American progressivism.

[grunt11b]

If you just cant get it, watch this. You need to watch, every video, if you give a shit about this country, for real.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP5epjCTW0Q]Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6tA5OO7ilE]Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3LvRm_jac]Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-HupL-3JSE]Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 4 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-tOPlgvPmc]Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 5 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQe-kwIubCw]Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 6 - YouTube[/ame]
If you still dont get it, you are complicit in the downfall of this country.

 

[Coastal Nole.]

relying on a recovering drug and alcoholic for your political guidance is a sure road to failure. Beck is a capitalist, and a good one at that.

I used to listen to him when I was in college, I worked at a small telecommunication firm repairing and rebuilding comm equipment. So I was able to sit at a tech bench and listen to him and Rush on a day to day basis.

Beck is nothing more that a man who is willing to pander to anyone listening. I truly believe he understood the negative energy that would surround Obama and the Republican blow hards who would try and do whatever it took to make Obama look as if he was the antichrist.

Beck made a boat load of cash off you types and is laughing all the way to the bank. I give him credit for showing just how lemming like the right tends to be.

Beck is absolutely full of crap, this is a well known fact. the videos posted are complete rubbish.

 

[editec]

You're being played for a fool, kid.

 

[The T]

If you just cant get it, watch this. You need to watch, every video, if you give a shit about this country, for real.

Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 1 - YouTube
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 2 - YouTube
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 3 - YouTube
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 4 - YouTube
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 5 - YouTube
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 6 - YouTube
If you still dont get it, you are complicit in the downfall of this country.

From Wilson...on...yep.

 

[Steelplate]

Welll, we know who Grunt worships like a God.... not that I had any doubt.

 

[Decepticon]

Glenn Beck?

He's clown shoes.

 

[Steelplate]

He's a good speaker... he has a talent for twisting truths into right wing propaganda... he's a showman and a well paid shill for the Conglomerate. Paid to influence everyday people into thinking that all the problems of this country and the globe are the result of "liberalism". He's paid to do this because the monied people of this country do not want the status quo of massive profits to stop.

They know their actions have brought this country to it's knees. They know that an ever expanding percentage of our population is struggling while they rake it in. They are a direct and indirect threat to our National Security and the Security of the entire planet. People like Glenn Beck are the False Prophets of the Status Quo...they don't care about America...they care about their fame, fortune and keep THEIR personal gravy train running smoothly.

 

[Truthmatters]

hes a snake oil saleman

 

[Ed Spacer]

If you just cant get it, watch this. You need to watch, every video, if you give a shit about this country, for real.

Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 1 - YouTube
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 2 - YouTube
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 3 - YouTube
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 4 - YouTube
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 5 - YouTube
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 6 - YouTube
If you still dont get it, you are complicit in the downfall of this country.

Everyone thought he was a wingnut,but apparently he understands the cause and effect,and how scary it is he predicts the future well.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Guys more intelligent than any other conservative host going.

 

[konradv]

Everyone thought he was a wingnut,but apparently he understands the cause and effect,and how scary it is he predicts the future well.

Cause and effect? It's funny how some conservatives can see it so easily in something ephemeral like poltics, but when it come to AGW, they stick their heads in the sand!

 

[naturegirl]

Snake oil truly has some healing benefits. True story, just google it. :-D

 

[konradv]

Snake oil truly has some healing benefits. True story, just google it. :-D

Beck is "snake oil"? New one on me, but accurate when you think about it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

relying on a recovering drug and alcoholic for your political guidance is a sure road to failure. Beck is a capitalist, and a good one at that.

Beck made a boat load of cash off you types and is laughing all the way to the bank. I give him credit for showing just how lemming like the right tends to be.

Goldline Execs Charged With Fraud​

February 9, 2012​

"The second major category of investments involves assets that will never produce anything, but that are purchased in the buyer's hope that someone else -- who also knows that the assets will be forever unproductive -- will pay more for them in the future. Tulips, of all things, briefly became a favorite of such buyers in the 17th century.

This type of investment requires an expanding pool of buyers, who, in turn, are enticed because they believe the buying pool will expand still further. Owners are not inspired by what the asset itself can produce -- it will remain lifeless forever -- but rather by the belief that others will desire it even more avidly in the future.

