Glenn Beck scores Top Cable Rating! 3,000,000 viewers!

Originally posted by VinceP1974

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by VinceP1974
Isn't it the most bizarre thing how the people who are defending Communists always insist that no one knows what it is when they point out that someone is being Communist?
And that anyone using the term must do so in a very strict and theoretical manner.

To be clear..............

Communism is an economic system and democracy is a system of government.

There is no direct opposition between Communism and Democracy.

The opposite of Communism is not Democracy, it is Capitalism.

Communism requires Totalitarianism as it's a system that is contrary to Human Nature.

I had strived to provide a little clarity to others on my own as you have casually and esoterically tossed around some rather complex terminology. As you continue to do so, I humbly submit the following:

Socialism is an economic system. It uses government ownership of the means of production (e.g., factories) to direct the economy. It uses social welfare programs to promote universal employment, health care, and pensions. It is practiced, in limited form, as "social democracy" in much of Europe, which is part free-market economy (companies directing production by determining customer wants and supply and demand) and part state-run (mass transit [airlines, buses, trains], some critical industries). Socialism does not have to be democratic, though. Socialism is also very broad: some socialists want to nationalize all major businesses, some want to nationalize just a few. So, socialism is more a set of economic theories than a single ideology.

Communism is similar, except that communism (IN THEORY) is governed by the people, for the people. So, communism combines socialist theories of economics with political control. In communism, the role of the Communist Party is central, and it controls most aspects of society. Even motorcycle clubs are run by the Party. It is supposedly class-less, with everyone being equal, and all property being owned by everyone collectively, not by individuals. Karl Marx saw it as the ideal and inevitable system, but every effort to implement it has failed, at least partially because almost all people are generally self-interested and greedy most of the time.

Totalitarianism is a political system. In totalitarianism, the government is undemocratic in the extreme: it is a total dictatorship. Totalitarian states have a powerful secret police, no protection of individual rights, a leader who rules without political challenge in elections or serious political restraints of any kind, and similar traits. However, some normal authoritarian dictatorships have these characteristics. What makes a totalitarian government unique is ideology. The government wants to actively reshape the minds of the population, to make them follow a certain cause and believe in a certain way, changing the very nature of society. Totalitarianism, according to political scientists, is very rare. It existed in the Soviet Union for a time, but ideology became less important to the Soviets after Stalin died, so the USSR stopped being totalitarian. Nazi Germany is the other classic example of a totalitarian government.

Source

BTW, The United States of America is largely a Democracy. (some will argue it is a Republic) Its economic system is based on capitalism.

Regards...Kurious




[edit on 29-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by kinda kurious

BTW, The United States of America is largely a Democracy. (some will argue it is a Republic) Its economic system is based on capitalism.

Regards...Kurious
[edit on 29-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Dictionary entries are really irrelevent. Self-proclaimed Communists and Socialists can setup whatever systems they want and do it however they want without being restricted to mimicing historical failed government exactly.

They're all Collectivisms and they're all a violation of the US Constitution. I am opposed to all.

Since we name these things based on past governments and since there hasnt been quite a explicit collectivism in the US, whatever form in the US it will take, it will be imprecisely described by the current terms... and until the Collectivists in power declare what form of collectivism they want.. people will have to guess.

Right now it looks like Fascism.. but then again, they do own outright a good portion of important industries.

They all look the same to me.... enemies of Liberty.

The Founders explicit rejected forming a Democracy. To the extent that we've moved closer to one is the close we come to Collectivism.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by VinceP1974]

reply to post by VinceP1974


You are diverting this thread with semantics and irrelevant misdirection, back On Topic:

Here is a recent episode whereby Mr Beck is pleading that he is simply an "average person" being attacked.

Actual story headline:

Beck details the "attacks against" him, asks a psychiatrist how the "average person" can "prepare" to deal with them

In the spirit of spin, propaganda and FAUX NEWS a more proper Headline might read:

Glenn Beck seeks advice from Psychiatrist

Here is the link to story and video clip:

mediamatters.org...

Worthy of note, do you know any "average" people who make $15 Million salary?

Also, as is ALWAYS the case, he has on a sympathetic guest. I've NEVER seen Beck go one-to-one with an adversary on his TV show. On his radio show, he simply goes into tirade and hangs up on the caller.



[edit on 29-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

I did not read this whole thread, before I have to ask . . .


Does anyone have any GOOD reason to rag on Beck?



