Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Glenn Beck CPAC 2010 Keynote Speech—Specific Topics for All Americans

Glenn Beck was the keynote Speaker at the CPAC 2010 convention this year, and if you’d like, you can watch the entire speech at Ablur’s blog, where I watched it. Thanks Ablur!

Beck is very popular among Conservatives but not so with Liberals. You can find Beck’s speech deciphered all over the net by a lot of bloggers, authors and journalists, some positively, some not so favorably. I found a fair amount of what Beck had to say very sensible and think some of it is worth repeating.

Glenn Beck felt that, “...it’s not enough just to not suck as much as the other side”

Who can disagree with that! “Not sucking as much” isn’t BETTER, it’s just mediocre. This is a message that our Representatives NEED pounded into their heads. Who wants to SETTLE for mediocre? Certainly NOT me! Do you? Why would our Representatives? Why wouldn’t they want to be the absolute BEST that they can be? And more importantly, why aren’t MORE Americans demanding that our Officials be the BEST?

Beck went on to say that he was a recovering alcoholic and that he believes in redemption. I do too, by the way. Although I believe you must repent to those you’ve hurt. It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks as long as you are truly sorry and make amends to those to whom you’ve caused grief. We’ve all screwed up, but, if we make amends, never do it again, and atone to those we hurt, I feel forgiveness is possible.

But what happens when it’s our Public Officials who are making the mistakes and causing the pain? Do they deserve forgiveness? Well, it’s my belief that if they admit to their mistakes and are truly remorseful, then yes, they should be forgiven. But do we have any Representatives who will actually stand up and tell us that they screwed up? Are any of our Representatives capable of remorse? Repentance? Or are they all too self-absorbed and “above us” to ever admit to anything, especially a major screw up?

Or as Beck said, “You are somebody who has said ‘Okay I’ll represent you’. Did you check your soul at the door? Make sure you hang onto your soul. Now if you are just like me, if you are just like the average every day person, you won’t lose your soul along with way. ”

He’s right. I didn’t lose my soul or check it at the door when I was in a position of power. I was in charge of hundreds of employees and I didn't "lose my way”. I conducted myself in an honorable manner as I was the role model. If my subordinates saw me behaving less than honorably what would stop them? Our Officials are role models but yet they don’t conduct themselves honorably. Why should Americans be honest on their taxes when we have a bunch of tax cheats in Public Office? Or put in an honest day’s work when our Officials aren’t working 40 or 50 hours per week yet getting paid a lot more than the average American and on OUR dime! Why should WE worry about a balanced budget or the deficit when Congress is on a spending spree that would put a drunken sailor on shore leave to shame—yet we’ve cut back on everything from movie tickets to haircuts! These people are out of control but they preach to US about fiscal responsibility. We NEED politicians in DC who will reflect decency, integrity and good moral character, plus NOT take advantage of us, our country or the position they hold.

Glenn said that he wasn’t sure what the definition of Conservatism was in America anymore, however, he knew what it meant to him. It meant “personal responsibility”. He and I couldn’t agree on something more. Also, if you’ve done something wrong then it’s up to YOU to pay the price. It’s up to YOU to make it right. Wouldn’t it have been great to have the CEO’s stand up and be “accountable” rather than have the American people “bail” their reckless butts out? That USED to be the American way. What the heck happened?

He said that people needed to stop jabbering about their childhoods. You know, he has a point. Personally I could “boo-hoo” about the nightmare of a childhood I endured, but I don’t, because everybody has a sob story. A bad childhood doesn’t give you the right to “bail-outs”, “hand-outs” or “opt-outs”. It’s over and done with; today is a new day and if you’re still “moaning” about your childhood then you’re using it as an excuse NOT to take “personal responsibility”.


Which leads me to Glenn’s point, “We have a right to fail. Without failure there is no growth.” Failure isn’t bad. I’ve had failure in my life and I’ll probably fail again. I’ve also had quite a few successes. It was my failures that made me strong. They taught me determination, self-discipline and courage. Without those I wouldn’t be the independent, brave, compassionate woman I am today. So, I’m thankful for my failures. If someone had bailed me out, how would I have learned a valuable lesson? Or take famous novelist John Grisham’s first novel, “A Time to Kill”, it was rejected by a dozen publishers and 16 agents before breaking into print and launching his career. Failure is only bad if we give up.

I’m with Beck 100% on this message, “This is America, there is no cap on success. There seems to be some sort of cap on willingness to search for success. That has to change in America. We have a different system here. We choose our own destiny. We choose. All men are created equal. All men will not end up equal. But all men are created equal. And in our daily choices that determines our outcome.”

There ISN’T a cap on success and it most definitely ISN’T limited. The only thing that is limited is our thought process. Many people have pulled themselves out of poverty to become extremely wealthy, although success isn’t only determined financially. For me success is determined by one’s level of happiness. [Achieve THAT and you have the world in the palm of your hand-- regardless of your W-2!] The message, however, is very clear—we are all equal, but we don’t all end up equal and that is due to our CHOICES. Again, don’t blame it on your childhood because a pleasant childhood doesn’t guarantee a good life just like an awful childhood doesn’t guarantee a bad life.

“We need an understanding that life is not fair. It is not fair. The bad guys sometimes wins. Sometimes OJ Simpson gets away with it. Sometimes the big banks fail. Sometimes the good banks fail. Not everybody gets a trophy. What is the point in competing for a trophy if everyone gets a trophy? Please stop teaching my children that everyone will get a trophy just for participating.”

Oh don’t get me started on giving trophies to everyone who participates! I find THAT practice not only ridiculous but damaging in more ways than one. We are teaching our youth that all you have to do is “show up” and you “win”. What kind of message is THAT? People need to realize that competition is healthy and not everybody wins. But it’s those who refuse to “give up” who eventually “win”. Again, everyone’s level of “success” is measured individually, but “participation” shouldn’t guarantee anything.


There are times when bad things happen to good people. There are times when we are victims of circumstance and sometimes life just happens and it’s JUST NOT FAIR. But guess what? We can wake up tomorrow and the sun will be out and we need to realize WE have the power to fix our OWN lives! We can make choices to alter our course, to alter our destiny and make a difference. Will this guarantee that bad things will never happen? No, of course not. But it will guarantee that OUR life and OUR destiny is in OUR hands and not the hands of someone else! I will be damned if I will hand my power over to someone else. I WANT the power over my own life. And anyone who doesn’t want that power has been brainwashed to believe that they have no power and THAT is shameful.

Glenn mentioned that, “People are losing a fundamental belief that it’s going to be better tomorrow than it is today.”

Of course they are. Our economy is in the tank. Unemployment is 10% and probably going to get higher. Inflation is sure to hit. Interest rates are low only because they are being held down on purpose. The housing industry is only doing as well as it is because of government intervention. But take those incentives away and what would happen? The economy is NOT getting better and I’ll go out on a limb and say that’s it’s going to take quite some time before it does. The price of everything from paper towels to ground meat has sky-rocketed but most salaries have not followed. People who have worked hard all their lives watched as their life savings was lost. They also watch as the Government spends their taxes frivolously with no regard for their future. We’re angry, frightened and disenfranchised. We have tightened our belts but Congress hasn’t. No, Congress has been doing business as usual and then some—all under the “guise” of “it’s best for our country”. That’s bull. Spending us into oblivion isn’t in our best interest. Congress states it can’t “cut” because everything is necessary. The first stimulus was necessary. This second stimulus is necessary—EVERYTHING Government does is NECESSARY—ever notice that? Yet we are bleeding through every vein, losing private sector jobs daily, BUT Government jobs are SAVED! Yippee! Tell that to the carpenters, hair stylists, waiters, car salesmen, technicians, secretaries and childcare workers, to name a few, who have been out of work for over a year and can’t find work and whose unemployment benefits have run out. Tell them how many jobs have been saved. They’ll tell you the government is full of it—and they are right. You NEED private sector jobs to pay for those “saved government jobs” and THAT is the FACT Jack.

I’m tired of the lies, the distortion of facts and the spin. I want honest people in Congress to tell me the truth—for once. We, as Americans, have the right to the truth. And by golly if they don’t start then we have every right to FIRE them! Forget the voting booths. These people aren’t “public servants” anymore—they are PAID employees! And we are their bosses! We have the RIGHT to fire them if they aren’t doing their job. You give me a list of those who are doing what is RIGHT, TRUE, HONEST and IN THE BEST INTEREST of our country and her people and I’ll get off my soap box…until then I will preach about the dishonesty of DC until the cows come home.

In closing, like or dislike Glenn Beck, he made some valid points in his speech. Personal responsibility shouldn’t be avoided and neither should failure as failure can lead us to our greatest success because success isn’t limited. We also need some optimism, which isn’t easy with what we’re faced with today. But it might help if our politicians were more honorable and decent and if they aren’t then we should be doing something about them—no more “status quo”. This is OUR country and we Americans need to take pride in her and make sure that everything our Representatives are doing is truly in the “best interest” of OUR country.

262 comments:

  1. How are the conservatives going to explain why they didn't invite the Republican choice for president, Sarah Palin, to attend. As for Glen Bek, read his bio on WIKIPEDIA which explains that his wife divorced him because he was drunk and on drugs all the time. Add to this the fact that Beck barely finished high school. This is the same Beck who now tries to con folks into believing he is one of the worlds greatest gift from God.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do have to add that Glenn Beck admitted that he learned a lot about what he spoke about at CPAC from PUBLIC Libraries and the books therein, which he said were "FREE."

    EXCEPT: Public libraries are collectives: Socialism!

    People pay their taxes and those taxes go to support "free" libraries!

    They're "free" by dint of taxpayers' money which is collected and redistributed to the "free" libraries!

    Glenn Beck, therefore, supports and benefits from "commie" libraries! /snark

    But this is true.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent.

    "Glenn Beck is a war hero".

    Discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lynne: Yes, I’m well aware that Beck was “drunk and on drugs all the time” and consequentially hit rock bottom about 15 years ago. He admits this regularly on his radio and TV show and also admitted that in his speech and I mentioned it in my post, “Beck went on to say that he was a recovering alcoholic…"


    His “barely finishing high school” just proves his message, and mine, that “success isn’t limited”.

    Here is a list of some famous people who actually “didn’t even finish” High School:

    Andre Agass: Tennis player, winner of 8 Grand Slam titles. Quit school in the ninth grade and turned tennis pro at the age of 16.
    Bryan Adams: Singer, Songwriter.
    Tom Anderson: Co-founder of MySpace.
    Sonny Bono: Singer, Actor, Songwriter, U.S. Congressman.
    Julie Andrews: Oscar-winning Actress, Singer, Author.
    John Jacob Astor: Multimillionaire Businessman. America's first multimillionaire.
    James M. Cox: Newspaper publisher, 3-term Governor of Ohio, Presidential nominee in 1920, Founded Cox Enterprises.

    Here are a few that dropped out PRIOR to high school:

    Jane Austen: Novelist. Elementary school dropout.
    Yogi Berra: Baseball player, Coach, and Manager. Quit school in the eighth grade.
    Andrew Carnegie: Industrialist and Philanthropist. Started work at the age of 13 as a bobbin boy in a textile mill. One of the first mega-billionaires in the U.S. Elementary school dropout.

    Personally I say “Kudos!” to anyone who makes it big, especially if they drop out of school! Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating dropping out of school as I have a great respect for education and believe it's an extremely valuable commodity!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's interesting to note that in the UK, Glenn Beck's show has run for almost two weeks without ANY advertising, because no one wants to support his toxic hate.

    They're not even American; he's not talking about the UK; and still they don't want any part of him.

    At least 119 companies have pulled out of sponsoring him.

    He spins innuendo, he preaches xenophobia, racism, sexism and hate, and he's a huge part of what's wrong with politics today: pumping up the volume on the freak fringe so loud it drowns out the few rational voices.

    Even Republicans know this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Arthurstone said...

    Excellent.

    "Glenn Beck is a war hero".Discuss.


    Pardon Me, My mistake, I was thinking about Batack Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's more than past time to bring the teachings of our Lord and savior back into the schools.

    Ah, the voice of Dominionism. I've been so hoping for this.

    Firstly, what would you propose to do with the millions of American citizens that aren't Christians?

    Secondly, to run a nation on Christian law is exactly the same (and just as bad) as running a nation on Sharia law.

    Dominionists preach openly that their goal is to overtake American society, culture, and legislature and enforce Biblical standards on all. This includes stoning incorrigible children and adulterers. It includes the stipulation that only Christian males may hold office, and that non-Christians will not have citizenship. It includes the dismantling of all government social services, which will henceforth be run through the church, and-you guessed it!-wouldn't be available to any non-Christian. Women will be taken out of the workforce and put back in the home where they belong, and all media will be expected to conform to Biblical standards of modesty, etc.

    I didn't make this up.

    And it's happening now.

    So, Mal, since you think it's time to bring Jesus into the picture, would you say you agree with all of the above?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Speaking of Glenn Beck I can't imagine there's much point in waiting to give up your life for him.

    No time like the present!

    Any problem with that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. So we have heard the usual nonsense and hate from the usual suspects.

    The same Glenn Beck that pointed out that Anita Dunn "worships" and "idolizes" "her hero" Mao Zedong. . It is surreal to think anyone in the once great USA would criticize such a brilliant man when we have a foreign born, terrorist loving Muslim loving Dictator Loving in the white house. Comparing the intellects of Beck and Obmmy is like comparing the basketball skills of Michael Jordan in his prime with those of an infant. I, like tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of Americans would gladly give me life for Beck if he instructed me to. If Beck were president, we wouldn't have to worry about Iran building any nukes, because we already have them and consequently there wouldn't be an Iran anymore. It's more than past time to bring the teachings of our Lord and savior back into the schools. Once we do that, we won't have to worry about Muslims being president.
    Just as the liberals destroyed Sarah Palin, they are out to destroy Glenn Beck. Why was is ok for the liberals to call George Bush a Nazi and a Hitler and a brown shirt and to call him stupid and compare him with a chimpanzee etc. But if Beck calls Obama a racist, the libs have a five-alarm meltdown! Somebody please explain to me, without mincing words or beating around the bush, how Obama could have sat in the congregation of Jeremiah Wright for over 20 years and not have racist opinions!

    And how come it's fine to do all those awful and nasty, and outrageous thing to Sarah Palan and these bloggers still do!
    Calling a republican a racist is something "liberals" learn to do at 4 years old.
    I can remember when one of these blogger listed every one of Glenn Beck's Sponsors on her blog so that people would boycott them. What a great American that is... Black Listing a Radio Talk Show Host for his opinions. They have called him every dirty name in the world ..too bad he don't drive a pick-up truck.
    ACORN, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Anita Dunn etc. And Glenn Beck is the problem??
    Ya gotta be kidding!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Satyavati devi dasi said...
    So, Mal, since you think it's time to bring Jesus into the picture, would you say you agree with all of the above?

    No, I do not.

    And with all due respect Saty, I have a problem agreeing with 90 or 95 percent of what you say. So this is nothing new.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And with all due respect Saty, I have a problem agreeing with 90 or 95 percent of what you say. So this is nothing new.

    Except that this isn't what I'm saying.. this is what the Family Research Council, D. James Kennedy, James Dobson, and plenty of (overwhelmingly Republican) Congresspeople are saying, and working desperately to legislate even as we speak.

