That the government should only spend money on things that benefit one personally is the argument of the selfish.
All of which is paid for by taxes, which in turn are paid by the folks who turned up to use them. I'm usually the last one in my office at night, and I will more often than not put the office TV on Fox to have Beck on in the background while I'm working. It's not because I like him, or believe his claptrap. It's because I like watching idiots demonstrate their idiocy. Glen Beck is a con man, nothing more, nothing less. He's latched on to sort-of conservative ideas (and more and more, religious ones) as a means of lining his own pockets. That's what Beck is about. To be fair, he's done some good with bringing the founders back into public consideration and making people aware of what they actually said and wrote at the time of the revolution. But then he makes staggering leaps of assumption based on that platform. But enough about Beck. It's the Tea Party that really was the issue at the rally Saturday. It's fascinating to watch the reactions to the Tea Party by the reality-impaired, especially those on the left - the so-called "progressives". At its base, the Tea Party is a simple movement. The core beliefs are that we pay too much in taxes, government is too big and unresponsive, and we can't keep spending money in budget-bursting deficit mode like we've been doing. In short, Uncle Sam needs to be slapped around a little and reined in. Horrors. How objectionable. Now, of course there's some questionable fringe elements associated with the Tea Party. There's questionable fringe elements associated with any political party you could name, democrats and republicans included. Trying to use that as a lever to squeeze out the very real concerns of a non-trivial segment of the population is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst. In a way, it's the same deal as when progressives and leftists try to rewrite history to diminish Ronald Reagan's achievements. Reagan stands as a clear and unmistakable refutation of many things the left holds dear, and therefore must be belittled and destroyed at all costs. The Tea Party is a large segment of Americans refuting the ideals of the left and saying "No" to that whole agenda, and therefore must be belittled and destroyed at all costs. It's instructive to watch the shenanigans that go on. For instance, Sunday morning I watched the Chris Matthews show. They were talking about the "dueling rallies" from the day before and every time Beck's deal was mentioned, they were sure to subtly disparage it (and sometimes not so subtly) while saying nothing the least bit negative about Sharpton's event. Obvious bias for anyone willing to look at it objectively. So ya know, the reactions from the left are, as usual, higly informative about their true nature.
And after 50 years of Federal programs to fight poverty, we've finally eliminated it. We've proven Thomas Paine right! Oh wait...
you are seeing exclusion where none is intended. But if it needs clarifying... there are obviously lunatics on the right wing fringe. However, in my judgment, it's hard for the left wing to have a rally without some of the lunatic left fringe showing up. (code pink and the like)
So, while some show up on the right, they all show up on the left. You can't honestly believe there has never been a left wing "rally" or gathering or whatever in which lunatics did not show up.
Yep! Al Sharpton would probably call Martin Luther King Jr. a racist if he thought he could get away with it...
More precisely, they would be in wide disagreement on those issues - some would favor that position and some oppose it. it is the economic issues where they share common ground, other issues are not brought up in the TEA party events specifically BECAUSE they would be divisive.
I'm sure there must have been. in fact, I haven't seen any reports of that from the counter-protest Saturday (unless you count the main speaker) One of the reasons I mention this is because a few of my acquaintances (on line) are going to the Pride parade in Memphis (in October i think?) and had asked if I was going and I've considered it, just for the chance to actually meet some people i only know online but....then i see videos of various "Gay pride" events and protests and such and - even when i know they are right, there's always just enough true nutbars mixed in to make the whole group look bad. I don't know if I'll ever have the stomach to stand in any crowd where such nutters are embarrassing everyone. I can't say I've never seen that in a right wing crowd...but i see it far less often.
The Pride Parade is ... just asking for people to be themselves and sometimes, they're a little nutty. But, there have been plenty of left wing gatherings and protests where everyone behaved normally - you probably didn't notice because nothing happened to make the news.