[edit on 8/29/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Hhahahaha I suppose your not a Joker fan, well I am and that is actually a piece of art that sold for well over a thousand bucks but regardless. Who are you to talk? I shoudln't listen to you because your avatar clearly looks like a metro-sexual man, which would be a double-standard if your a republican.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


And just like every other person with your stance, when your arguement fails horribly start with personal attacks. Great job I'm sure you'll get your point across that way.

Clearly Beck is dillusional. Whatever your stance may be it just shows your intelligence that you support this man. Again

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Glenn Beck brings on Rush Limbaugh and rolls over everybody.
It looks like we have a dream team. Over 3,000,000 viewers
watched Glenn Beck. He gets a little crazy sometimes but we love him.

Drudge Report

I don't love him. I think he pretends to be a Civil Libertarian and he's really just a neo-con in disguise. When he backed down over his original FEMA camp statement I realized he's just another partisan hack.

Alex Jones may be a blowhard but he gives it to both sides with equal fervor.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I did not read this whole thread, before I have to ask . . .


Does anyone have any GOOD reason to rag on Beck?



[edit on 8/29/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

*raises hand*

I do. When he backed down on the FEMA camps he threw a lot of people under the bus. Now, in light of all of these Quarrantine orders coming out from Iowa and Massachusetts it is obvious why they were built, and the fact that they were built prior to the first reported case of Swine Flu shows the government either released it, knew someone might release it, etc.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


What isn't a good reason?

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by VinceP1974

 

You are diverting this thread with semantics and irrelevant misdirection, back On Topic:

You're the one who wanted to play the Mr Dictionary game. Blame yourself.

Here is a recent episode whereby Mr Beck is pleading that he is simply an "average person" being attacked.

Also, as is ALWAYS the case, he has on a sympathetic guest. I've NEVER seen Beck go one-to-one with an adversary on his TV show. On his radio show, he simply goes into tirade and hangs up on the caller.



[edit on 29-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

What's wrong with that? You complain about semantics and now you're going to quibble on if he's "average".

He's asking the doctor for advice on behalf of his audience. You may not realize this but most people are intimidated by angry deranged Leftists and they rather remain silent then risk getting into some public scene with the character assailants.

Beck is trying to instill some courage into them so that they'll recognize the tactics being used against them.

Anyone who has come against the Left would realize that right away... but evidently it's confusing to you. Are you a Leftist?

reply to post by VinceP1974


I'm not a "leftist" and I'm not a "rightist" I'm a "common sense ist".

Glenn Beck is participating in this very unproductive left-right paradigm which is keeping people so polarized that they can't see what's happening one level up.

Instead of fighting with each other and believing that there IS such a thing anymore as leftist or rightist, we should be looking at the people pulling our strings and seeing them for what they are.

Republican administrations have done terrible things. Democrat administrations have done terrible things. The common denominator: they're all politicians.

Name a bad thing Obama's done, and I'll tell you something Cheney's or Bush did. Name a bad thing Bush did and I'll give you one that Clinton did.

None of them is looking out for you and neither is the media anymore.

This is, probably, one of the worst threads I've ever seen on any forum.

You have three groups.

1. Far right's that preach what he says without question.

2. Independents/middle of the roaders that research his questions.

3. Far left's who bash not his points or questions but his past events.

Bravo.

The hypocritical nature of this is shocking. He's talking about topics that, at the least, should be interesting to EVERYBODY here. We're on a forum that's primarily devoted to conspiracies. The motto is to deny ignorance.

All he's doing is asking questions and then asking you to research these things that he asks. That is the very essence of denying ignorance. He's not saying 'THIS IS HOW IT IS RAHRAHRAH!' No, he's saying "Here is what I have found. Here is what I think this is. Please do the research for yourself and see where it leads you."

Really, all this thread did was show me a hand full of people that actually follow the motto of the website. A shame.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Perhaps because he did his research and he saw that it wasn't likely.

Just like you may do your research and see that it is likely.

He tells you to research everything yourself, and come to your own conclusion.

What is bad about that?

I have read all 10 pages of posts here. It has gone from Glenn Beck, to Palin, to Ted...
Question:
Are the FACTS that Glenn Beck has shown this past week on his show, concerning the Czars, and radical organizations being connected in the White House, TRUE or FALSE?
They in fact are TRUE!
Glenn Becks Show scored the Top Cable Rating because his researchers uncovered the TRUTH..
Now if many of you will not, or cannot FACE IT, that the man in the oval office has surrounded himself, and takes advice from with the likes of ACORN, SEIU, APOLLO, and the criminals who chair them, then STAY in your cozy little lie that our President is an honorable man, who likens himself unto that of President Lincoln...
Just QUIT dancing around the truth, because it's making you look idiotic when all one has to do is get on the net and research the names of the people who work in the White House, HIRED and admired by the President of the United States of America, Mr. Barack Obama.
More than 3,000,000 viewers now know the truth, and the Truth Train dosent look like it's stopping anytime soon...