    So you're not disagreeing with me as much as you are with them.

    But what I'm really interested to hear is what YOU mean by this:
    It's more than past time to bring the teachings of our Lord and savior back into the schools.

    So please, enlighten me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Satyavati devi dasi said...

    So you're not disagreeing with me as much as you are with them.

    But what I'm really interested to hear is what YOU mean by this:
    It's more than past time to bring the teachings of our Lord and savior back into the schools.

    ----------------------------------
    And there are literally hundreds of other quotes I could cite from the more prominent founding fathers that support me..
    Because we have a tenable and tangible problem here with The Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party, they do want to break the cross and kill the Christian and Jew.
    This country was founded on God. In God we trust. So help us God. One nation under God. Anyone who doesn't like it can pack their bags and leave for Iraq. Marxists by definition don't believe in God.

    I don't really understand what you're trying to get at. And I'm not going to prolong this discussion as what I said was my opinion and my opinion only. I don't and won't pretend to be an authority on religion. So you can say it for another time and place.
    As for the Glenn Beck speech, I think a bunch of old guys in the Senate just got a wake up call.
    His message was heard loud and clear, you can tell from the way that all the Lefty bloggers are criticizing him

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here's what I'm getting at, Mal, what you *mean* by bringing Jesus back into the schools. How would you implement it, what does it involve, what would you include?

    Most importantly, what would you do with all the non-Christian children in said schools?

    This country was founded on God. In God we trust. So help us God. One nation under God. Anyone who doesn't like it can pack their bags and leave for Iraq.

    So does this mean that the non-Christians either accept being marginalized and discriminated against... or leave the country?

    Does it mean that "everyone else" becomes second rate? I thought there was a specific in the Constitution about not establishing a religion...?

    And just to perhaps break the stereotype for you: I'm a Socialist (which is not by any stretch of the imagination a Marxist), and I'm very committed to my non-Christian, monotheistic religious beliefs.

    Which may go far in explaining why I have an interest in wanting to know exactly what people mean to do when they talk about 'bringing Jesus' into any kind of public institution.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Satyavati devi dasi said...

    Here's what I'm getting at, Mal,

    So does this mean that the non-Christians either accept being marginalized and discriminated against... or leave the country?

    Does it mean that "everyone else" becomes second rate? I thought there was a specific in the Constitution about not establishing a religion...?

    It surely doesn't mean that we bend over backwards and put Muslim pray rooms all over our schools, and in our Stadiums. And wherever the hell else they are putting them.
    and it surely doesn't mean that we bend over backwards and put Muslim Foot Baths in all of our parkway rest area’s etc.
    Our schools etc. are not meant to be based on the tenets of any particular people. We should not be responding to the prayer needs of Muslim students.
    I believe their religion says that when Muslims live in a country where the government is non-Muslim, then they must abide by that government's rules - and they are pardoned for breaking tradition because of this. Therefore, these people should have no problem with dealing with school as it is. If they do, then they can privately school or home school their children.
    Why would anyone yield some an ignorant position that "policies must not be tailored to any particular religion." Is that wishful thinking? Embrace reality!
    Haven't we gone far enough yet? We don't even wish our friends a Merry Christmas anymore out of fear that we may offend someone.
    We don't even recognize September the 11th anymore because of Obama and his Spineless, sniveling, cream-puff, milquetoast pussies.
    And now, how many Americans will die because Barack Obama decided to lawyer up the terrorists!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Our schools etc. are not meant to be based on the tenets of any particular people.

    Right. This means not meant to be based on Christian tenets, either.

    We should not be responding to the prayer needs of Muslim students.

    Right. And not to the prayer needs of Christian students, Baha'i students, Vaisnava students, Buddhist students, and so on.

    So basically, what I'm seeing here is that you've definitively contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you want to bring Jesus into schools, but on the other hand you acknowledge that our schools aren't supposed to be based on the tenets of any particular people.

    Or does this mean 'any non-Christian people'? I'm just asking that since you originally specified bringing Jesus into school.

    ReplyDelete
  16. GLENN BECK FOR PRESIDENT!

    Lets see, he would have to have daily news conferences which would get him into prime time...

    ...whew and imagine all the folks he would invite over for a beer!

    I SAY LETS PARTY!

    Its time for him to put his money where his mouth is!

    ReplyDelete
  17. malcontent: "In God we trust. So help us God. One nation under God. Anyone who doesn't like it can pack their bags and leave for Iraq. Marxists by definition don't believe in God."

    "In God We Trust" was put on our money during the Civil War.

    "So Help Us[sic] God" is not in the Constitution as an oath to be sworn, but merely a tradition started by G. Washington when he took his oath of office. It is absolutely NOT a requirement in the Constitution when swearing an oath of office.

    "One Natition Under God" was stuck into the Pledge of Allegiance during the 1950s while everyone ware afraid that there was a commie under their beds. The original Pledge of Allegience (composed by Francis Bellamy, a Christian SOCIALIST BTW) did not have those words in it.

    So none of those phrases were part of our nation's foundation.

    Not a ONE.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh, and this too:

    Our Constitution upon which the laws of this land is based does not mention any god in it whatsoever.

    It begins: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union..."

    Our laws are based upon "We the people..." Not any god.

    ReplyDelete
  19. When God runs for president I will be more than happy to vote for Him.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't think Gingrich is gonna go for the GOP nomination in '12.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Glenn Beck did a great job pointing out the problems and providing reasonable directions for solving them. As a self made man who did everything he could to destroy himself, hit bottom and then work to pull himself out; he has a lot of common sense and clear lessons that can be used to teach others.

    The fact that most people don't want their sins exposed and will do anything to tear down the one who exposes them makes Glenn a huge target. I can tell by those who have commented here, that he has definitely got under the skin of many.

    Like him or loath him, he has a knack of saying things that need saying. Sometimes things just need to be brought out into the open so that a solution can present itself. Besides even truly horrible people have good ideas. Hitler created the Autobon. We owe our highway system to this idea.

    Yes, even a person who took himself to the lowest point, can turn themselves around and become a great person. True repentance is an amazing thing. Rather then grow and become a stronger character in the end, most would rather blame all their failures on others and never except responsibility for their lives.

    You got to admire someone who is willing to put it all out there.

    ReplyDelete
  22. the malcontent Reads these comments, sighs, laughs, ignores, says to himself, "another nonsensical, cockeyed, absurd cop out by the USUAL gang of 3.

    Grins, and says to himself, " I guess this is what I get for spanking your mother with a hairbrush when she was pregnant"...and (then shrugs and walks away)...

    ReplyDelete
  23. malcontent typed:


    "I, like tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of Americans would gladly give me life for Beck if he instructed me to. If Beck were president, we wouldn't have to worry about Iran building any nukes, because we already have them and consequently there wouldn't be an Iran anymore."


    I certainly think those who try and engage this guy in reasonable dialogue have the very best of intentions but to take him and his 'arguments' as representative of rational discussion is sort of silly.

    He isn't serious and shouldn't be treated as such. Think polishing. Think turd.

    He is prolific though. Got to give him that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ablur - Beck or Limbaugh could make the greatest, truest proclaimation on Earth and still be met with suspicion and dismissal.
    Why? Because they have been deliberately misleading and incendiary on so many other occasions, they have poisoned the well.
    The guy that calls embryonic stem cell research eugenics? Or the guy who calls every non-white in government a racist and then goes on to expound on some persecution complex of his that everyone hates him because he is white, American and "Christian"?
    He has lost the chance to develop any credibility simply by being just another media whore pandering for ratings and money.
    Pam - while you pulled some gems out of context, Beck also attacked progressivism as "a disease designed to eat the constitution." He went on to quote some obscure Communist Party brochure - from 1938 Rhode Island and then intimated that this administration is a marxist government.
    Also seems to have a problem with evolution, ignoring the fact that progressive ideology embraces the idea that the average person should have more control over their government and that government functioning should be efficient and rational.
    So far, doesn't sound like the "cancer of progressivism" is even involved in our government.
    He seems to think there is some sort of evil in evolution - the slow changes dictated by the environment and modernization which, I might add, gave us the development of multimedia that Beck takes full advantage of.
    Progressives have been responsible for the enactment of child labor laws, addressing social justice issues and the development of our national park system.
    While Beck laments the destruction of the constitution, he also proclaims that our rights are NOT given us by our government but that we get our rights from GOD! Of course, he immediately moves on to other topics without addressing what those rights are and how they will impact the Buddists, atheists, diests and other "non-Beck Christians" who are also American citizens. Hmmmm...
    While some of the quotes you pulled could be worthy topics of discussion among rational Americans, the rest of the tired old rhetoric,lies and mis directions did nothing but turn me off.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Arthurstone said...
    He isn't serious and shouldn't be treated as such. Think polishing. Think turd.

    He is prolific though. Got to give him that.


    "Think turd."?
    Y'all got alot of class

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I, like tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of Americans would gladly give me life for Beck if he instructed me to."


    Malcontent, you need to quit getting so excited!

    Glenn Beck couldn't even get a 100,000 to show up for the Tea Party Rallies...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Insert a "Sigh" right here!.

    Glenn was right...progessivism *is* a disease...a cancer. The joy and peace of complete ignorance is blissful.
    His speech was great, he said everything most people are too afraid to say out loud.
    Every time Beck puts out a book, it sells millions , he has millions of listener and millions of people watch his show.

    Compared to that bubble head big eared mental midget clown, who speaks every half an hour. Except for a few fringe liberals and an odd assortment of kooks and cranks who love spreading hate, no one even bother to listen to him anymore... He is such a lair that I'd even believe Tiger Woods before him.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mal: I like Glenn Beck, however, I don't agree with EVERYTHING he says just as I don't agree with EVERYTHING my own husband says! I don't think that makes me "ignorant". In my opinion it makes me rational because I believe it's unreasonable to think someone would agree with you all the time.

    And I'm not one of the millions who would die for him. I'll die for 2 people--my two sons.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So Beck is the phoenix rising from the ashes of his own destruction, and now he is the most intelligent man on Earth with the answer to all our problems. Sounds like a "B" rate science fiction movie from the 1950's.
    Beck gives his opinions, not facts, which I happen to disagree with. He gives hate, which he should be denounced for, not praised.
    No, he's not the only one, nor is it only one side, but we are talking about him now.
    How do you justify his hate speech? Unless you agree with his comments of hate, which you left that out in your post praising him.
    What responsibility do we as a nation have, to those through no fault of their own, have become just a waste product of capitalism?
    The people who played by the rules, worked hard, were honest, and are now incapable of taking care of themselves, because they are victims of a system.
    They did nothing wrong. They cannot just go out, get another job, and start over. If they could, they would be glad to do it.
    They are not in control of their own destinies. They are at the mercy of what the society has the ability to allow them to do, which is very little in our current situation.
    These millions pf people are not bums trying to live off the government, which is a life of poverty, just a higher level of poverty than they are in now.
    The kind of personal responsibility you talk about, is only possible in a society full of opportunity. There is little opportunity available in our country today, due to the failed policies of Republican leadership.
    Opportunity is not automatic. It's not just a matter of someone getting off a couch, and guaranteed a job. Hard work is only part of the equation.
    You cannot just tear down government and expect things to get better. Things would be much worse without government. I hear Republicans saying they want to tear down government.Government is the problem. Wrong. Poor leadership of government, is the problem. Leadership that has been in the hands of Republicans by a vast majority of time, over the last 40 years.
    How about Republicans taking responsibility for their mistakes in poor leadership of the country? They don't admit their mistakes, in fact they want now, the same policies that got us to this sad situation.
    They have not met your definition of repentance, so forgiveness is not called for. In fact highlighting their mistakes, is essential to not making those mistakes again.
    I guess because you are a Republican you call it the "blame game." It is just the facts of History.
    Why should I deny the true facts? Why should I listen to Republican who want to use the same proven failed policies?
    Why should I listen to guys like Beck who's message is that Democratic policies will destroy America, when the proof is, it's the policies of the Republicans over the last 40 years that have bankrupted America.
    I refuse to listen to Beck's obvious lies, and the hate he adds in. I question the intelligence of Americans who believe his oratory, when the facts to dispute what he says are part of the official public record.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Pamela D. Hart said...
    Mal:
    And I'm not one of the millions who would die for him. I'll die for 2 people--my two sons.


    Of course not Pam, that was just an expression, a allegory, a metaphor. Don't take it literally, it was not meant to be taken that way..
    And I don't agree with EVERYTHING he says either

    ReplyDelete
  31. And Tom is what you said anything like what Chris Matthews said With his "thrill up my leg" remark about Barack Obama's oratory. There's no doubt Matthews is among the loudest in the media when it comes to comparing Obama to Jesus whenever he talks about the Obamessiah.

    Or was that Bill Clinton that he was comparing to Jesus when Clinton made his first public appearance after his open heart surgery and Chrissy said...."Like Lazarus rising from the grave...!!"

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mal said:
    "another nonsensical, cockeyed, absurd cop out by the USUAL gang of 3."

    I was just trying to get a definitive answer as to exactly what you mean by 'bringing the teachings of our Lord and Saviour back into our schools'. Specifically, I was wanting to know how the vast millions of non-Christian children would fit into that.

    I never did get an answer... I think perhaps "COP OUT" would apply more to you in this case than it did to me.

    I haven't given up hope yet, though.. I'm hoping that you will enlighten me on this, because I really, sincerely want to know: exactly what does it mean to bring those teachings into schools, and what happens to the millions of non-Christian children in the process?

    Thanks in advance. This is too important an issue to cover up or distract people from.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Satyavati I believe that I answered you in my post of February 23, 2010 7:44 PM

    ReplyDelete
  34. After reading through your post dated 2/23/2010, 7:44 PM, what I found was a list of "what it DOESN'T mean"-several things you stated that we shouldn't be doing for Muslims.

    But what you never mentioned is what it DOES mean, and how it would be implemented, and how the non-Christians would be addressed when the 'teachings of our Lord and Saviour' are brought into schools.

    Now, I can give you the benefit of the doubt here if you can clear this up:

    Our schools etc. are not meant to be based on the tenets of any particular people.

    Do you mean by this that you've reconsidered your initial statement about your Lord and Saviour's teachings being brought into school, and that you've changed your mind because our schools are not meant to be based on the tenets of any particular people, and that you've changed your mind about it?

    A more clear way to ask the question would be to ask you whether you consider 'any particular people' to include Christians, thus meaning that our schools are not meant to be based on Christian teachings any more than any other.

    Waiting anxiously for your reply.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Wait no longer for my reply, though you may not like it. And you might say that I'm changing the subject... BUT!
    Satyavati. Let me say this... As parents in general we have a responsibility to teach and protect our children by giving them the necessary tools they need to be healthy and well adjusted individuals. So we depend on our schools to teach our kids right from wrong.. Especially if it can’t be taught in the home as it should be. Look Satyavati, I did not pretend to be a religious person and I am certainly not an authority on the subject. When I wrote this comment I had no intention of getting side-tracked onto the "Christian”controversy, but I lost sight for a moment of my purpose here. I enjoyed the debate, and there's a part of me right now that is fighting going back and answering all those questions. So if you don’t mind, I’d rather not discuss religion. This is something that I'd rather not get involved in. If I said something that offended you then, trust me I did not mean too. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  36. All righty then, fair enough. We can call this one done.

