Glenn Beck's powerful speech at CPAC. - must watch!

reply to post by havok


Beck is twisting history and trying to blame communist/progressives for all our problems. Notice he doesn't mention the CENTRAL BANKS which is the reason we are in trouble.

Maybe you can go on Beck's re-education tour this spring. And frankly I'm tired of him assuming americans know nothing about REAL history. He treats his audience like they are 5 years old.

Beck is the new Re-education camp. He says stop the spending but he supports Illegal, endless wars in the middle east that are costing us a trillion dollars annually. Twisted logic to confuse the masses.

Glenn Beck = New World Order.

reply to post by peponastick


Beck is "twisting history" because no one knows about central banks. What?
He mentions the creation of the Federal Reserve, by a "progressive". What are you talking about?

You know who knows about this? ATS readers.
That and a few others. Everyone I talk to doesn't even care.

You and I, might know the real cause.
You and I, might believe that there is an ultimate agenda.

But, the people of America are not interested, yet.
They don't get out to research these things as we do.

We can't stop the inevitable.
But we can fight for our rights.
Even if there is a 'master plan', we have to fight it!






[edit on 21-2-2010 by havok]

Originally posted by peponastick
reply to post by havok

 

Beck is twisting history and trying to blame communist/progressives for all our problems. Notice he doesn't mention the CENTRAL BANKS which is the reason we are in trouble.

Didn't he say something like "...gave us the Fed. How is that working for ya?"

Beck does what he does for profit.

In 2008 he made over $23 million.
In 2009 he made even more.

He lives in this home.

www.celebritydetective.com...

Which is actually for sale here:

www.realtor.com...

I can't blame him, I mean who wouldn't be tempted to spout insane sensationalism, considering it pays so very well. He is nothing more than a shill for the corporate elite, the managerial aristocracy which is the top 1% that owns 95% of the wealth.

Progressive policies?
Yeah...let's spend money to get out of this mess. We all know that when your broke, you go get a loan. That clears the system right up! Now I'm just rich with DEBT.
Progressive mean progress.
The people that are making your "progress" are spending your kids lives away.

Again, these are not "progressive" policies. You need to look up the progressive movement. It began in the late 1800's with the founding of the Populist Party. The most famous progressives were Republicans. "Progressivism" is not what is driving the debt up. Bush borrowed money, Clinton borrowed money, Regan borrowed massive amounts yet, I don't see Beck blasting their policy. This is "pick and choosism".

Originally posted by antonia

Progressive policies?
Yeah...let's spend money to get out of this mess. We all know that when your broke, you go get a loan. That clears the system right up! Now I'm just rich with DEBT.
Progressive mean progress.
The people that are making your "progress" are spending your kids lives away.

Again, these are not "progressive" policies. You need to look up the progressive movement. It began in the late 1800's with the founding of the Populist Party. The most famous progressives were Republicans. "Progressivism" is not what is driving the debt up. Bush borrowed money, Clinton borrowed money, Regan borrowed massive amounts yet, I don't see Beck blasting their policy. This is "pick and choosism".

Not progressive policies, huh?
Tell that to the liberals that are "progressive" now.
Or maybe the progressives that were liberals in the 1920's.
Or maybe the liberals that are resigning because of their parties progressive stance.

You might like Hillary Clinton too. She's not a liberal anymore.

You are telling me that the government spending money for "progress" isn't a progressive ideal? You sure?

All the presidents borrowed money.
We don't need to do it anymore.

This isn't "pick and choosism".
This is STOP SPENDING MONEY. All parties!

Beck is a cry baby freak. If you still think this guy has anything intelligent to add, you're mistaken. He has lost his credibility in the minds of anyone with half a brain.

Originally posted by havok

Not progressive policies, huh?
Tell that to the liberals that are "progressive" now.
Or maybe the progressives that were liberals in the 1920's.
Or maybe the liberals that are resigning because of their parties progressive stance.

You might like Hillary Clinton too. She's not a liberal anymore.

en.wikipedia.org...
There you go. I seriously doubt Hillary is campaigning for banning booze.
As for the word "progressive"

pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv) adj. 1. Moving forward; advancing. 2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. 3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership. 4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924. 5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school. 6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax. 7. Pathology Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis. 8. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress. n. 1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government. 2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party. 3. Grammar A progressive verb form.

I don't think there is anything wrong with working toward "progress" or "change". These are broad terms. It's not some dirty word to smear people with. Progressivism is a defunct political movement of another era.

You are telling me that the government spending money for "progress" isn't a progressive ideal? You sure?

No, when you look at this historical platform it generally wasn't one of their ideals.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by havok

Not progressive policies, huh?
Tell that to the liberals that are "progressive" now.
Or maybe the progressives that were liberals in the 1920's.
Or maybe the liberals that are resigning because of their parties progressive stance.

You might like Hillary Clinton too. She's not a liberal anymore.

en.wikipedia.org...
There you go. I seriously doubt Hillary is campaigning for banning booze.
As for the word "progressive"

pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv) adj. 1. Moving forward; advancing. 2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. 3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership. 4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924. 5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school. 6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax. 7. Pathology Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis. 8. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress. n. 1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government. 2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party. 3. Grammar A progressive verb form.