The major asset in this category is gold....."

Inve$ting With Warren​

 

[Dragon]

Curious that Beck starts modern liberalism with Wilson, when the first progressive president in the modern sense is universally regarded as this guy: Theodore Roosevelt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Maybe he fudged TR because TR was a Republican. Hard to say.

In any case, the dearth of modern liberals prior to TR is only because modern liberalism couldn't exist except in an industrial economy. Liberalism in all cases is about defending the rights of ordinary people against the depredations of the wealthy elite, but in an agrarian-economy context different methods were called for to accomplish that, and so you could also say that the first progressive president was really this guy: Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. While Jefferson used different methods than Roosevelt, he was pursuing the same ends. He was a Democrat, too, so Beck has no partisan reasons to ignore him the way he does Roosevelt.

 

[Oddball]

Curious that Beck starts modern liberalism with Wilson, when the first progressive president in the modern sense is universally regarded as this guy: Theodore Roosevelt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Maybe he fudged TR because TR was a Republican. Hard to say.

In any case, the dearth of modern liberals prior to TR is only because modern liberalism couldn't exist except in an industrial economy. Liberalism in all cases is about defending the rights of ordinary people against the depredations of the wealthy elite, but in an agrarian-economy context different methods were called for to accomplish that, and so you could also say that the first progressive president was really this guy: Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. While Jefferson used different methods than Roosevelt, he was pursuing the same ends. He was a Democrat, too, so Beck has no partisan reasons to ignore him the way he does Roosevelt.

Bullshit.

Jefferson saw gubmint as the worst potential oppressor the people could have, as it has the monopoly on the proactive use of force....Modern Marxist progressives celebrate that monopoly and relish in wielding and abusing it.

Jefferson's ends were to protect the people from an overbearing authoritarian central authority, while gaining control of that tyrannical authority is the central end, in and of itself, for the Marxist progressives....Hayek committed an entire chapter in Road to Serfdom concerning this very subject.

The whole attempt to frame Jefferson, Madison, et. al. as budding agrarian communists is really getting old.

 

[Dragon]

Jefferson saw gubmint as the worst potential oppressor the people could have

Not on its own, he didn't. He regarded government as likely to serve the interests of the wealthy elite against those of the common people. That, and only that, is why he was an opponent of big government.

Means and ends, ends and means. Conservatives thinking that "classical" liberals were really conservatives think that only because they confuse the two. Jefferson's philosophy was NOT about small government. That was only a means to the end.

Today, small government does NOT protect ordinary people against the wealthy elite. It leaves them at the wealthy elite's mercy. That's the reality that exists in an industrial economy, and why industrial-age liberalism differs in terms of means (NOT ends) with agrarian-age, il.e. "classical," liberalism.

If Jefferson were alive today, he would still be a Democrat. Unless he considered the party too far to his right. That's a distinct possibility. Maybe he'd be a Green or a Socialist instead.

 

[Oddball]

Yes...A means to an end....Protecting the populace from the very people they have elected to serve them.

Modern Marxist progressivism turns those servants into masters....That's the point of socialism...Your flaccid attempts at reframing the subject in terms of your own authoritarian Marxist proclivities notwithstanding.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Dragon]

Yes...A means to an end....Protecting the populace from the very people they have elected to serve them.

No. Protecting the people against the wealthy elite. I used those words, and you have no excuse for pretending to misunderstand them. In an agrarian age, that means men who own lots and lots of land (in most societies, the titled nobility). In an industrial economy, it means rich capitalists.

I like to present this quote from a letter that Jefferson wrote from France to a certain Rev. James Madison (not his political protege but a different James Madison) to illustrate that he was NOT a conservative AT ALL:

As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

Note how strongly Jefferson felt about massive inequality of wealth (which in those days equated with land ownership). Note also that he proposed government solutions -- progressive property taxation, and breaking up big estates -- should the same problem arise in America as he saw in Europe.

Jefferson was a liberal. And there is no difference at the core between classical and modern liberalism. The one was appropriate for an agrarian economy, such as the time Jefferson lived. The other is appropriate for an industrial economy, such as we have today. But they both aim for the same goal: the liberty, equality, opportunity, and well being of the common man.

If Adam Smith were alive today, he would be a socialist.