    This debate can be a good reminder that everyone needs to think about what they say and be prepared to back it up if necessary.

    People do tend to get emotional and just go off (I do this too) but it's really important in these debates to be accurate in making sure what we (all) say is what we mean.

    Cause otherwise you can find yourself really nailed into a corner you never really wanted to get into.

    ReplyDelete
  37. OK, you asked, so I'll tell you.
    If we open up prayer to every teacher's discretion, then each teacher will pray to their God. I'm just not comfortable with a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist Monk, or a Witch Doctor, praying over my child or walking into the classroom and seeing all the kids on prayer rugs.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You're completely right.

    No one wants their kid to go to school and be taught some other religion. The Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists wouldn't be any more comfortable than you are to come to school and see someone praying out of someone else's scriptures over them.

    So the best answer is your first answer, and the constitutional one: that public schools don't have any business getting into teaching (or praying) in any specific religion, and to leave that to private schools and parents to take care of.

    And in that way, every parent can be comfortable and be personally responsible for their children's religious education... regardless of their religion.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Shaw Kenawe said...
    So we depend on our schools to teach our kids right from wrong..--malcontent
    I don't think so. We depend on our schools to teach our kids literature, mathematics, geometry, history, biology, English, etc...
    Teaching kids right from wrong is what parents do. And maybe with the help of their religious institutions.




    Dear God, Nooooooooooooooooo!What part of :
    "Especially if it can’t be taught in the home as it should be"
    Didn't you understand?

    Anyone know how to be abusive in the Swedish language?
    This is getting to be so boring

    ReplyDelete
  41. He's got a point, Shaw.... if Mama is working three minimum wage jobs to make ends meet and only sees the kids for six minutes a day while they're asleep, and Daddy is sitting in jail for nonpayment... those kids aren't going to get much moral guidance at home. And so, in cases like these, which are unfortunately becoming more and more common, we do have to depend on the schools to give kids at least a basic sense of right and wrong.

    Not by any means ideal, but in a last-resort sense.

    And yes, hopefully these kids would have some sort of religious framework.. but you can't always count on that either.

    But Mal does have a point with this one.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Satyavati devi dasi said...

    He's got a point, Shaw.... if Mama is working three minimum wage jobs to make ends meet and only sees the kids for six minutes a day while they're asleep, and Daddy is sitting in jail for nonpayment.


    Humm, What a revolting development that is.
    This recession is even worse than I thought.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I disagree. Schools shouldn't be in the business of teaching morality, because then it becomes a matter of whose morality.

    For example, I would have no problem with a school teaching my children that homosexuality is part of the human condition, and that some families have two mommies or two daddies, nor would I have a problem with a school that taught my children that in addition to the predominant religion of this country there are other religions, and there are perfectly good people who have NO religion.

    How many people in certain regions of this country would be comfortable with that?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Tom Said - Leadership that has been in the hands of Republicans by a vast majority of time, over the last 40 years.

    If referencing the president this would be correct but we are looking at the wrong branch for the source of the problem.
    The Democrats have been in control of congress for 13 of the last 21 sessions in the 40 years. The Dems and Repubs split the house and senate 3 times and the Republicans controlled both only 5 times. That would include the 91st congress to present.

    Blaming the president for a failed economy and a failed government is looking at the tip of the iceberg. Congress is the body of destruction that has produced the havoc we are facing. They put in motion policy and legislation that has created the state of affairs we face.

    We need to elect better representation in congress.

    ReplyDelete
  45. It was Reagan's budget with Reagan's tax cuts that added 5 trillion dollars of debt. The Congress did not pass their budget, they passed Reagan's budget.
    It was Bush's budget with Bush's tax cuts that added 6 trillion to the debt. Congress did not pass their budget, they passed Bush's budget.
    Republicans have held the White House 21 out of the last 30 years. During that same time, the national debt has climbed from less than 1 trillion dollars, to 12 trillion dollars.
    The Congress takes its lead, from its country's leader, the President.
    In deference to his winning the election, the Congress votes for his policies.
    Until of course, this current President, where the Republicans are the party of no.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I'm still trying to parse 'Glenn Beck is a war hero'.

    Allegory, metaphor, 'expression' or a cry for help?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Setting the record straight on Presidential debt.

    G.W.Bush $803,424,990,821 over 8 yrs
    Clinton -$164,787,361,848 over 8 yrs
    G.HW.Bush $34,326,854,936 over 4 yrs
    Reagan $97,338,623,234 over 8 yrs
    Carter $462,596,259 over 4 yrs

    Clinton was the only one who reduced the debt.
    Considering the state of the economy after Carter, Reagan's debt was mild. (No it was not 5 trillion)

    I can't wait to see how Obama obliterates the debt threshold and the floundering congress who has agreed to it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I forgot to mention that they are all adjusted to 1984 dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Setting the record straight?

    Where did you get your figures?

    I got my figures from The United States Department of the Treasury-Office of Public Debt, at this address:

    www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

    Please explain why (for purpose of debate) I should use any other figures, than the official U.S. Treasury figures?

    It shows Reagan took office with a 1 trillion dollar debt, and the debt today is almost 13 trillion.

    It shows Bush took office with almost 6 trillion in debt, and left office with a 12.4 trillion dollar debt.

    Records do not go up to today, but their records will calculate Bush's budget went through this year until Obama's budget becomes law.

    That is the historical way they figure President to President, and have since they have been keeping records.

    So officially, Bush's total debt will be closer to 13 trillion.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I should say, the national debt will be 13 trillion by the time they figure the total debt during Bush's two terms.
    That would make a debt of about 6-1/2 trillion during Bush's two terms.

    ReplyDelete
  51. The current national debt is As of today, it’s $10.8-trillion. The administration projects it’ll climb to $14-trillion next year and in 2013 wind up at $17.1-trillion dollars.Can’t wait to see what the lefties do to explain this one. They will try to ignore it no doubt,and of course they will tell you about Bush and reagan. That's a given

    Obama will add $4 trillion to the national debt during his first term

    I was reading a horrible statistic. It should frighten everyone as to how much (1) one trillion dollars really is. “A trillion dollars of $100 bills would stack to over 789 miles high…

    It is sheer lunacy to follow those economists that believe we can spend our way out of this mess. Can YOU spend YOUR way out of debt? That should be answer enough for any reasonable person. WE WILL HAVE TO PAY THIS BACK!! At least acknowledge this for what it is – a pure permanent power grab. “Health Care is only one leg of this.”

    In closing, let me give you two quotes that have never been more germaine to what is happening.

    “I BEGIN BY TAKING. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right.” by Frederick the Great

    “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost ALL AT ONCE.” by David Hume

    History is packed with those who thought “not us, not me”.
    And Obama will continue his course of ignorance unless he is stopped in his tracks.
    OK Dems. Does this make you optomistic for our future? Is this the change we need? Dont tell me about Bush. Lets talk about our future and what we are building for our children. Is this guy on the right track? Or is he doing what my conservative friends say. Just making us all dependent on a government so he can keep us in the slave quarters while he lives in the big house? That's what you wanted isnst it? Isnt that why you dummies voted for dummy Obama? Or, is that you voted for obama because you hated Bush?
    Have a great weekend iberal Americans, go out and buy yourself a new car. The Japanese need the dough..

    ReplyDelete
  52. I don't know if we can take three more years of this community organizer. with only one year in office and he has an amazing record so far. Four tax crooks for his cabinet, one drop out, two admitted commies, and the biggest spending plan to date. He has also about wore ot air force one family truckster cruising around the country making speeches

    Lets see,Pelosi flys around in her private jet, her and Reid are going to build the new Dinky Railroad between their states with bailout money, Poor ole Kennedys have to use food stamps, and I really fell sorry for that poor ole Harry Bird. I say lets give them all a raise!

    You brain washed libs better lay off the booze a for while, its starting to affect your mind again. Now go to bed and sleep it off.

    ReplyDelete
  53. To fix our problems in America the first step is we have to stop lying to ourselves… our economy and country can’t be restored until all offices in Washington have restored honor. Many of the problems we all face as Americans can be fixed and they will be. But they will not be fixed by the Government. We the People are going to be the ones this burden is going to fall on. We are going to do what all Americans have always done in times of trouble. We alway look out for each other, and help any way we can. This is what Americans have always done and always will. When we see someone in trouble, we don’t ask them if there a Democrat or a Republican. We just help. This is what has always made Americans different from the rest of the World.
    The recent collapse of our economy wasn’t brought about by you or me. It was by two Ruling Party Elites. Representative, Barney Franks and Senator Chris Dodd were key in forcing banks to follow policies that finally brought about their collapse from their Chairmanship positions on oversight committees. Where are the indictments for these criminal acts? We see people like Former N.Y.C. top cop Bernard Kerik getting 4 years in jail for lying and yet these crooks in Washington just get re-elected over and over again. Bernard Kerik did FAR less than what Charlie Rangel has done. And everybody know it.I personally don't care about charlies war record or his color,I judge him on what he has done and what he has done was steal and cheat!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Where did my numbers come from?

    Dr. Stephen Bloch

    Department of Math and Computer Science
    of Adelphi University (Very Liberal Politically, I might add.)

    Using the Department of the Treasury numbers Here is what he did.
    How much did the annual deficit shrink or grow? I assume that the deficit in a President's first year is almost entirely under the control of the previous President and Congress, so I subtract the deficit in a President's first year from the deficit in the year after that President stepped down (or, in the case of the current President, from the most recent deficit figures I have). This change in deficit is then divided by the number of years it took to achieve it.
    How much debt was accumulated over a President's term(s)? The previous approach, looking only at starting and ending deficits, doesn't distinguish between a President who oversees initially increasing deficits, then decreasing at the end (like Reagan) and a President who oversees initially decreasing deficits, then increasing at the end (like Carter), even though the former racks up more of a debt. So I computed the average annual deficit over a President's term(s). (Note: I computed this as an average of CPI-adjusted annual deficits, rather than as the increase in national debt divided by the number of years.)
    Since many of the items in the budget are multi-year commitments with considerable inertia (most obviously, interest on the national debt!), I recomputed the previous numbers, subtracting the annual deficit in each President's first year; in other words, how does the actual accumulated debt per year compare with what it would have been if the annual deficit had stayed where it was?

    By his accounting Bush would be treated unfairly but represented equally in the chart because Obama signed major spending items that Bush had no say over that effected his numbers. Not wanting to taint the data the system of processing is so reported.

    The data goes back to 1911. You may enjoy looking at the rest here.

    http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

    ReplyDelete
  55. Does this Dr. Block also consider the off budget expenses?
    All war costs during Bush's two terms, were off budget.
    Those expenses were passed through supplemental bills, and were not part of the annual budget.
    They amount to 100's of billions of dollars.
    A practice Obama has changed. Obama has the war costs figured into his budget.
    This is why there is a difference in the total national debt figures attributed to the Bush administration, and simply adding the the year by year debt reported by the Bush's budget.
    Dr. Block has an interesting equation to figure debt, but again, I will stick with the official numbers reported by the Treasury Department.
    The Treasury Department has used the same equation for decades, despite who is in office, so any irregularities fall on all presidential administrations. There are thousands of people with just as many different ways to look at debt figures.
    When debating official public numbers, we should use the numbers provided by the agency responsible for those official numbers.
    Manipulating the figures, I'm sure could prove any number of different outcomes. I see no reason to use an equation other than the governments equation.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Another blogger said:

    Schools shouldn't be in the business of teaching morality, because then it becomes a matter of whose morality.

    For example, I would have no problem with a school teaching my children that homosexuality is part of the human condition, and that some families have two mommies or two daddies, nor would I have a problem with a school that taught my children that in addition to the predominant religion of this country there are other religions, and there are perfectly good people who have NO religion.

    How many people in certain regions of this country would be comfortable with that?


    By that logic, why should they be teaching about lifestyles. If religion and morality are personal issues, why is teaching about lifestyles something that you can separate from morality, and what makes schools better at teaching any of it when it should be taught by parents?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Good point BluePitBull.

    I agree with you. And I agreed with what Mal said as well. Bit he Liberal's will always have an argument.
    For example, while a lot of people continue to debate health care and the stimulus package, others, some of them teens, are pushing for states to recognize the legality of civil unions for people of the same gender. These students have been brainwashed for years by liberal thinking “teachers” whose primary concern is getting paid and making sure they get taxpayer funded pensions so I can’t blame kids directly for advocating a warped view that two members of the same sex getting married is a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  58. One person's 'warped' is another persons normal. Frankly I have a lot of trouble with the concept of transubstantiation but then folks are entitled to their own fantasy lives.

    Still, why are some people so frightened of homosexuals?

    Firstly there has forever been endless criticism of 'promiscuous gays' (nothing seems to light up conservatives more than other people having sex for fun).

    Then when people want to settle down in a stable, legal relationship far too many conservatives deem that 'warped'.

    I always thought a big part of conservative 'thought' was live and let live.

    Wait.

    I'm kidding. I've never for one moment believed that bit of nonsense of the conservative making their own choices and leaving others to theirs.

    Truth is far too many american conservatives are ready, willing and eager to tell others how to live their lives.

    O. Brooklyn Guy.

    Thanks for the thoughtful remarks.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I studied the data that Ablur referenced and what was the point?

    Reagan created more debt in 8 years than FDR did in 12...and yet FDR was the big socialist.

    GWB wins the record....which basically prooves that tax cuts do damage to our federal budget considering no one seems to want to control spending...

    ...and before you go off on congress and all of that remember Presidents have veto power over the budget.

    So, the big question now is whether Obama can bankrupt this country as 'well' as conservative GWB did....

    As far as balancing the budget...why is it that democrats are always given the responsibility to clean up after all this republican crap?

    ReplyDelete
  60. By that logic, why should they be teaching about lifestyles. If religion and morality are personal issues, why is teaching about lifestyles something that you can separate from morality, and what makes schools better at teaching any of it when it should be taught by parents?

    February 25, 2010 11:59 AM


    An American Girl said...
    Good point BluePitBull.



    First of all, I don't know what is meant by teaching "lifestyles." What does that emcompass.

    Second, if you go back and read my comment you will see that we are actually in agreement. I wrote this:

    "Schools shouldn't be in the business of teaching morality, because then it becomes a matter of whose morality."

    ReplyDelete
  61. Yes, and then you say this:

    For example, I would have no problem with a school teaching my children that homosexuality is part of the human condition, and that some families have two mommies or two daddies, nor would I have a problem with a school that taught my children that in addition to the predominant religion of this country there are other religions, and there are perfectly good people who have NO religion.


    So it's ok for you to pick and choose, and you did understand me, you just didn't like the statement.

    And to answer the other dude, I have no problems with homosexuals and it doesn't alarm or bother me.

    Again, my point was that the school should be teaching basic subjects to give a start to hopefully a more in depth interest in higher education, and let parents teach children about life.

    No matter how you try to circumvent my point, it still stands. I don't expect a real answer, so forget it.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This was my ENTIRE comment, which agreed with you that schools shouldn't be teaching morality, and then I gave an example of a moral subject, gay marriage, that I would not have a problem with, but someone else may, therefore, because if we are talking about a PUBLIC school, which is supported by people's taxes, who would decide which MORAL subject would be taught:

    My entire comment:

    Shaw Kenawe said...
    I disagree. Schools shouldn't be in the business of teaching morality, because then it becomes a matter of whose morality.