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by VinceP1974

 

I'm not a "leftist" and I'm not a "rightist" I'm a "common sense ist".

Glenn Beck is participating in this very unproductive left-right paradigm which is keeping people so polarized that they can't see what's happening one level up.

The Left does that. They are slaves to their groupthink.. and they examine everything relative to a them vs us framework.

I'm a Conservative but I dont view things like

-Protecting the border
-Defending the Constitution
-Defending against Islamic infiltration/terrorism
-Securing our own energy resources

I don't view these things as "right wing". I view them as Common Sense American policies. But the Left seems to want nothing to do with anything that Libertarians or Conservatives advocate.

So yeah.. nothing bores me more than the Left - Right thing... but the Left is clinging onto it. And so it needs to be recognized and dealt with.

Originally posted by VinceP1974

Originally posted by kinda kurious

To be clear..............

Communism is an economic system and democracy is a system of government.

There is no direct opposition between Communism and Democracy.

The opposite of Communism is not Democracy, it is Capitalism.

Communism requires Totalitarianism as it's a system that is contrary to Human Nature.

Not to mention that DEmoracy is mob rule, but still the mob have the right to property, meanwhile in Communism, and true Socialism NOONE has a right to private property, property is owned by the STATE, and the state decides who should live where...

My family on my mother side owned a house in Cuba which is in shambles, but still it was built by my great grandfather, and my family in that house/ranch have to give proof once in a while to the state that there are several relatives living in the house/ranch, otherwise the STATE would take away that house/ranch which has belonged to my family for a long time.

On my father's side, my grandmother also owned a house in Cuba before "the revolution" which her father had built by hand. My parents, my sisters, and i lived in that house too.

Since my grandmother had to leave Cuba seeking medical help in the United States for my uncle who could only be helped by doctors in the U.S., and since my parents and I were able to escape from the dictatorship, my sisters lived for a while in that house. My sisters, or halfsisters were from my father's first marriage, but their mother in anger didn't allow them to leave with my parents and I.

Not too long after we left Cuba, the STATE took away my grandmother's house and put my sisters in a small apartment. That is Communism, and true Socialism for you.

You don't own property, nor any business, the STATE owns EVERYTHING, and the elite decides who lives where, and how much you can eat.

With the Obama administration taking over GM, the STATE owns now the largest, or one of the largest automakers in the U.S., and others will follow.

The Obama administration also wants the STATE to own healthcare, which again, all of this is part of the true Socialist goal, for the STATE to own EVEYRTHING, but those Americans who believe the lies which they have been told, and which have been used several times in the past to take over countries, and turn them into dictatorships will do the same to this country, as has occurred to many others.

Every American who keeps backing blindly the take over of the STATE over EVERTHING and keep cheering thinking this will solve all their problems at the end will cry for being so stupid and allowing this to happen.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

BTW, The United States of America is largely a Democracy. (some will argue it is a Republic) Its economic system is based on capitalism.

Regards...Kurious

Again you don't seem to understand what you read. I have lived this UTOPIA you and others like you have NEVER experienced. In Socialism, and Communism you give up many individual rights, but Communism being the last stage, that's when ALL of your rights ARE LOST. The people in Communism, or true Socialism WILL NEVER be in power, it is designed to give power to a few people that will KEEP that power, and keep everyone else oppressed, and suffering for the "revolution".

BTW, the United States IS NOT a Democracy, this has been discussed already several times in other threads.

A Democracy is "mob rule" where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49% of the people.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)

thinkexist.com...

The Constitution of these United States does not allow for "mob rule" or Direct Democracy. During elections not only the "popular vote" wins, there is also the Electoral College vote. Each state has two senators to ensure that every state is represented equally, not only by the amount of people living in the states.

Ron Paul has said it best. Read the following, and LEARN what form of government exists, and was created in these Untied States of America by the founding fathers.

The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Today’s presidential election is likely to be relatively close, at least in terms of popular vote totals. Should either candidate win the election but lose the overall popular vote, we will be bombarded with calls to abolish the Electoral College, just as we were after the contested 2000 presidential election. After all, the pundits will argue, it would be “undemocratic” to deny the presidency to the man who received the most votes.