I don't think there is anything wrong with working toward "progress" or "change". These are broad terms. It's not some dirty word to smear people with. Progressivism is a defunct political movement of another era.

You are telling me that the government spending money for "progress" isn't a progressive ideal? You sure?

No, when you look at this historical platform it generally wasn't one of their ideals.

Progressive in the context of the progressive movement means " To progress away from the constitution". Progress to what?

Originally posted by antonia

Progressive policies?
Yeah...let's spend money to get out of this mess. We all know that when your broke, you go get a loan. That clears the system right up! Now I'm just rich with DEBT.
Progressive mean progress.
The people that are making your "progress" are spending your kids lives away.

Again, these are not "progressive" policies. You need to look up the progressive movement. It began in the late 1800's with the founding of the Populist Party. The most famous progressives were Republicans. "Progressivism" is not what is driving the debt up. Bush borrowed money, Clinton borrowed money, Regan borrowed massive amounts yet, I don't see Beck blasting their policy. This is "pick and choosism".

I think you forgot the current president in this one. Hasn't he spent more money that any president is history? Kinda a glaring omission don't you think? Pick and choosism maybe?

Originally posted by Thirty_Foot_Smurf


Progressive in the context of the progressive movement means " To progress away from the constitution". Progress to what?

According to who? That statement is in neither definition nor is it anywhere in my post. Are you telling me this is how Glenn Beck defines it?

reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf


Bold statment, care to prove it? I don't like Obama much but, I'm not going to give republicans a free pass. Bush spent plenty and so did every other president before. Nor could Obama spend that money without the support of congress.

I have been continuously amazed by the ability of word smiths to preach their talking points to the extent that individuals actually began seeing the world as cartoon characters.

"Liberal", "Conservative", "Libertarian", "Constitutionalist" are all words that describe such a broad stroke of ideas as to be meaningless.

When was the last time these paid orators went into the numbers of our system with a serious breakdown of what is happening with any level of detail? Instead they rely on pre-crunched information from "think-tanks" who never publish their funders.

When was the last time that they denounced the evils of government intervention....in regards to the government granted monopoly on radio frequencies that they boast their manliness of succeeding without a government handout upon.

When was the last time they proposed banning government intervention in the marketplace...by outlawing corporations as they are government constructs?

Simple ideas for simple minds I suppose.

We live in a complex world and those of us who actually want to educate ourselves, not in the form of broad caricatures but in solid understanding are at a disadvantage.

The lack of education that we receive from the media is not a failure of the media , but a limitation of the media. When was the last TV show you watched that you actually learned something? Not what is new, but something you could actually use? Ohm's law? How to frame meaning? How to repair something?

We used to have only a few networks for information, only a few voices that everyone competed to control, today we have millions, anyone can be a commentator, a polemic, a news organization and audio artist without access to capital. How do we make sense of them all?

I don't know, but I do know "talking points" aren't the answer, their the problem. I don't know when people will reach the point where a few keywords that we don't understand will no longer control our fury...

No gimmick from Good Ole Glenn



Might as well have Mancow or Howard Stern deliver that crap.

I'm suprised he didn't bust out the tears for a visual



Nothing this man says should be taken seriously. What a lameass.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

 

Bold statment, care to prove it? I don't like Obama much but, I'm not going to give republicans a free pass. Bush spent plenty and so did every other president before. Nor could Obama spend that money without the support of congress.

Sure , dont give them a free pass. just don't give Obama one either.

Just turn the TV to any news channel and there's your proof Where have you been?

www.visualeconomics.com...


[edit on 21-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf


I wasn't giving anyone a free pass. You still haven't proven your point.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Thirty_Foot_Smurf


Progressive in the context of the progressive movement means " To progress away from the constitution". Progress to what?

According to who? That statement is in neither definition nor is it anywhere in my post. Are you telling me this is how Glenn Beck defines it?

I was telling you one of their ideals.

Who's Glenn Beck?

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

 

I wasn't giving anyone a free pass. You still haven't proven your point.

The point was you left Obama off of the drunken spenders list. That was the point.

Every time I think Beck has reached a new low... I'm surprised. He's reached new heights with this speech. His themes tend to drive me crazy at times as he beats tears out of topics but I think it's what the people need right now.

There's complete truth in his facts in the speech. That much cannot be refuted. The only thing that can possibly be refuted is his character. Is he saying what they want to hear or what they need to hear?

I think it's what the people want to hear and what the party needs to hear. Everyone needs to hear this one particular piece. Lady Liberty is on life support and there's an f5 tornado on the way to the power station.

Originally posted by peponastick
reply to post by havok

 

Beck is twisting history and trying to blame communist/progressives for all our problems. Notice he doesn't mention the CENTRAL BANKS which is the reason we are in trouble.

Actually, that is false.
At the 2 min mark in part 5 he specifically calls out the FED.
You know, the father of all central banks.
"How's that working out for you?"
And he calls out Woodrow Wilson, a progressive, for giving it to us.