    For example, I would have no problem with a school teaching my children that homosexuality is part of the human condition, and that some families have two mommies or two daddies, nor would I have a problem with a school that taught my children that in addition to the predominant religion of this country there are other religions, and there are perfectly good people who have NO religion.

    How many people in certain regions of this country would be comfortable with that?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Yeah, well the way you worded it leaves it open to interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Again, my point was that the school should be teaching basic subjects to give a start to hopefully a more in depth interest in higher education, and let parents teach children about life.

    And the point was that not every kid has parents that are available or around to teach them. And so schools have to at least pick up on some real basics. I don't necessarily mean moral dilemmas or ethics, I'm talking basic legal rights and wrongs.

    And btw, Mal and I proved that a decent debate can be had without anyone getting ugly, namecalling or anything else, so I think we should all try to keep it that way.

    And also, I wasn't liberally brainwashed by anyone and I don't have a problem with gay people getting married. It doesn't threaten my marriage or my community or erode my morals or anything like that. It's not that big of a deal, honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Why is Shaw Kenawe so preoccupied with homosexuality?
    The homosexual movement has a history of trying to claw its way into places its agenda doesn’t belong, not for the betterment of mankind, but simply to legitimize and normalize their behavior.
    Every czar appointed by Obama has a lot of baggage they bring to the table – gays, communists, socialists, racists, eugenticists, tax cheats – the who gamut of fringe ideologues seems to be covered.


    The short story is that conservatives aren’t allowed to say anything about anyone they have questions about unless it is another conservative…

    It is just another step in the criminalization of conservative ideas.

    Basically, the left just demands we sit down and shut up in the back of the room while they destroy the nation.
    Most of the folks posting here understand the issues explicitly. Indoctrinating young children to accept homosexuality without parental consent, input, or opt-out is just wrong. But the liberals like always wish to be PC and just sit back and say to themselves, Oh that's just fine, my child should be exposed to whatever is out there. Well, quite frankly,and as I said before, I think the school's efforts to rope all students into this kind of education will prove to be futile. I think it should be fought with great effort.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "It is just another step in the criminalization of conservative ideas."

    Remember folks. An endless list conservative 'ideas' are alive and well and perfectly legal.

    As two examples let's consider torture. And consider the unchecked power of the executive branch when a Republican sits in the White House.

    The only thing between us and Islamofascism and the complete collapse of civilization are those brave souls willing to stand up to the 'homosexual movement'.

    And sundry other isms and ists.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Arthurstone said...

    "It is just another step in the criminalization of conservative ideas."


    Oppps, you forgot to mention Bush, Reagan and Nixon!

    Shame on you... Your slipping!

    ReplyDelete
  68. To American person or whomever wrote this:
    "Indoctrinating young children to accept homosexuality without parental consent..."

    Please document where you read this written by anyone. You can't because it exists only in your fevered homophobic brain. That statement doesn't exist anywhere on this thread, unless you have no basic understanding of the English language.

    I challenge you to find and paste anyone who wrote anything approaching that here. You won't be able to because you made it up.

    And because I used gay marriage as an example of what one person would have no problem with in a public school discussion doesn't mean I'm "obsessed with homosexuality."

    The fact that you framed that subject in that way shows us all that it is YOU, and not I that has a huge problem with our gay and lesbian American citizens.

    Again, I challenge YOU American whatever you are, to copy and paste any statement by me on this blog that says what you accuse me of saying.

    You can't, because you made it all up to impress people who really don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  69. American Girl wrote:

    "The short story is that conservatives aren’t allowed to say anything about anyone they have questions about unless it is another conservative…"

    Are you so self-unaware that you could actually write this after attacking liberals and me?

    AMERICAN GIRL WROTE: "Why is Shaw Kenawe so preoccupied with homosexuality?
    The homosexual movement has a history of trying to claw its way into places its agenda doesn’t belong, not for the betterment of mankind, but simply to legitimize and normalize their behavior.


    Claw its way into places its agenda doesn't belong?

    What in the name of everything that is humanly decent could you possibly mean by that homophobic trash?

    I have news for you, American G., you are a dying breed of homophobic haters. Thank goodness for the young people of this beautiful country who reject that hate mongering trash.

    Young Americans and their gay and lesbian family members and friends have left you in the insignificant annals of stale and hateful history.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Shaw Kenawe said...
    To American person or whomever wrote this

    You can't, because you made it all up to impress people who really don't care.


    Hey,First of all, I believe her name IS "An American Girl" and her name is directly above your post so why was that so difficult to find?

    And as far as her making up a story or not, maybe that was her opinion? And not something she wants to or can document!

    Isn't that what you do? Don't you OFTEN give your opinions and have no way to document it.

    Calling her "YOU American whatever you are" Is just about the lowest thing that I have ever hear you say, And believe me I've heard some pretty low things said and written by you.

    As for The American Girl, I've read her blog for a long time and I would take anything she said or wrote over anything that you say or write anytime any day. And she don't even have the big name calling mouth that you do.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Brava for you Debbie's Choice in siding with AMERICAN GIRL who wrote this:

    "The homosexual movement has a history of trying to claw its way into places its agenda doesn’t belong, not for the betterment of mankind, but simply to legitimize and normalize their behavior."

    Every decent American I know rejects that sort of homophobia.

    And now we know where YOU stand--with someone who believe gay and lesbians "claw" their way into equal rights under the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Good for you Debbie. Now we can judge you by the company you admire.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Shaw Kenawe... don't start your raving and ranting with Debbi now, just because she sided with me. Not everybody is a brainwashed Liberal thinker as you are..
    In reference to your ridiculous post where YOU said:
    "What in the name of everything that is humanly decent could you possibly mean by that homophobic trash?

    I have news for you, American G., you are a dying breed of homophobic haters. Thank goodness for the young people of this beautiful country who reject that hate mongering trash."

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Let’s keep it CIVIL and positive, okay? If you can and I doubt that you can.
    Just because I don not want my children to be taught about homosexuality in schools, I don’t need loud mouthed idiots like you shouting and name calling from the peanut gallery. And you calling me a homophobic haters is pretty pathetic.
    I know how to teach my children the things that I want to and I don’t need your interpretation of Mother Teresa to help me.
    There are certain topics that I do not want others to teach or brainwash my children such as homosexuality or the subject of abortion. That is my job and I will do it as I see fit. I don’t need the likes of a liberal koolaide drinking kumbaya singer old 60's hippy to tell me what to do.

    GET IT!

    ReplyDelete
  73. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Blogger Shaw Kenawe said...Brava for you Debbie's Choice in siding with AMERICAN GIRL who wrote this:

    "The homosexual movement has a history of trying to claw its way into places its agenda doesn’t belong, not for the betterment of mankind, but simply to legitimize and normalize their behavior."

    Every decent American I know rejects that sort of homophobia.

    And now we know where YOU stand--with someone who believe gay and lesbians "claw" their way into equal rights under the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Good for you Debbie. Now we can judge you by the company you admire.


    I knew if I set it up, it would happen. YOU, Ms. Shaw are the hateful one. You accuse others with ideals contrary to yours of being hateful, and YOU judge others for their beliefs. Live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. The homosexual movement has a history of trying to claw its way into places its agenda doesn’t belong, not for the betterment of mankind, but simply to legitimize and normalize their behavior.
    Every czar appointed by Obama has a lot of baggage they bring to the table – gays, communists, socialists, racists, eugenticists, tax cheats – the who gamut of fringe ideologues seems to be covered.


    Okay. I'd like to make a couple of points here.

    One, the 'clawing its way into places it doesn't belong' comment can be equally applied to other groups. For example, prior to the civil rights movement, blacks who wanted a better job or to eat at a lunch counter were seen as 'clawing their way into places they don't belong'. In another example, Christian Dominionists, whose self-stated goal is to completely dominate culture, society, and education and to implement Biblical Law in this country, are also trying to 'claw their way into places they don't belong'.

    Secondly, being gay isn't a 'fringe ideology'. It's not an ideology at all.

    Communists and Socialists aren't 'fringe ideologies'.

    Racists are hardly a 'fringe ideology' in this country as they're everywhere you go.

    Eugenics isn't an 'ideology' though it's had some freaks flying its flag over the years.

    And tax cheats? An ideology? A fringe? In America? Please. There are entire segments of our economy that enhance their profit margin this way.

    The point I'm making here is that you've lumped gays in with this motley crew as if they have something in common, which they don't, and therefore impugn them by association.

    Perhaps you didn't mean it that way when you wrote it, but it certainly can be construed that way.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I think that Bluepittbull said it all when he said

    Shaw we can judge YOU by the company that YOU keep, just look at the nitwits that comment on her blog........

    ReplyDelete
  77. I think Obama had the whole thing orchestrated, he had no intention of listening but rather pushing his agenda. He displayed nothing bu arrogance.
    Maybe now the general public will see that our academia are leftists.
    Nothing new here.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Brando said...
    I think Obama had the whole thing orchestrated, he had no intention of listening but rather pushing his agenda. He displayed nothing but arrogance.

    Absolutely Brando, I think that ARROGANCE is Obama's middle name.
    When he said" Obama said that the Democrats will have to go it alone" That alone showed nothing but ARROGANCE!
    Why bother with a summit or a vote if he's going to do what he wants to do anyway!
    This whole healthcare summit is a very clever scripted dog and pony show.
    Obama dominated the entire conversation, and he barely contained his impatience with Republican's statements and at times even mocked them. Sow much for bipartisanship.
    The dems had this in mind all along. The whole business of holding summits or meetings was all just a farce to make everyone think they were willing to listen to the people
    They may have enough votes to ram it through even if 100% of their constituents are opposed, and they will...

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Steven said...
    I think that Bluepittbull said it all when he said

    Shaw we can judge YOU by the company that YOU keep, just look at the nitwits that comment on her blog........


    Did he really say that? Really?

    Because Mr. bluepitbull has posted on my blog in the past as has American Girl and Debbie's Choice. All of them.

    And just this morning, "Brando" commented THREE times.

    If what you typed is true, Mr. Steve, that means Mr. bpb thinks they're all nitwits--his words, not mine.

    Good day.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Shaw Kenawe said...
    Brando posted on my blog THREE TIMES today, and in the past so have Debbie's Choice and American Girl, and bluepitbull.

    You've just labeled them all nitwits Steve because they have all posted on my blog.


    DUH!!

    SO WHAT, AM i NOT ALLOWED TO EXPRESS MY OPINION ON YOUR SACRED BLOG?
    I am going to have to add "Mental Illness" to that list OF PEOPLE THAT COMMENT ON YOUR BLOG.

    BluePittBull did GET IT RIGHT. You ARE nuts!

    ReplyDelete
  82. 7 hours of Republicans pointing out the problems with Obamacare and 7 hours of Arrogant, condescending Obama. In addition you had one wackjob Democrat after another slurping , one after another sob story..
    I saw something quite different in his body language yesterday, arrogant, condesending all full of himself but, worried. At best, the dem's had a pity party at the expense of themselves. But, more than likely the expense will be us, We the tax payer. They couldn't even get that right. It seeemed that each and every dem had more of a pathetic story than the last and at best made them look like desperation waiting for a place to happen.
    I think they are truly worried for their messiah, he's looked like a lone survivor of a ship wreck in the drink surrounded by hungry sharks knowing full well it was just a matter of time before his fate was all but sealed.
    Obama and his cronies are desperate.

    ReplyDelete
  83. This certainly isn't what I said. I do, however, think that people of your ideology have a double standard when it comes to opinions. It seems to come naturally to most of you to accuse others of racism and bigotry when they don't agree with a lifestyle.

    That said, it had nothing to do with my original point which was that the teaching of morality is not the responsibility of the school. All people have a parent figure in their life with the exception of emancipated children. Even orphans.

    Sidebar, your comments were worded in a way that left it open to interpretation, Ms. Kenawe.

    That said, I have insulted no one and my points are not going to be muddied by anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Is the president arrogant? Does a bear shit in the woods?
    He bent over so far in the presence of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, I thought he was going to fall on his Kenyan-born ass. This clown is an absolute disgrace to this country and to the office of the Presidency.
    Compounding it is how the press still sucks up to Obama and Michelle. I haven’t’ heard the tittle “President” used so much in eight years. When President Bush was in office it was “Bush” and never “President” Bush.
    What is disturbing is that many other people, which will be most affected by his lunacies, could not see through him, would not take the time to investigate him, now in the era of the Internet, for there was a lot of information about his inventions, half-truths, lies, associations, put is simply: “Tell me with whom you hangout, and I will tell who you are”.
    We can only think that “America” will wake up and see Obama and his Chicago Cronies, for what they are. A Big Government Spending Marxist bunch .And nothing will change as long as we have the likes of Pelosi, Durbin, Reid, Leahy, Frank, Holder, and that crook of crooks Charlie Rangel etc, etc in Washington. They ALL have to go.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Glenn Beck gets it. Obama gives true meaning to the phrase, covering up his ignorance with arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  86. As always great blog Pamela. I see all the usual suspects have already chimed in. Let me throw in my 2 cents..

    Since the president didn’t get Republicans to toe the line exactly as he wants them to toe it, well, he’s going to push forward on his party’s bill to overhaul our health care system come hell or high water. Obama vowed to press on with health care reform with or without the Republicans.
    Obama campaigned on a vague promise of hope for change. He also promised transparency and lots more which have since been proven nothing more than “campaign rhetoric” – his words – and lies that he said shortly after his inauguration he wanted all to forget. Your assertion that Obama was Mr. Healthcare Reform in his campaign is way off base. Perhaps you have noticed the better Obama is known, the more that is known about him the lower his approval ratings go. Obama has sunk faster than any other real president before him, faster than the Titanic.
    Look for more and more closed door session at the White House!
    Tell me again that this is not Socialism and I'll tell you a story also.

    ReplyDelete
  87. And I see the same old Lib twisting, turning and spinning everyone comments again.
    Bravo to you folks that are not buying into her nonsense.

    This "Summit" was not held to consider all ideas. It was helt to try and make the republicans look stubborn and bad.

    Didn't work did it! Instead it made obama look like the Marxist Brownshirt that he is.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Duh,

    Why would a "Marxist brownshirt" even have to hold a summit?

    Wouldn't he just do what he wants and say the hell with the Republicans?

    But he held a summit so he isn't a "Marxist brownshirt"

    ReplyDelete
  89. TAO said...

    Duh,

    Why would a "Marxist brownshirt" even have to hold a summit?

    Wouldn't he just do what he wants and say the hell with the Republicans?

    But he held a summit so he isn't a "Marxist brownshirt"





    Yeah right You should know MAO shouldn't you!

    ReplyDelete
  90. I was glad to see there are still a few good guys in office,who know why they are there. To represent those who elected them. The Republicans did themselves good.
    They showed the nation that we do not do whatever Mr. "All about himself" wants us to do.
    I'll never understand why people follow so blindly.
    And as for Scott Brown, It's still far too early to be counting Brown out. And even if he isn't perfect, he's still head, shoulders and belly button above his last opponent! No matter what Shaw Kenawe says. Why should anyone believe her anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Hey Truthie boy... I looked for you here and didn't find you.. What gives?

    Did they get rid of you already!


    http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/

    Did They Award a Nobel Prize for Passing the Buck?

    ReplyDelete
  92. You should know better than that, Indigo...

