 1% of the general population, they become concentrated in positions of power, whether they be in Political, Economic or Religious hierarchies. The higher the position, the more likely it is that its holder is psychopathic.

          Third; come to the realization that since our world is ruled by their kind it is absurd to believe that we can weed them out one at a time.

          The rest I leave up to your imaginations.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by ngw_tx (January 27, 2011 12:24 pm ET)
         
      I'm a progressive (like Jesus was) and my relationship with God is jus fine. Thanks, Glenn, for your concern.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by little poncho (January 27, 2011 5:31 pm ET)
      2 1
      wonder how glenda dresses when he walks up to his alter of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$???
      Report Abuse
    • Author by beachdogger (January 28, 2011 12:42 am ET)
         
      Glenn is a grasping slob who is trying to keep his quasi-religilous gravy train on the money trail. Forgive him for he know not what he do.

      I am curious, with the zenophobia present in the conservative masses; how can they reconcile this fear of the foreign with the knowledge that Faux Knews is foreign-owned??? I know Murdoch "converted" to an American but that was a shotgun wedding conceived for his abilty to legally buy U.S. television stations, wasn't it? Isn't it once a royalist, always a royalist? Does Faux Knews really represent American interests or some darker malevolent foreign influence??? Ohhh! I am scaring myself!!! "Honey, be a dear and warm a glass of milk for me!"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by finebalance (January 28, 2011 4:47 pm ET)
         
      Glenn Beck is crazy and dangerous! It's like he's trying to set up some kind of holy war or something.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnbryansfontaine (January 29, 2011 7:22 am ET)
         
      Beck/FOX Doublethink :

      Hitler and the Nazis were progressives

      The progressive George Soros is a nazi collaborator
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.