At the bottom of Page 3, so I apologize if something has already come up and for not directly quoting anyone, but I had a realization, reading this thread. The reason henry has the suspicions he has in this thread is that he is applying HIS perspective on things. How do socialists trick people into following their agenda? Come up with a charismatic orator to whip the proles into a frenzy and then herd them like so many sheep. And it only stands to reason for someone used to the socialist way of doing things that the Inner Party leaders would hold out something that appears benign to use as a back door to impose repressive, repulsive, or repugnant agendas onto the Unwashed Masses. Henry's suspicions of Glen Beck speak far more strongly of henry's morals and ideology than they do of Beck's.
Nothing good from Volpone ever follows from this. Likewise "something just occurred to me...". Or "I just thought of something...". Or " a revelation!". Or "answer me this...". Or "why is it...". Or indeed "*inhales to speak*".
Oh and as far as Beck, he isn't new. The American Revolution had its Tom Jeffersons and George Washingtons. It had its Ben Franklins and John Adamses--the smart guys, the organized guys, the people that wound up doing a lot of the heavy lifting in starting our country. But it also had its Tom Paines, Sam Adamses, and Patrick Henrys--the rabble-rousers and trouble-makers who stirred people up and tapped into the underlying, unvoiced discontent. I mean really, when it gets down to it, what is Glen Beck but a "community organizer"?
Actually, the only historical figure of that era you could possibly compare Beck to, would be Sam Adams - the guy who failed at everything except riling up the masses enough to start a revolution. The rest, no. Beck doesn't compare.
He may have made a good beer, but he was a lousy business man. That brewery didn't take off until several generations later.
Sam Adams didn't aspire to be a businessman. Absent the revolution, he likely would have spent his days as a preacher and newspaper essayist.
It's Monday. I'm sure you have many, many examples to share, right? I heard one version on the radio that went something like this: "Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin held a large rally to support the troops today. (Insert Palin sound bite.) Meanwhile, across town, civil rights activists led by Al Sharpton staged a counter-demonstration." Translation: Al Sharpton protested against supporting the troops. Wow, that was some liberally slanted broadcast!
What the Canadian doesn't understand is that Beck is a member of the media, which means we view them with a grain of salt, but would like to view them with 250 grains of gunpowder in a scope.
Submitted for your approval, while no doubt factually correct, in some of the cases it seems presented as it were something sinister. Hotlinks at the source. And here's Reason's man on the ground, found a couple of bigots, a wierdo, and some token blacks. [YT="Reason"]7CY5aFvRe2E[/YT]
Exactly, Beck is to our time much what Paine was to his (albeit, i like the Sam Adams or Patrick Henry comparison better because they were religious and Paine wasn't really ever) Informed people know who the intellectual giants of the 18th century were - and they know Paine isn't among them.
And yet Samuel Adams played a crucial, maybe indispensable, role. A lot of folks who don't play close attention may not know that one of Beck's projects is calling for 56 highly placed individuals to come forward as the "new founders" (anonymously until all are in place) willing to sign a Deceleration in support of returning to our Founding government or some such. no idea how he's coming with that but there are times when instigating is just what needs doing.
Let's see, right off the bat, I'm guessing some Goldline execs will be in there, some PNAC fucks, some Weekly Standard swine, the Koch brothers, maybe they'll get Bernie Madoff out of prison, hmm...the resurrected corpse of Rasputin,....Mr. Burns, Dracula...
Definitely. Some might even argue that there would never have been a revolution were it not for Sam Adams. But, he was still a failure at everything else. And, considering the family he came from, wealthy, successful businessmen, finding his calling as a propagandist was an embarrassment. It is the reason his name is but a footnote in history. Heck, he was probably more important to the revolution than Paul Revere and yet, every American beyond a 3rd grade education knows who Paul Revere is - why? Because Paul Revere was a successful businessman both before and after the revolution. The only reason people today even know the name "Sam Adams" is because of the beer. ... Yea, I don't even want to know what that means. In fact, it scares the hell out of me.
Pffft. Just a further fragmentation of the GOP. Go make some popcorn and put your feet up. This is going to be fun...