    That Mike's (run by the guy who once interned in Reagan's White House, but doesn't appear to've done anything except blog and garden, since...) would never allow a liberal to post on his blog, especially as an author... (He's not even particularly tolerant of those libs who comment there, says a lib who gave up bothering trying to comment at that guy's little slice of hell--or get anything sensible to come out of those who do post there--years ago)...

    It's MadMikesAmerica: Politics, News, Analysis, Reviews, Pet Tips (http://madmikesamerica.blogspot.com )...

    Completely different site, completely different attitude...

    ReplyDelete
  93. repsac3 said...

    You should know better than that, Indigo...

    That Mike's (run by the guy who once interned in Reagan's White House, but doesn't appear to've done anything except blog and garden, since...) would never allow a liberal to post on his blog, especially as an author... (He's not even particularly tolerant of those libs who comment there, says a lib who gave up bothering trying to comment at that guy's little slice of hell--or get anything sensible to come out of those who do post there--years ago).



    Well good for him, It sounds like he's a very smart guy.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Inquiring minds...

    Well, I Inquired about your statement and you were RIGHT!

    I do KNOW!

    I know that you are just a paid troll who tinkles his stupidity all over the internet in a vain attempt to believe that somehow you can change the course of world events...

    Good thing I KNOW because you don't have a clue...

    ReplyDelete
  95. To each his own, Champ...

    When you go, tell his little insular bunch I said hi, and that I sent ya via my review... He could use another reader, I suspect... He still has a few unused fingers on his "counting" hands...

    ReplyDelete
  96. Beck is a puppet paid by Rupert Murdoch to spew venomous inaccuracies. He gets a large following because he truly cares about America - though only the Americans that believe what he believes.

    Why not have someone like Ron Paul? He at least can talk without crying doom and gloom.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Careful BluePitbull. If The Right is Right lady finds out you are fine with Gays serving in the military and want religion taught at home and not in schools she may order her minions not to visit you again.

    I have other "fish to fry" though so I can't get into too much here. In fact I'm frying some fish later and I'll have to do a post about it. In addition to taking my dog for a walk.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Lets see, Glenn Becks CPAC 2010 Keynote Speech...

    Beck has some good idea's but has become a bit of a clown.

    Bush was a huge deficit spender and never meat a spending bill he didn't like.

    Obama is a BIGGER spender and will find a way to push the country further into debt. Maybe we will even get to see our nation default on it's obligations under his leadership. But at least we will have Canadian style health care. maybe.

    On to the next drama.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I think it's time the Dems taught this one-trick pony a new trick. After you have quadrupled the deficit, run unemployment over 10%, doubled the troops in Afghanistan, increased the terrorist attacks on the U.S. and broken every campaign promise you made, you gotta understand that after a while even die-hard Democrats are going to notice that George Bush is no longer around.
    TIME FOR OBAMA TO TAKE BLAME FOR WHAT HE'S DONE TO THE COUNTRY

    The typical Democratic strategy is to pick someone on the right and have their enablers in the media destroy his reputation, then blame all the faults of the country on him. It must be just awful when they really do have all the levers of power and the results of their socialist policies are apparent to all - AND THERE'S NO ONE ELSE AROUND TO BLAME IT ALL ON. They've gotta dredge up someone from over a year ago. Well, gues what - it's not working. Time to man up and take responsibility for your own screw-ups. Think about this, If Obama wanted to intentionally destroy the Country, what would he do different now than he hasn't already been doing?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Folks, I went into the archives and I was lucky to dig up a photo of one of the bloggers we all know and some even love. .

    Let's play the caption game...
    The winner gets prize...


    http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/team/pictures/old%20lady.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  101. TRUTH 101 said...

    Careful BluePitbull. If The Right is Right lady finds out you are fine with Gays serving in the military and want religion taught at home and not in schools she may order her minions not to visit you again.

    1. Ask me if I care.

    2. I never was a social conservative, so flush that.

    3. Is it so much to ask for both sides to pay attention to the constitution? It's gotten us this far.

    With all of that said, I abhor the bad treatment of Pamela and I won't stand for another person bad mouthing her and trying to make her look like a liberal. She is not. She can talk to whomever she wants and shouldn't fear some mass walkout. I said this much in my blog and I firmly believe, Truth, that you are trying to move things in a bad direction for your own entertainment, not gonna bite.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Pit, that's his sneaky lowlife cowardly way of doing everything. And his Lap Dog TAO is a midget version of him.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Inquiring minds,

    If I am Truth's lap dog then that would make you my bitch....

    ReplyDelete
  104. TAO said...

    Inquiring minds,

    If I am Truth's lap dog then that would make you my bitch..



    PAM, please tell this JERK and his ilk to bug off so that we can continue to have a adult conversation here.
    These people from the left are so dead set on disturbing us that it's impossible.
    Since when has it been a crime to have an opinion that differs from someone else's? Never in my life have I been so sick of petty childish bickering and namecalling

    ReplyDelete
  105. What Tao said was kinda funny. Why post anon? Reveal yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Just to clarify, if you attack someone, they are quite permitted to defend themselves as they see fit.

    One of the funnier political philosophers was John Calvin. He believed that society had a right to punish you, even with death. But, if you could escape or prrevent your own demise with no assistance, you are free again.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Er....actually I think it was Thomas Hobbs, but you can see the trouble there, right? Calvin and Hobbes?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Going back to the topic of Glenn Beck:

    Tom said: I question the intelligence of Americans who believe his oratory, when the facts to dispute what he says are part of the official public record.

    Beck has an interesting approach. What he does is lie outrageously, with feeling, hitting people right in the gut of their nerve center, pissing them off, making them angry, bringing them into his hate.

    Why doesn't he worry about facts? He gets called on his untruths all the time. Someone will produce irrefutable evidence that he lied, and he'll give a halfassed apology or spin that he didn't mean it or some such.

    It doesn't matter, though, because what people remember is the emotional impact his words had. They will not remember that later on he had to apologise for lying. They will remember the anger, the hate, the self-righteous indignation that his lie produced in them.

    And that, my darling, is the core of fascist propaganda machines.

    Yes, it is. And Glenn Beck's got it like he invented it.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Inquiring minds - As much as I despise TAO's radical philosophy I can assure you he is no "lap dog" to anyone living.

    Mao or Lenin perhaps but certainly no one living.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Inquiring minds - As much as I despise TAO's radical philosophy I can assure you he is no "lap dog" to anyone living.

    Mao or Lenin perhaps but certainly no one living.

    ReplyDelete
  111. OMG!

    Saty just called the super patriot, glenn beck, a fascist!

    ReplyDelete
  112. There you go again Rational...

    Care to explain yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  113. TAO - Not really. Just learning the ways of the left.

    I believe I had a good teacher.

    Not dropping a name though.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Rational Nation USA said...

    Inquiring minds - As much as I despise TAO's radical philosophy I can assure you he is no "lap dog" to anyone living.

    Mao or Lenin perhaps but certainly no one living.

    **********************************

    Well, I DO believe that he is BOTH Shaw's and Truth101's Lap Dog No doubt about it in MY mind;
    And on another note:
    Man, I don't know what the Congressional Dems are smoking up there on the Hill, but I want me some of that! Seriously? Obama the most patient man in the world? He's a thug. He didn't listen to the Republicans except to wait for an opening to scold. His little snark to McCain was disrespectful and unbecoming. And I don't care what anyone says, he was giving Rep. Ryan the finger (Ryan is my hero du jour). We have a juvenile thug sitting in the Oval Office.

    ReplyDelete
  115. And by the way I despise TAO's radical philosophy also

    ReplyDelete
  116. Well, Just another voice....

    Just stick with Glenn Beck...it doesn't hurt as much to follow as it does to think...

    Don't hurt my feelings when I annoy people such as yourself!

    By the way, I LOVE Shaw's lap!

    ReplyDelete
  117. Is this a great Country or what? TAO can buy and sell most of us and yet, he's still Truth 101'a "lap dog" according to some righties anyway.



    Back to the post. We all agree Beck's an entertainer above all else. Righties like him because he says what they want to hear. Lefties like him because most of what he says is reactionary BS we can expose for the drivel it is. The guy is performing a service even though deep down, he hates America.


    And even though he may say something from time to time that is acceptable, that means nothing. Give a monkey a typewriter and eventually it will type something legible.

    ReplyDelete
  118. TRUTH101 SAID:
    "And even though he may say something from time to time that is acceptable, that means nothing. Give a monkey a typewriter and eventually it will type something legible."

    Well go figure, it didn't work in your case, and you are a MONKEY!

    ReplyDelete
  119. Hey hey I'm a monkee! Good one anonymous guy from Long Beach New York that's posted under seven or eight diferent names sine this thread started.

    I hear Leno's on thin ice with NBC dude. You should send your reportoire of funny lines to them and maybe you can be his replacement.


    Monkey. He he.

    ReplyDelete
  120. This all a charade, right.

    Monkey's, lefties, reactionary righties, sounds like everybody is short on substance these days.


    Hey, a question... if everybody thinks somebody (or every group thinks some other group) is stupid and without merit wouldn't that make everybody stupid and without merit.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Well Rational.

    A refresher.

    Regarding Glenn Beck, this is the level of 'thought' & 'feeling' we're discussing.

    Glenn Beck felt that, “...it’s not enough just to not suck as much as the other side”

    Here's another one“Progressivism is a cancer in America,” said Beck, “and it’s eating our Constitution — and it was meant to eat our Constitution.”

    So I guess the answer is no, not everyone's arguments are 'stupid and without merit'. But for a highly paid pundit, analyst and writer engaging a huge audience Beck's discourse certainly scores high on the stupid and without merit scale with alarming frequency.

    ReplyDelete
  122. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  123. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  124. It is difficult to understand what Beck was trying to accomplish when he said this:

    "I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. ... And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." –interviewing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, Glen Beck's show on CNN's Headline News, Nov. 14, 2006

    He said he "feels" like saying what obviously is slander--that a native-born American, who is not an Arab, was raised a Catholic, but converted to Islam, would have to prove to him that he is not working with our enemies.

    He plants the idea that this American Congressman, just by viture of freely choosing to practice the Muslim faith, may be an "ENEMY" of this nation by framing his "feelings" in this way. Very clever, very sneaky.

    The problem here with Beck's slime is that HE is now, at this time, after leaving CNN, the guy who is working for "the enemy." Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in News Corp — the parent company of Fox News.

    Beck takes home millions of dollars from a corporation that a Saudi prince, a citizen of a nation that had 19 of its young men crash planes into American buildings and kill 3,000 American citizens--an Arab who has a 7% interest in the corporation Beck works for. Interesting, no?

    Oh what a topsy-turvy world we live in when a character like Beck, who now works for an Arab, suggested that an American citizen may be "working for our enemies," when in fact Mr. Ellison is working for the people in his district in Minnesota, and Beck is NOW working for a Saudi prince, an Arab, a citizen of a country that contributed to the deaths of 3,000 Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  125. About Keith Ellison, it was easy to find on Wikipedia references to the terrorist front group CAIR giving him campaign donations.

    Has Ellison returned this money? If he hasn't, he is working with our enemies to the point of profiting financially from them. He also addressed this front group's 2006 banquet.

    "He plants the idea that this American Congressman, just by viture of freely choosing to practice the Muslim faith"

    Freely practicing Islam is one thing. You know that I'm in the forefront of those denouncing those who claim that Muslim = terrorist. However, having friendly associations and financial ties with actual terrorist front groups like CAIR is another thing entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  126. dmarks asked:

    "Has Ellison returned this money? If he hasn't, he is working with our enemies to the point of profiting financially from them. He also addressed this front group's 2006 banquet."

    I find this no better than the slur Beck tried to smear Ellison with. If you have no knowledge of whether or not Ellison returned the money, why do you speculate?

    ReplyDelete
  127. If you asked me who is the best conservative talk radio show host, is like asking what is the best Ice Cream, it's a matter or personal opinion and experiences. Thanks to talk radio, one can listen to many stations and get a broad range of input, to form their own opinions.
    To me, the best is Michael Savage, who has a popular daily talk radio show out of California. Like me he too grew up in the Northeast, and enjoys a firm opinion to say the least. The man is a top selling writer of books, papers and was recently awarded the Freedom of speech award by Talkers Magazine. He's smart, well traveled, has the education to back up what he says, does his research and gives a heck of a show. Here are some of his accomplishments:

    Best-Selling Author of 'The Savage Nation', 'The Enemy Within' and 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'
    Explosive conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage continues to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic solutions. The 10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week can't be wrong! Turn on WOR in New York, KNEW in San Francisco, WKRO in Boston, KRLA in Los Angeles.
    Savage is harder hitting than other conservatives. Wilder than Bill, funnier than Ann, Michael Savage is a media icon who is unafraid to take on the establishment. He pulls many of his life experiences, including that of father, son, husband, brother, ice cream factory worker, busboy, lifeguard, writer, and scientist, into his commentary.
    Savage coined the terms "Compassionate Conservative" and "Islamo-Fascist," which have been hijacked by Republican speechwriters and spread like wildfire.
    An independent-minded individualist, Michael Savage fits no stereotype. He attacks big government and liberal media bias, but champions the environment and animal rights.
    Trained as a scientist, he holds Master’s degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology and earned his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley in Epidemiology and Nutritional Science. He spent decades searching and saving tropical rainforests.
    In show, books and speeches, Michael Savage electrifies and galvanizes his audiences. If you’re looking for someone with an opinion-- who isn’t afraid to tell it like it is-- he’s your man. Rush Limbaugh was the father of the Conservative Talk radio movement. He broke ground for the rest of the guys to follow, but he was and is an entertainer, first and foremost. He is right most of the time but for good, intellectual talk radio, my money is with Mike Savage and Glenn Beck. Both are very smart guys, very effective speakers, truly conservative, entertaining and funny. O’Reilly isn’t really a true conservative and the rest are the B-list. Rush will always have a soft spot in my heart, but Mike Savage and Glenn Beck are tops!
    Yes, to me it's Mr. Savage. I know that Hanoi Kenawe would disagree, but that would only make my case! ing

    Nothing frightens Marxists quite like the dissemination of truth, which is why they all want to see Glenn Beck silenced. Have a great day!

    ReplyDelete
  128. I gave him the benefit of a doubt on the possibility of returning the money.

    Everything I have found so far says he received the funds. Nothing says that he returned them.

    Now, since when it is a slur to assume the default: that someone keeps the campaign funds they receive? That is what usually happens.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Not to take away anything from the other fabulous talk show hosts, but Rush pioneered the modern, politically oriented, talk radio format.

    He is sharp, insightful, witty, and fun to listen to. His audience ratings attest to this.

    Like him or hate him, he is far and away the best that there is.


    Sources: Talent on loan from God

    ReplyDelete
  130. "Best-Selling Author of 'The [Weiner] Nation', 'The Enemy Within' and 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'
    Explosive conservative radio talk show host Michael [Weiner] continues to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic solutions"

    I wonder where this quote came from? Mr. Weiner's show is pretty hard to find on the dial, and hardly "dominates the airwaves". I wonder if this came from one of Weiner's own press releases.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Oops, I didn’t know that Hanoi Kenew was still posting here. Well C'est la Vie...