This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the Electoral College to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended Electoral College votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the Electoral College because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.

A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states. Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.

Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

The Electoral College threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states – derided as “flyover” country – tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.

Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The Electoral College system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

www.lewrockwell.com...

reply to post by MissysWorld


The truth is that the Obama Czars are a disgrace.
Can you image all these Czars being approved by the Senate?
Thanks to Glenn Beck we know the Czar backgrounds.
Keep up the great work Glenn.
Time for him to get a raise $$$.

Originally posted by Credge
This is, probably, one of the worst threads I've ever seen on any forum.

You have three groups.

1. Far right's that preach what he says without question.

2. Independents/middle of the roaders that research his questions.

3. Far left's who bash not his points or questions but his past events.

Bravo.

The hypocritical nature of this is shocking. He's talking about topics that, at the least, should be interesting to EVERYBODY here. We're on a forum that's primarily devoted to conspiracies. The motto is to deny ignorance.

All he's doing is asking questions and then asking you to research these things that he asks. That is the very essence of denying ignorance. He's not saying 'THIS IS HOW IT IS RAHRAHRAH!' No, he's saying "Here is what I have found. Here is what I think this is. Please do the research for yourself and see where it leads you."

Really, all this thread did was show me a hand full of people that actually follow the motto of the website. A shame.

ok..what if we had a person come on and say "75% of all republicans in the senate have sex with goats, but don't take my word for it, do your own research" and then you google that and there are 20 websites talking about senate republicans with goats. and this is said day after day after day on this persons show. how soon would this person lose credibility?, when would critical thinking skills take over?

denial of ignorance does not mean a denial of critical thought.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by jimmyx]

Originally posted by VinceP1974

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by VinceP1974

 

I'm not a "leftist" and I'm not a "rightist" I'm a "common sense ist".

Glenn Beck is participating in this very unproductive left-right paradigm which is keeping people so polarized that they can't see what's happening one level up.

The Left does that. They are slaves to their groupthink.. and they examine everything relative to a them vs us framework.

I'm a Conservative but I dont view things like

-Protecting the border
-Defending the Constitution
-Defending against Islamic infiltration/terrorism
-Securing our own energy resources

I don't view these things as "right wing". I view them as Common Sense American policies. But the Left seems to want nothing to do with anything that Libertarians or Conservatives advocate.

So yeah.. nothing bores me more than the Left - Right thing... but the Left is clinging onto it. And so it needs to be recognized and dealt with.

I'm with you on protecting our borders and defending the Constitution.

Here is where you and I differ...

I don't believe there is an Islamic infiltration/terrorism that isn't "sponsored", but even if they are acting on their own I don't believe that we should give up our Constitutional rights so that the government can protect us from them. I'll protect my own family as I see fit.

The Patriot Act pushed by the Republicans was the worst infringement upon our Constitutional Rights since FEMA. Our right to privacy, to due process, to free speech...all of them curbed by this act.

I believe in securing our own energy resources, too, and I am a Pickens Plan supporter. Wind, solar, and maybe gas...sustainable resources.

This myth of oil in Alaska has been decried by even Exxon executives. When brought before Congress their CEO said that the truth is that the amount of oil there is insignificant and that areas like Wyoming were more appropriate for exploration. It is propaganda to divide people. We'd have gas for eighty cents a gallon if it weren't for those Democrats stopping us from drilling in Alaska to save a few polar bears *sighs*

I have a friend who works for USGS, is not a Democrat, is a Ron Paul supporter and he told me that there is no "sure" methodology for finding oil. It's a gamble. He said no one knows how much oil is in Alaska that it is a guess. So we could go through all the trouble of expensive pipelines, refineries, shipping, etc., spend ten years getting it all set up and still end up with less than if we tapped Wyoming. Why not invest in wind or solar?

I think common sense is to go for sustainable, renewable, not something made from finite resources. That is looking backwards when we have the technology to move forward.

What exactly is wrong with solar or wind? Read the Pickens Plan. He's a Republican. You'll like him.

Anyway, I used to buy into this left/right thing, but no more. You say the Liberals and Left is "us them" but what about the scare tactics used by Republicans to get people to agree with the war and the Patriot Act.

"If you're not for us, you're against us"

That's a quote. Remember who from? I'll give you a hint. He was President.

Ironically, it is the opposite of what Jesus said: Those that are not against us are for us. Mark 9:40