    Can’t you just feel the love! The Left is coming unhinged again and that is a sure sign that they are losing. Their Utopian dream is slipping from their grasp and they know it!!
    Liberals are such caring people

    ReplyDelete
  132. Since the power in Washington DC has been controlled by the Republicans (by a vast majority of time) over the last 40-50 years; and Republicans have installed their economic and social policies, I guess what we have now, is the Republican idea of utopia America.

    This is the best Republicans can do?

    ReplyDelete
  133. I will defend what he says though. You might hate conservatives for what they believe but they will always “say what they mean and mean what they say”. Liberal don’t have ground to stand on because their ground is built on lies. If Glenn Beck is so bad then why doesn’t any politician prove him wrong without the use of lies and smearing.
    For instance: Liberals get so worked up over the fact that he mispronounced a name. Liberals are filled with anger and rage. Liberals look down on people that have a different opinion. Liberals will only believe in opinions and ideas that validate their their love for Obama (which used to be their hatred for Bush). It doesn’t matter if its a lie because they will never research anything if it is something they want to hear. Conservatives want to ban gay marriage and abortion, which is where I disagree with them but Liberalism is a virus that grew out of lies that will inevitably destroy America.
    Liberals hate freedom of speech? They hate talk radio, they hate Fox, fair and balanced News, they hate all these internet blogs, and circulated emails. It's what they live for HATE...
    I enjoyed reading this blog, it is my first time here, I found it by following a link from Joe, Political, Joe’s blog . I knew I wasn't the only person in this country that understands what this administration is really trying to do to "we the people" spent 8 years listening to you Lib’s ripping Bush apart at every possible minute and invented opportunity that came along. I am SICK AND TIRED of the Libs and the press portraying dissenters as racist, uneducated fools. I am a CONSERVATIVE , and I too vote!

    ReplyDelete
  134. It's a funny thing.. no one's refuted that Beck uses innuendo and oblique references to manipulate the emotional reactions of his audience.. to the point that even his blatant lies go unnoticed, until later on when someone who cares about facts calls him on it, and by then the sheeple have forgotten what they actually heard.. they just remember that it really pissed them off.

    The conversation that Shaw referenced is a perfect example.

    Glenn Beck is a fascist propaganda machine. Period.

    So far I haven't seen a single cogent rebuttal of this. Now, maybe yall are more interested in namecalling and nonsense than reality, but if you have some facts to put on the table that would prove me wrong about Glenn Beck, bring it.

    ReplyDelete
  135. SDD said: "It's a funny thing.. no one's refuted that Beck uses innuendo and oblique references to manipulate..."

    Well, since when has anyone ever seen me defend Beck? Especially not since his rant where he detailed how it was necessary to have a left-wing media personality murdered.

    ReplyDelete
  136. The 1950's never ended.

    Substitute Islamofascism for Communism. CAIR for the National Lawyers Guild and presto.

    But wait! The commie rat bastards from such as STORM & ACORN are STILL a threat to our precious bodily fluids.

    A double whammy!

    ReplyDelete
  137. "Since the power in Washington DC has been controlled by the Republicans (by a vast majority of time) over the last 40-50 years;"

    50 years takes is back to Kennedy.

    So, starting there, we have 8 years of JFK and LBJ (Democrats).

    8 years of Nixon and Ford (Republicans)

    4 years of Carter (Democrat)

    12 years of the first Bush and Reagan (Republicans)

    8 years of Clinton (Dems)

    4 of the second Bush.

    And we are well into the 2nd year of Obama (Dems)
    ----------------

    So, in the past 50 years, we have had 22 years of Democratic presidents, and 28 of Republicans. That's a majority, but it still had the Dems in control of the Presidency roughly half the time. One presidential term going the other way would have made it a majority of Dem years. That is, when you look at the Presidency.

    During this time, the Dems controlled the House and Senate most of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Saty,

    You're right. No one speaks to the example I gave of how Beck tried to smear Ellison by implying he works with America's enemies, when just after that shabby interview, Beck went to work for a news station where a Saudi has a percentage of ownership in it. Saudi citizens were responsible for killing Americans on 9/11

    Hanoi Kenawe and Shaw Kenya?

    That's all they got?

    I'm actually flattered by all the attention. They can't stop talking about me! Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  139. I'm not familiar with the Lawyers Guid, but your 1950s comparison is scary, Arthurstone. Because the Soviets back then were hellbent on annihilating us, and had far more resources over there and far many more agents in this country than the Islamofascists have now.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Satyavati devi dasi said...
    The conversation that Shaw referenced is a perfect example.
    Glenn Beck is propaganda machine. Period.


    Now Isn't That The MOST Ridicules Thing You Have Ever Heard!

    You have got to be kidding me... She has also compared George Bush to a Fascist! A FASCIST would be one that would compare the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. Someone with those characteristics would be identified to a fascist .. Ws Bush ever accused of murdering this own citizens to maintain political power. How many outspoken liberals were dragged off in the night by Bush secret police, never to be heard of again? How many Muslim-American citizens were carted off to relocation camps, never to be heard of again? How much blood was shed in an attempt to keep Bush in power during the final days of his "regime"?
    This is absurd! People like her and a few other here just speak for the sake of making trouble, it don’t make any difference if what she says is true or not, in her vicious mind every Republican (except Pam ) is a bad person and a liar, and a racist. Well we are NOT! So just stop these stupid ridicules accusations.
    She would go nuts if anyone calls Obama a fascist, yet she is the first one ti use that woud to all, yes all republicans who are outspoken like Glenn Beck.

    ReplyDelete
  141. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Shaw said: "Beck went to work for a news station where a Saudi has a percentage of ownership in it. Saudi citizens were responsible for killing Americans on 9/11"

    Are you making a humorous point against Beck on that, or are you seriously one who believes that if one person if a nationality is bad, everyone is? Not catching the beginning context, I'm not sure..

    ReplyDelete
  143. You have got to be kidding me... She has also compared George Bush to a Fascist!

    When?

    People like her and a few other here just speak for the sake of making trouble, it don’t make any difference if what she says is true or not, in her vicious mind every Republican (except Pam ) is a bad person and a liar, and a racist. Well we are NOT! So just stop these stupid ridicules accusations.

    You DID read the part where I asked for facts that prove me wrong about Glenn Beck, didn't you?

    She would go nuts if anyone calls Obama a fascist, yet she is the first one ti use that woud to all, yes all republicans who are outspoken like Glenn Beck.

    Even a very cursory study of political ideology can tell you that Obama's not a Fascist, a Socialist, a Communist, or a Marxist. In fact, prominent American Socialist and Communist leaders have gone on television to explain in great detail that Obama is in no way supporting their ideologies. The difference is that many people who use these terms don't really know what they mean in reality.

    And no, I don't make blanket generalizations about groups of people. What I said, with examples backing me up, was that Glenn Beck, his own and very self, is a fascist propaganda machine.

    And if you have an argument against that, you are more than welcome to rebut it with facts and reality.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Blogger Satyavati devi dasi said...

    You DID read the part where I asked for facts that prove me wrong about Glenn Beck, didn't you?


    It's so ridiculous , why would I want to bother!
    sorry to burst your bubble sweetie but "liberal's" are those that demand government control of individuals, not conservatives. "liberal's" are the socialist's, not conservatives.
    As an American citizen, it's your right to believe any ideology you wish. Just don't expect others to embrace your beliefs just because you say so.

    ReplyDelete
  145. My differences between conservatives and liberals:

    Liberal guys are borderline gay, boring, socially inept, and hyper-emotional. Liberal women think they want them....dedicating poems to them, volunteering to wash the dishes, etc, but subconsciously they dream of being dominated by the captain of the football team.

    Conservative guys are typically insensitive, funny, masculine, and have great personalities.

    Liberal chicks are easy, great in bed, ignorant, gullible, moldable, and basically a lot of fun.

    Conservative women are uptight and boring in bed. They get into your finances, they want a 30-year plan, they see through your BS (even when you're really good at it, like moi), and they want you to have a good relationship with their mother.

    ReplyDelete
  146. It's so ridiculous , why would I want to bother!
    sorry to burst your bubble sweetie


    Yes, my bubble's been burst. I was hoping that some rational, reasonable, fact-based discussion could take place about Glenn Beck's one-man fascist propaganda machine, and what kind of an argument anyone could present to prove me wrong.

    I guess you're just not into the rational, reasonable, fact-based discussion thing.

    ReplyDelete
  147. dmarks asked:

    "Are you making a humorous point against Beck on that, or are you seriously one who believes that if one person if a nationality is bad, everyone is? Not catching the beginning context, I'm not sure.."

    Of course I don't promote the idea that all Saudis are bad people. My point was that Beck asked Ellison, based SOLELY on the fact that he is a Muslim, if he--Ellison--was working for America's enemies.

    I then took that absurd--premise one step further to show that Beck opened himself up to those same idiotic questions because HE is working for not just a Muslim, but someone whose fellow citizens killed 3,000 Americans.

    Beck's paranoia and apocalyptic rhetoric can be used against him, as I demonstrated.

    I thought you would get the point.

    ReplyDelete
  148. At least Glenn Beck has enough common sense to understand that he is in a war, and although it appears he’s been eating the chalk again, if his
    staged-hate tutorials finally convince progressives that they are the enemy in his
    war and thus engage the struggle, then we really should thank him as this piece
    suggests.”

    Ridicule him if you want, but
    he gets at core beliefs, the true arena of the battle, and the place where the
    conservatives are most vulnerable. But in making him a figure of fun, you don’t
    change a single heart or mind, and you miss an opportunity to engage the
    enemy on their turf.

    Shaw Kenawe would better serve her readership and the public better by posting a piece that
    addresses Beck’s argument point by point. If he’s the clown progressivesclaim, a full rebuttal should be pure Betty Crocker.”

    I JimmyD can see Beck’s appeal to a large chunk of the populace. I try to find the rebuttal ideas of the left, but I find mostly posts filled with hate towards the man, and few concrete alternative ideas.

    Some of the posts here are far more radical than anything Beck ever said, one gal even said that the problem with “free speech” is that it allows people like Beck to speak. Go figure!

    And Thanks for the laugh Shaw Kenawe!

    ReplyDelete
  149. The question is who's policies brought us to this dismal point of near national bankruptcy? The Republican policies.
    Multi-trillion dollar debts did not start mounting until Reagan's tax cuts. Then again with Bush's tax cuts.
    That's 1983 to present. That's from under 1 trillion of debt, to 13 trillion in debt. In less than 30 years.
    Taxes were higher under Kennedy and LBJ, but we were paying our debts, building the greatest middle class the world has ever seen, the greatest military the world has ever known, it only took one member in a family to pay for the family's expenses and extra to buy the luxuries most in the world only dream of, enough to send their children to college, pay to rebuild the WW II bombed countries, home ownership tripled, I could go on, but if you don't get the point that Republican policies have brought this countries to its knees, you just don't look at the facts objectively.
    So what's the judgment? Who has led the country to a more prosperous period?
    The national debt flattened out during Clinton.
    I'd love the economy we had under Kennedy! I'll bet my pay check, so would a majority of Americans.
    There is no comparison between who led the better economy; Democrats, or Republicans? No contest, the Democrats.
    It's only taken Republicans less than 30 years to destroy what generations of Americans have spent 200 years building. A prosperous country.

    ReplyDelete
  150. No, no, Jimmy D., it is YOU we need to thank for the laugh.

    Not only are you a fraud, but you're an amateur at it.

    Your comment was copied and pasted from a comment section at TruthDig, in answer to a post by Jonathan Sirota.

    Whomever you really are, Jimmy D (do you really think we believe you're someone from Australia who is conversant with Glenn Beck? Really?) one thing you are not, and that's clever or smart enough to come up with your own critiques of people who post here, so you had to plagiarize someone else's remarks.

    Perfect. The truth is probably you're a regular here at Pam's and didn't have what it takes to make a cogent argument, so you stole someone else's, and then took a swipe at me.

    I'll post below the comment you stole and we can all see where you inserted my name where the real author used someone else's.

    What. A. Pathetic. Fraud. Jimmy. D.!

    (cont. below)

    Oh, and thank YOU for the laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Source


    Plagiarized by the fraud Jimmy D from TruthDig, by David Sirota.

    By DaveZx3, February 27 at 4:00 am #


    Why does the left attack Beck so viciously? All that does is increase his popularity. If a man’s ideas are repulsive, attack his ideas with better ideas of your own, but do not attack the man. It doesn’t work.

    The post: “By WriterOnTheStorm, February 26 at 5:40 pm” is one of the best on this thread. I repeat it below:

    “At least Beck has enough common sense to understand that he is in a war, albeit
    one of ideas. And although it appears he’s been eating the chalk again, if his
    staged-hate tutorials finally convince progressives that they are the enemy in his
    war and thus engage the struggle, then we really should thank him as this piece
    suggests.”

    “Ridicule him if you want, (I’ve done my share, but frankly, it’s not sporting), but
    he gets at core beliefs, the true arena of the battle, and the place where the
    conservatives are most vulnerable. But in making him a figure of fun, you don’t
    change a single heart or mind, and you miss an opportunity to engage the
    enemy on their turf.”

    “Truthdig would better serve its readership and the public by posting a piece that
    addresses Beck’s argument point by point. If he’s half the clown progressives
    claim, a full rebuttal should be pure Betty Crocker.”

    I (DaveZx3) can see Beck’s appeal to a large chunk of the populace. I try to find the rebuttal ideas of the left, but I find mostly posts filled with hate towards the man, and few concrete alternative ideas.

    Some of the posts here are far more radical than anything Beck ever said, one guy even saying that the problem with “free speech” is that it allows people like Beck to speak. An exact quote is: “Freedom of the Press” has made the field of journalism near obsolete and is on the brink of extinction in the USA” Reread the whole thing at: “By zeroinfinity, February 26 at 9:18 am #”

    ReplyDelete
  152. Arthurstone said...
    'Well Rational.

    A refresher.

    Regarding Glenn Beck, this is the level of 'thought' & 'feeling' we're discussing.

    Glenn Beck felt that, “...it’s not enough just to not suck as much as the other side”

    Here's another one“Progressivism is a cancer in America,” said Beck, “and it’s eating our Constitution — and it was meant to eat our Constitution.”

    So I guess the answer is no, not everyone's arguments are 'stupid and without merit'. But for a highly paid pundit, analyst and writer engaging a huge audience Beck's discourse certainly scores high on the stupid and without merit scale with alarming frequency."

    I guess the same can be said of Olbermann et all on the socialist/progressive side right?

    But of course you wouldn't see it that way i'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
  153. I guess the same can be said of Olbermann et all on the socialist/progressive side right?

    I think so. I think there are lunatics of all persuasions. You can't make blanket generalizations about either the left or the right-there will always be some idiot and some lunatic wherever you go.

    It does seem to me that the focus of said lunatics changes depending on which side of the spectrum they're on, though.

    ReplyDelete
  154. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Ok, Obama is not a fascist, he's a communist. Both of his parents were communists. His mentor is a communist. His pastor for twenty years is a communist. He's appointed several communists to high posts in his administration, including Van Jones and Anita Dunn among others. In college, many of his friends and associates were communists. He's either the most ignorant and stupid president ever to hold office or he's working very hard to implement a strategy to overload the system, collapse the economy and replace capitalist America with some version of a socialistic system.
    OK Libs, let’s hear from you about how BUSH was a fascist and was trying to destroy our way of life by spying on us.
    Why isn’t anybody questioning Obama about this? Where are the media, and the boatloads of fear mongering liberals that was thinking of the president taking away our liberties and security now!
    If you can't see that, then I feel sorry for you because as you said, "You can't fix stupid."
    But hey! He’s keeping the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant. Thank God for little things. I guess that Bush had it right after all. How come they don’t Blame that on Bush? Isn’t it funny how the Dems called Bush a fascist for this, but turn a blind eye to Obama when he wants to do the same thing....h.y.p.o.c.r.i.t.e.s. Where are all those two faced hypocrite Liberal/communist who whined and cried all over about Bush's Patriot Act and how it was so Unconstitutional! Where are they now? Come on hypocrite Liberal/communist...show your faces. Tell us how you feel about it now!
    Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant....You liberals are desperate to blame someone besides Obama for all his failures. Obama can say no anytime he wants, after all he is the president. But Obama basically doesn't have a mind of his own when it comes to political strategy. Surely its time to forget Bush and find some one else to blame!

    ReplyDelete
  156. Ok, Obama is not a fascist, he's a communist.

    Do you even know what a Communist is? Do you know anything whatsoever about Communism?

    I'm being one hundred percent serious.

    The leaders of the CPUSA (as well as the leaders of the SPUSA) have been in interviews on television and explained in great detail that not by any stretch of anyone's fertile imagination is Obama a Communist. His policies are not Communist. His philosophies are not Communist. His ideologies are not Communist.

    The only people who think Obama is a Communist are people who don't know what Communism is, what it stands for, or how it operates.

    People use the word 'Communist' because to them it's simply something bad. They don't know what it actually means.

    In your own mind you can spin whatever kinds of paranoid fantasies you like, but when you make a comment that's both totally unfactual and that explains that you don't know what you're talking about, you can safely expect to get called on it.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Satyavati devi dasi said...

    Ok, Obama is not a fascist, he's a communist.

    Do you even know what a Communist is? Do you know anything whatsoever about Communism?

    I'm being one hundred percent serious.



    Praise the Lord,
    the expert and our authority has spoken.

    I suppose in your mind it’s anyone who thinks like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, George Bush and Ronald Reagan!
    But In my mind it’s someone like Barack Obama who believes in the end of the an Capitalist economy. And some one who will abolish the ownership of private property.. And who will everyone and everything depend on government control. Government Ownership of major companies corporations, Government control of labor etc. And have the dictatorship of the social classes.. Communism is when all people of the society work for the society, and not for themselves. Communism is when one person has a total control, over a state or a country, like someone we know is attempting. Mr. Marx said that it was unfair for some people to be rich and for others to be poor. He said that the only way to change that was to get rid of private ownership of property. Kind of like REDISTRIBUTING THE WEALTH.
    Basically it's what the democrats/liberals in America want. But of course, you are going to have a different meaning!


    But of course, in my mind I’m going to can spin MY paranoid fantasies to a totally un- factual definition ... because I don't know what I’M talking about. But of course YOU do. Because YOU are the know it all expert on everything and us poor republicans don’t know our ass’s from our elbows!
    Poor me, and Thank you for being here to help me understand what YOU LIBERAL’S are. And yes, I still see communists and those with the communist mind set as the enemy. Thank you for setting me straight, I’m sure there will be more coming.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Praise the Lord,
    the expert and our authority has spoken.
    I suppose in your mind it’s anyone who thinks like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, George Bush and Ronald Reagan!


    Uh.. no.

    You see, of all the people who actually frequent this blog, I'm the ONLY ONE I know of who actually espouses one of these ideologies that get routinely slandered and mislabeled.

    I've been a Socialist (YPSL and SPUSA) since 1985, before I was even old enough to vote.

    I put that in bold because this IS MY IDEOLOGY. This is what I believe. I don't make a secret about it. I have worked for Socialist causes (like universal healthcare) for 25 years now. I KNOW WHAT SOCIALISM IS BECAUSE I AM A SOCIALIST. That clear enough for you?

    So no, I don't believe that Rush, Glenn or Bush are Communists. They aren't and weren't.

    Why's that? Because I know what a Communist IS. I know what a Marxist is. I know what a Socialist is. I also know what these things AREN'T.

    To you, they may be dirty words and insults to sling around. To me, they're very specific sets of core beliefs, and not indiscriminately interchangeable.

    You see, the reason you and I aren't getting anywhere is because I'm trying to deal in a reality-based, fact-oriented discussion, and you're not.

    So let's deal in facts and reality. I mean, at least try, will you?

    ReplyDelete
  159. Read the Communist Manifesto, then Read the Liberal Manifesto and listen closely to what your politicians are saying, especially when they talk of the "Common Good". Understand the nature of what you are about to become, like cattle being led to the slaughter house, you are being led into the world of communism, by your liberal democratic communistic politicians, such as Barack Obama and his gang of Socialists.

    Visit Stop the ACLU website and see where the majority of the American people think the President has gone too far in restricting civil liberties and in getting too involved with US Corporations.

    ReplyDelete
  160. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  161. I've come to learn that that there are some great well-meaning people who are socialists. Some of them actually not having megalomaniac dreams of when "their" side takes over and kills off everyone who does not conform.

    This being said, nice and well-intentioned as they are, I want their beliefs kept out of government, for similar reasons to my opposition to theocracy. It is just to dangerous to follow the "trust the government" ideology, no matter how good it looks on paper, no matter how well intentioned it is. The record of history is too strong of a warning as is the adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

    ReplyDelete
  162. I can understand your views, Dmarks.. and I am not naive enough to think that a purely Socialist system would work in America in 2010.

    Actually, I don't think a pure "anything" system works. Certainly I don't believe that our current system (which isn't 100% pure itself) has worked so hot.

    So my goals aren't really in the 'let's take over and completely eliminate every opposing ideology' line.

    I think it's a lot more practical, and realistic, and achievable, to create a mixed economy; one in which Socialist and Capitalist economies mix.

    This is actually done today in several countries; there are few governments anymore, even Communist governments, that operate on a pure ideological level.

    Now, there'd still be a lot of opposition to this; you'd hear cries of 'unequally yoked' from the Biblically minded and screams of 'economic miscegenation' from those who like to use that word... but I think, in practical terms, that a mixed system could give, as it were, the best of both worlds.

    And yeah.. thanks :) ... just because I can sing L'Internationale doesn't mean I'm an anti-American traitor-slash-terrorist hellbent on destroying our Great And Glorious Nation and torturing kittens. I appreciate you recognizing that :)

    ReplyDelete
  163. Satyavati devi dasi said...
    To you, they may be dirty words and insults to sling around. To me, they're very specific sets of core beliefs, and not indiscriminately interchangeable.

    You see, the reason you and I aren't getting anywhere is because I'm trying to deal in a reality-based, fact-oriented discussion, and you're not.

    So let's deal in facts and reality. I mean, at least try, will you?



    You seem to put the lack of a serious discussion completely on me.
    Yet you were the one who said:
    In your own mind you can spin whatever kinds of paranoid fantasies you like, but when you make a comment that's both totally unfactual and that explains that you don't know what you're talking about, you can safely expect to get called on it

    I had lived and worked in Beijing China for 13 months and I know what Communism is. You see armed guards everywhere and you see armed soldiers called “watchers” everywhere actually watching everybody and everything that you do. . The people walk around looking grim, and oppressed, you see people everywhere walking with their heads down looking desperate. Their clothes were ragged even the soldiers were dressed that way you see soldiers with wrinkled uniforms and sock that don’t match... the food that we are so accustom with having is almost non existent. Everybody looks cold, bleak and gray. You hardly ever see people smiling. I even remember the day I left I gave a plant to a elderly man that I became casually friendly with and he asked me how mush did I pay for it, I didn’t want to tell him but when he insisted, I told him it was about $5.00, he told me that if I gave him the cash he could have brought a weeks worth of food with that. It made me feel awful. We used a different type of currency than they did, so i couldn’t give him cash. It was against the law to. When I left, I had a friend take a picture of him and me together and send it to him from America. A few weeks later I received a letter from his daughter asking me not to send him any more mail as he got into trouble for receiving the picture. So I never did.
    I used to have conversations with couples who aborted their expected children because they were going to be girls, and needed boys to help them with their work.

    This is a very brief personal account of my experiences with Communism.

    ReplyDelete
  164. If all this is true, then I am completely at a loss to understand how you can call Obama a Communist. Neither his policies, his ideologies, nor any of his actions since coming to the presidency have been Communist. He's a centrist.

    You should also, then, be familiar with the fact that China, Communist or not, as a nation, is doing so well economically that they are a heavy duty player in the global economic picture. We borrow money from them.

    This is not to defend the Chinese government; I have issues with some of the things they've done. But to try to draw a parallel between an effort to create viable access to healthcare for all Americans, and a Chinese Communist government, is a reach at best. The United States is in no way becoming a Communist nation.

    And if you read back through the comments, I believe you'll find I was completely justified in putting the lack of a reality-based, fact-oriented discussion on you.

    So, we can go on civilly from here if you like. I am always up for a rational discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Satyavati devi dasi,

    Most Americans who would yell "commie" or "socialisst" don't realize that our democracy--actually, republic, has a mixture of socialism in it and has for decades.

    The federal government collects taxes from the individual states and then REDISTRIBUTES those monies to the states that are in need--in America, the wealthier states in the northeast, upper midlakes, and west coast taxes get REDISTRIBUTED to the poorer states in the south and miswest.

    This happened under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II--in fact this REDISTRIBUTION happens under Republican and Democratic administrations, Republican and Democratic Congresses.

    People who don't understand how our government works are the first to grab onto a term like "socialist" and use it perjoratively against their opposition.

    In fact, I would remind people who use that term that every time they use their local public library, their police department, fire department, and public school system they are participating in a form of socialism.

    If these people think socialism is the evil they keep screaming it is, I invite them to stop availing themselves of these "socialistic" services their cities and towns offer by collecting taxes and using those monies for the greater good of the citizens of those cities and towns.

    Of course President Obama is not a socialist nor a communist. Those are terms being thrown around by angry people who don't really know what they're talking about.

    They should think about that when they say the Pledge of Allegiance--which was, BTW, written by Francis Bellamy, a CHRISTIAN SOCIALIST.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Shaw Kenawe said...
    This happened under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II



    Here we go again folks. Same old broken record.. Blame Bush

    Like Porky Pig says, "Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-... That's all, folks."


    The "blame game" is getting really old folks, let's start putting blame where it's due Blame Barry.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Cmon, Mal...

    in fact this REDISTRIBUTION happens under Republican and Democratic administrations, Republican and Democratic Congresses.

    This is hardly blaming Bush. It happens under EVERY regime, irrespective of political party.

    Cmon now, let's be fair.

    ReplyDelete
  168. You know, if you substituted India for China in RIR's anecdote you would have an argument against capitalism.

    Misery is not the sole property of any economic system. And just like religions are hijacked for totalitarian purposes, so have economic systems.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Ever wonder why, after all the spinning we seem to find ourselves back at the same point from which we began?

    The Never Ending Crusade I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  170. OMG...

    Our pledge of alliegence was written by a SOCIALIST!

    I bet if you recite it backwards it is unlocks some satanic verse praising Leninism....

    ReplyDelete
  171. SDD: So it appears you are a milder one, and not a pure ideologue who wants all of the means of production to be "collectively" owned. All of the self-proclaimed socialists I have met in the past have actually fallen into that group.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Folks, lets all join Chairman TAO's crusade to take America down the Radicalized vision he has for America.

    Chairman TAO and his comrades will show us the way.

    All hail Chairman TAO!

    ReplyDelete
  173. Dmarks:

    I wouldn't say so much 'milder' than 'pragmatic'.

    I'm looking towards what can actually and practically be accomplished in America in 2010. I'm willing to compromise to set us on the right road.

    Do I believe that once we start, over time, over generations, we can move the country further towards Socialism? Yes, and that would be my goal.

    Do I believe it's realistic or practical to attempt to implement a radically different social and economic structure in a country (any country) in one fell swoop? No.

    So I'm more concerned about setting us on the right road, in the right direction, and I'm willing to make concessions and compromises to put us there.

    The goals haven't really changed in my mind; but I'm more concerned with what we can realistically expect and accomplish at this point in history. One step is better than none.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Rational....

    Looking for friends in all the wrong places...

    I have seen what your Republican buddies, the ones you vote for as the lesser of two evils, have done to capitalism over the last 30 years....

    I am just thankful I cashed all my investments in back in 2007.

    Glad I live in the same house I have lived in for 20 years and didn't buy into the concept of a home being some asset that you flip every couple of months....

    Nothing is more radical than a republican preaching to a conservative choir....

    Been there and done that....

    Its time to find something new....

    ReplyDelete
  175. How exactly does pointing out consistent policies across several administrations, both Dems and Repubs, equate to "blame Bush"...it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Tell those liberals who are too ignorant and lazy to learn information by themselves to stop buying expensive LCD screens, buying unnecessary garbage, cable internet, brand new cars to compete with the Dumbasses next door, etc. Your average American has $5000-6000 in credit card debt alone.

    You guys are pretty freaken retarded, and I’m not going to pay for their intellectual laziness and lack of personal responsibility.

    You seem to think that there is a panacea for human life and death, and that we can avoid all bad things in life. Sorry buddy, that’s just not how the universe goes and our friend but seemed to be delete ......

    There are pros and cons with capitalism and socialism and communism, for instance, but we’ve seen how Soviet Union was an utter failure. In America, we don’t have unbridled capitalism either as excess greed has led to the freaken on WAllstreet freaken everything up for screwing everyone. But in general, a capitalist leaning economic system is more in tune with our primitive human nature that has been selected for over hundreds of thousands of years.

    We’re greedy, selfish, egotistical, and brutal people and it’s what nature has selected for. That’s just how the world is.

    Stop with the backroom, closed-door and smoke-filled room deals (Nebraska and Louisiana, anyone?) and do what the people want, Obama.”

    If a Republican can win in Massachusetts — and take the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat at the same fucking time — they can win anywhere.

    This was a direct vote against the shitty health care bill. 56% said that the reason they voted for Brown was because of health care.

    In one single vote, they’re saying “Screw Your Health Care Reform.”

    And, I am too. Yeah Screw your health care, liberals.

    I pay for mine, you pay for yours.

    ReplyDelete
  177. I support gay marriage and civil rights for gay robots also Faggotron.

    I hope you meet someone special one day.

    ReplyDelete
  178. TAO - There you go again!

    Stay Tuned.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Who are regular, run-of-the-mill, tax-paying Americans to question Obama? He's brilliant, after all. ... If Obama is so brilliant, why does he parrot the words and thoughts of a bunch of schmucks like Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Al Gore and Michael Moore? Why does he insist that the trouble with the Constitution and the Civil Rights movement is that they didn't focus on the redistribution of wealth? Why would he hand over the federal budget to a couple of morons like Pelosi and Reid? And why on earth would he put Henry Waxman in charge of his energy program? A brilliant person wouldn't trust Waxman to bring baked beans to a picnic. When someone decides to model a health care plan after such dismal failures as England, Canada and Cuba, while exhuming the failed economic policies of FDR, why would anyone suggest he is anything but a left-wing ignoramus? This is an American president, for heaven's sake, who has more in common with Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez and some Berkeley hippie than he has with Washington, Jefferson and Adams. Except that he is now 30 years older, Obama seems to think exactly the same way he was thinking back in college, when he was a pot-smoking idiot who sought out students who were self-professed revolutionaries and professors who were communists. If we have come to a point where the ability to read scripted lines off a teleprompter is considered a sign of brilliance, no matter how fatuous the actual words may be, we are in even worse shape than I imagined

    ReplyDelete
  180. And, I am too. Yeah Screw your health care, liberals.

    I pay for mine, you pay for yours.


    Let me enlighten you on something.

    I have worked AT LEAST two jobs (at the same time) for the past fifteen years. I'm a registered nurse.

    However, a large percentage of those jobs didn't offer health insurance benefits.

    I have preexisting conditions that preclude me getting a private policy.

    Therefore, I have gone at least half of the last fifteen years with no health insurance.

    I am not on welfare. I am not a crack addict. I am not a prostitute and I'm not homeless. I'm not lazy either; I have been working all of those fifteen years, as I said, at AT LEAST two jobs (with 2-3 pickup jobs going as well).

    The great, vast, overwhelming majority of people who don't have health insurance are not crack addicts, prostitutes, on welfare, homeless or lazy. They have preexisting conditions that don't allow them to get private policies, or they have no benefits at work and can't afford the outrageous premiums for deductibles so high (and coverage limits so low) as to make the insurance worthless.

    And if you think you currently don't pay for the uninsured, think again. You do. Hospitals shift the burden of paying for the uninsured onto those with insurance and onto (in the case of public hospitals)local taxpayers whose taxes support the hospital. You're paying for it now.

    ReplyDelete
  181. sum dum white boyMarch 2, 2010 at 8:26 AM

    If the premise is women can't be trusted to do the right thing, and clearly abstinence is not pulling it's weight, and we want to impose a sanction that prevents abortions, than the simple solution is mandatory vasectomies, for guys who keep getting girls pregnant and then dumping them, it takes two to tango. They can be reversed, it's a relatively simple outpatient procedure and if proper attention is given to a standardized system can be done safely and cheaply across the nation.

    We don't have abortions because women are stupid or evil, we have them because sometimes they get pregnant when they don't want to, or are not ready to be a parent. They also get abortions because the man that got them pregnant walked away, is a bum and has no job, I could go on but it's clear laying all of this on the individual woman is a joke.

    Society and the judgement of men also plays a major part. We tell women not to get abortions, but we look down on single mothers. Instead of creating an environment where a single woman who finds herself pregnant can find support and encouragement to keep the child and raise it alone, but with help, we shun her, we judge her... we act as a society as if we want her to have an abortion, then we call her a criminal and murderer, never blaming the man who holds at least an equal part of the responsibility and none of the burden.

    Men don't get pregnant, as such they have no right to tell a pregnant woman what to do. Sadly I trust a 16 year old with a good family to make the best choice, rather than a Senator who has been milking us for farm subsidies for 20 years while calling them corrupt. Male or female.

    Perhaps the best way to reduce abortions is to simply transform the image and position of a single mother into the brave, strong and beautiful thing that it really is.

    Perhaps it wouldn't be so laughable if people who call themselves “Pro-Life” were not the ones among us so quick to sign up for more and bloodier wars.

    The only thing making no Federal Funds available for abortion does is take the decision away from an informed and nurtured woman and a well educated doctor into the hands of a scared little girl and a bathroom physician. Limiting the terms and conditions under which it is acceptable and not acceptable is one thing, a flat out no is just another in a string of stupid calls, made for political reasons that will again, negatively affect our society.
    As for Glenn Beck the Republican's National Hero, I'm trying to figure out what part of that five thousand dollar suit, or the eight hundred dollar gold pin, or the manicured nails, or the missing calluses on his hands qualifies Glenn Beck mega bucks as one of us. Just because he sits behind a microphone and spreads his line of crap to grab headlines. Why the hell should anyone give a rats ass about anything that he says. 90 percent of the time he's full of shit! The other 10 percent, he's not saying anything that we don't already know.

    I'm an American man. Torn and callused skin on my hands. Blue jeans, a pair of boots and a couple big dogs that will rip off your face if you break into my home, I don't need a gun I have an axe, I chop wood with it.

    I don't see Glenn beck in the mirror, not one bit. I see a punk ass little bitch you was good at acting class, not shop. Selling the wears of the man.

    I have people depending on me putting gas in the truck. I'm doing good, but I'll never be able to afford a five thousand dollar suit, and frankly I wouldn't wear it. Now Glenn's got nasty lawyers so I have to watch my mouth.

    But I'll wager only one of us has hair on their chest.

    Don't act like being dumb is a virtue. Following this guy... Epic fail

    Us truck driving yokels want to see that Class 1 license Glenn.

    You know where your dinner is hanging buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Sum Dum: Your argument about abortion was sexist in the extreme.

    "Perhaps it wouldn't be so laughable if people who call themselves “Pro-Life” were not the ones among us so quick to sign up for more and bloodier wars."

    And this does not happen at all.

    Anon: I think that SDD said that no-one will sell her a policy, even though she wants to pay for one.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Dmarks: I deleted "Anonymous". ITS comment was rude and Satyavati has been nothing but civil and respectful. No one has any right to come here and be rude especially when the person they are responding to is only looking for a rational debate.

    ReplyDelete
  184. "Perhaps it wouldn't be so laughable if people who call themselves “Pro-Life” were not the ones among us so quick to sign up for more and bloodier wars."

    And this does not happen at all.


    If you consider the number of Congresspeople (in point of fact, I have to say overwhelmingly Republican) who are heavily influenced by the Christian Right, and pull up some voting records, I would be surprised if we didn't find that the same folks who vote pro-choice also voted favorably on the last few wars we've been in.

    Now, I've not actually done that research (I am home sick from work today and our sattelite modem is shot so it took this page ten minutes-literally-to load), but I feel fairly confident that if I gave you a list of Congresspeople that have 'Family Resource Council' approval, you'd find that they've consistently voted anti-gay marriage, anti-pro-life and yea on the past few wars.

    I'm just saying. If I'm wrong, I'll admit to it. But if you want a list of the lawmakers I'm talking about, I'll do my best to get it to you, and then we can see.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Let’s not forget the hypocritical Pro-lifers who preach “sanctity of life” but go on a murdering rampage at Abortion Clinics or of Doctors who perform abortions. If one is inclined to be Pro-life, then shouldn’t ALL life be sacred rather than something that is selective?

    ReplyDelete
  186. I didn't mean 'anti-pro-life', I meant pro-life. (Chalk that up to the medication..)

    And also, Pam, you make a good point. Personally, I always wonder how one can be pro-life and not a vegetarian.

    But that's a different aisle in the supermarket of this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  187. And I didn't mean pro-choice up there either.

    What I meant to say was that the same people (overwhelmingly Republican and influenced by the Christian Right) are voting against abortion rights, against gay marriage, and yea on the wars.

    Okay, I've got that right now. Sorry about the confusion... obviously I'm not getting oxygen to my brain with this pneumonia.

    The bit about the FRC and voting records, all that, still stands. You can go to their website and find a 'scorecard' on voting records if you look hard enough; they keep track of how every single congressperson votes on the issues they deem important. And it shouldn't be hard to find who voted yea or nay on the last few wars.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Satyavati: I'm sorry you're sick. el-yucko! But I also knew what you meant as I know your stance on most of these issues...lol!

    Good point on wondering how pro-lifers could be anything but veggie-eaters! I hadn’t thought of that. It would make sense—life is life, right? Don’t get me wrong-- I love my meat so I’m not going to condemn carnivores or vegetarians for that matter! To each his own—just don’t force it on me! I do have a problem understanding the whole “murdering” but claiming “life is sacred” thing. I’m just not able to wrap my mind around the concept.

    ReplyDelete
  189. foggotron@6:23 on March 1:

    "If Obama is so brilliant, why does he parrot the words and thoughts of a bunch of schmucks like Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Al Gore and Michael Moore? Why does he insist that the trouble with the Constitution and the Civil Rights movement is that they didn't focus on the redistribution of wealth?"

    faggatron,

    Lets see the quotes where Obama says any of those things you accuse him of saying. If you can't, it's just more b.s. from a long-winded b.s.er.

    Anyone can make s**t up.

    For example:

    If Beck is so brilliant, why does he parrot the words and thoughts of a bunch of schmucks like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin? Why does he insist that the trouble with the Constitution and the Civil Rights movement is that they didn't focus on the gold standard?

    See how easy it is to make stuff up?

    ReplyDelete
  190. Pamela D. Hart said...I do have a problem understanding the whole “murdering” but claiming “life is sacred” thing. I’m just not able to wrap my mind around the concept.

    I think I can iron that one put for ya, Pam. The difference is the innocent life versus the wicked life.

    An innocent newborn has done nothing wrong, but some serial killer who ruins people's lives is not a good comparison.

    You can try to argue infinite lives and reincarnation with me all day long, but I don't buy it. People that kill should be killed. No, it's not a deterrent. It's retribution, and it feels pretty damn good imho.

    That said, I voted against that stupid 'making women see sonos of their baby before an abortion'. That is wasteful spending and any woman who wants a baby vacuumed out of her won't change her mind.

    Almost at 200 posts on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  191. The difference is the innocent life versus the wicked life.

    Other countries' militaries aren't any more wicked than ours.. they're just doing a job, the same as our guys are. What they do is put their lives out there to do whatever mission that they've been charged to do, and in the process they kill both other military people and also civilian people. ALL countries' militaries do this. The labeling of another country as the 'enemy' might go far in rationalizing that they're 'wicked', but in an objective, third-party view, when you come down to an individual level, they're all pretty much out there doing the same thing: trying to win, and doing nasty things in the process.

    And as far as innocent lives go: who can argue that cows, and pigs, and chickens, and turkeys aren't the most innocent and deceived of all? Yesterday, on my way home from work, a calf had got out of a fence and was standing in the road. The mama was on the other side of the fence watching what was going on and mooing all over the place. I pulled the truck over and looped my work tag thing around its neck and walked it up to the house, and got someone to take care of it. It was just little.

    That calf, and its mama as well, who was so concerned about it, are just going to be slaughtered in a couple of months. There's no righteousness in that and certainly no regard for the 'sanctity of life'.

    People who go on about things like being pro-life, yet don't mind eating animals, are practicing cognitive dissonance of the highest degree. Ask these same people, who love their filet mignon, how they'd like a dogburger or a kitty cutlet. You will be met with horror. It's okay to eat cows, but not cats and dogs. This is a philosophy that states that some creatures are more worthy of life than others.

    Extrapolated, this is the same mentality behind genocide: the process of 'dehumanizing' a group of people to the point where they, in the minds of the masses, become less worthy of life, and thus eligible for extermination.

    It's hypocrisy of the highest degree.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Incorrect. God gave us dominion over the animals of the earth.

    This isn't about the military. And, just in case you hadn't noticed, I don't like talking to you, I was addressing Pam. Not really interested in what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  193. BPB: "And, just in case you hadn't noticed, I don't like talking to you, I was addressing Pam. Not really interested in what you are talking about."

    SatyDD,

    Take that as the ultimate compliment coming from this commenter.

    ReplyDelete
  194. bluepitbull said: An innocent newborn has done nothing wrong, but some serial killer who ruins people's lives is not a good comparison.

    Blue: I don’t have a problem distinguishing between a newborn and a serial killer -- I’m pro-Capital punishment, by the way. My confusion arises with those who “march” and “preach” the “sanctity of life” then go and murder an Abortion Doctor. Supposedly for “pro-lifers” murder is an abomination hence killing a doctor who performs abortions should be an abomination too.

    Don’t worry I won’t argue infinite life or reincarnation with you as I don’t believe in either-- so you are safe! Lol! As far as “the death penalty” being a deterrent, some say it is while others say it is not. I guess it’s all in whom you ask. And yes, I think for those who have lost loved ones at the hands of a serial killer, etc., the death penalty is small retribution for them.

    ReplyDelete
  195. From the KJV, Genesis 1, wherein we find that immediately after God gives Adam 'DOMINION' over all living creatures, He specifies Adam's diet, which, lo and behold, is vegetarian. (You can also find a reference to 'He that killeth an ox is as he that killeth a man', and the fact that the generic verb 'to kill', used in the 10 Commandments, is indeed a generic verb, which specifies no object of reference, and is therefore a general prohibition against the taking of ALL LIFE.)
    -----
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

    1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

    ReplyDelete
  196. I’ll address Satyavati, if that’s okay with her. In my opinion, she brings up some really great points—which makes me THINK! And I like that—not that we always agree but we do it respectfully!

    First, that was really kind of you to take that baby calf back to its mama—something I would’ve done. I rescue animals too! My last rescue was 2 baby bunnies which I called Hopper and Bouncer until I released them back into the wild. I wrote a story about them on my other much neglected blog “Hart’s Beat”, there are pictures of them too.

    I digress.

    I believe that all animals are here for a reason, whether it’s food or just to keep the ecological system in sync. I agree that most people wouldn’t dream of eating cats/dogs and consequently in most countries it’s taboo or even illegal to eat them, yet there are some countries where cats/dogs are considered delicacies. I think the reason it’s “taboo” or even “illegal” is because dogs/cats are regarded as “companions” while cows and pigs aren’t. Who would ever consider eating their companion?

    I read your quotes from the bible about Adam and God’s creatures and I suppose for those who are religious it makes sense that they should then be vegetarians—according to the quotes you’ve shown. But what about those who are Scientific and don’t believe in God or the bible? Shouldn’t they be permitted to make the decision of whether they want to eat meat or not?

    ReplyDelete
  197. SDD: None of those people voted to start these wars. But they did vote to fight back when we were attacked.

    ReplyDelete
  198. But what about those who are Scientific and don’t believe in God or the bible? Shouldn’t they be permitted to make the decision of whether they want to eat meat or not?

    Certainly. The Bible isn't my scripture either. People can make their own decisions and then accept the consequences thereof. And there are plenty of non-theists and a-theists who are wholly secular and scientific, who have worked through their thought process and come to the decision to be vegetarian (or vegan, and as far as that's concerned, every vegan can claim that every vegetarian's a hypocrite, and they'd be right).

    But it does make sense for the pro-life crowd, which, I would venture to say, is in large part made up of those who do claim the Bible as their authority, to either be vegetarians or hypocrites, one. I mean, this is their book.

    Dmarks: We could launch a whole other 200 comment argument off your comment, and I have too much pneumonia for that kind of energy, so for my part I will be satisfied that they voted for violence, retributory or not (depending on your political pov), and leave it there.

    ReplyDelete
  199. It never tells in the Bible of Adam being directed to eat only veggies.

    Then why would God later request of the Israelites to sacrifice lamb? Makes no sense.

    Don't care if you don't subscribe to my faith.

    ReplyDelete
  200. faggatron,

    Lets see the quotes where Obama says any of those things you accuse him of saying. If you can't, it's just more b.s. from a long-winded b.s.er.

    Anyone can make s**t up.

    For example:

    If Beck is so brilliant, why does he parrot the words and thoughts of a bunch of schmucks like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin? Why does he insist that the trouble with the Constitution and the Civil Rights movement is that they didn't focus on the gold standard?

    See how easy it is to make stuff up?



    NEWS FLASH!!!!!

    GLENN BECK IS NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...