G. Beck had an interesting point on his show.

[Neotrotsky]

At the inevitable defeat of PapaObama care- hardly; his one term- possible


Jake, would you prefer crony capitalism ?;

the truth is hard for the left; in fact, it is their worst enemy

It is clear you don't understand progressivism, but that is OK. I dislike socialism, and I despise corporatism.

Which definition of socialism are you using? I use it in the Marxian sense and can't see any reason people would object to such progress towards egalitarianism and the recognition of human rights for even women and the poor.

Perhaps people object because it has failed miserably throughout history


Let me guess, this time we will get it right

 

[antagon]

Perhaps people object because it has failed miserably throughout history


Let me guess, this time we will get it right

nevermind socialism is abound in virtually all 1st world clics.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Perhaps people object because it has failed miserably throughout history


Let me guess, this time we will get it right

nevermind socialism is abound in virtually all 1st world clics.

We see how Greece and Spain are doing with it

 

[Zona]

He pointed out that the right calls left communist and left calls the right fascist whenever one side seeks to gain power over someone else but he pointed out that communism and fascism were nearly identical to each other on a philosophical level about the rights of individuals. He then pointed out that America doesn't have a communist or fascist problem but a progressive problem witch is neither liberal or conservative in any way. The philospophy that started in the beginning of the 20th century in American and has always infected both parties and definately was not friendly to the rights of individuals or freedom in any way.

It kind of made me wonder if you stripped the progressive out of both parties would would liberals and conservative be any different from each other?

Just once, I would like this clown to give some kind of solution to a "problem" he finds. Just once.

Damn this guy sucks.

 

[Vanquish]

While they share an element of collectivism in government, they're not the same thing in the least. Fascism requires a hierarchical society as communism espouses a completely equal society.

Taking that even further, with fascism, industry and military control the government where as with Communism: The government controls industry.

Beck is a fear-monger who says whatever it takes to up his rep and make himself more money. He was explaining on the radio how he's got a new service called "Glen Beck EXTREEEEEMEE!" with 6 cameras instead of 2 and wilder stuff! I'm not against a profit, but why does everything these days have to be EXTREEEEMMMEEEEE!!!!one one.

 

[Neotrotsky]

He pointed out that the right calls left communist and left calls the right fascist whenever one side seeks to gain power over someone else but he pointed out that communism and fascism were nearly identical to each other on a philosophical level about the rights of individuals. He then pointed out that America doesn't have a communist or fascist problem but a progressive problem witch is neither liberal or conservative in any way. The philospophy that started in the beginning of the 20th century in American and has always infected both parties and definately was not friendly to the rights of individuals or freedom in any way.

It kind of made me wonder if you stripped the progressive out of both parties would would liberals and conservative be any different from each other?

Just once, I would like this clown to give some kind of solution to a "problem" he finds. Just once.

Damn this guy sucks.

Perhaps he is suggesting that removal of Papa Obama and the Democrats via the election process would be the place to start?

Lets' ask him

 

[Diuretic]

Why is it that you guys always fall back upon the nitpicking of words instead of facing the basic understanding......?

Call collectivism as not being "based in" but as "a feature" of communism or fascism.....i don't care....you will still notice that collectivism is still a more imposing aspect within both those two philosophies albeit in different forms....fascism has collective ownership by the state of the main forms of production....in America individuals own the companies....(at least they used to...)

Individualism or individual liberty is what made our country great.....and so different from all those other failed "collective" and totalitarian systems around the world.....ranging from monarchy to dictatorships to socialism to fascism to communism....

Nitpicking! That nitpicking, as you call it, is what distinguishes the different types of government. If you look at government with a broad enough brush, they are all alike. Calling every form of government 'totalitarian' except ours is an example of that broad brush.

scoff...scoff...is that all you can come back with...?

Again....Fascism is STATE ownership....therefore COLLECTIVE ownership....of the major means of production....

No it isn't. Fascism requires an elite to run the state and its apparatus, that is far from a collective approach.

 

[FA_Q2]

Glen Beck makes a very good and valid point here: BOTH parties have been taken over within by people who do not ascribe to their core values. Beck has some very good points all the time; you just have to know haw and what you are listening to. Her you are arguing semantics when you should be understanding that he uses these phrases not for their minute accuracies but the shock factor that goes with them. Beck is first and foremost a shock jock, just like his left counterparts. He has to play it all up to get ratings or there would never be a show in the first place. Why is it so hard for everyone to understand this and use some simple common sense to sift through the fluff. It is not that hard.

I have enjoyed the last few eps. that were pointing out some of the ‘liberal’ basic rights that were in the USSR constitution but not the USA’s constitution. It does drive a point through but is sensationalized for ratings. You have to admit he is better than Bill O’Riely. I can’t even stomach him!

 

[mudwhistle]

Glen Beck makes a very good and valid point here: BOTH parties have been taken over within by people who do not ascribe to their core values. Beck has some very good points all the time; you just have to know haw and what you are listening to. Her you are arguing semantics when you should be understanding that he uses these phrases not for their minute accuracies but the shock factor that goes with them. Beck is first and foremost a shock jock, just like his left counterparts. He has to play it all up to get ratings or there would never be a show in the first place. Why is it so hard for everyone to understand this and use some simple common sense to sift through the fluff. It is not that hard.

I have enjoyed the last few eps. that were pointing out some of the ‘liberal’ basic rights that were in the USSR constitution but not the USA’s constitution. It does drive a point through but is sensationalized for ratings. You have to admit he is better than Bill O’Riely. I can’t even stomach him!

This is what Beck does. Sometimes he sounds too much like Chicken Little but his facts are indisputable.

You're so cynical that you can't recognize when someone is serious.

Beck is serious as a heart-attack. He tried to point alot of this stuff out at CNN and they told him not to. He's not risking his life and his family just for ratings. The people he's exposing are capable of just about anything....and what they chose to do was ridicule Beck instead of destroy him or kill him.

 

[Vanquish]

Glen Beck makes a very good and valid point here: BOTH parties have been taken over within by people who do not ascribe to their core values. Beck has some very good points all the time; you just have to know haw and what you are listening to. Her you are arguing semantics when you should be understanding that he uses these phrases not for their minute accuracies but the shock factor that goes with them. Beck is first and foremost a shock jock, just like his left counterparts. He has to play it all up to get ratings or there would never be a show in the first place. Why is it so hard for everyone to understand this and use some simple common sense to sift through the fluff. It is not that hard.

I have enjoyed the last few eps. that were pointing out some of the ‘liberal’ basic rights that were in the USSR constitution but not the USA’s constitution. It does drive a point through but is sensationalized for ratings. You have to admit he is better than Bill O’Riely. I can’t even stomach him!

This is what Beck does. Sometimes he sounds too much like Chicken Little but his facts are indisputable.

You're so cynical that you can't recognize when someone is serious.

Beck is serious as a heart-attack. He tried to point alot of this stuff out at CNN and they told him not to. He's not risking his life and his family just for ratings. The people he's exposing are capable of just about anything....and what they chose to do was ridicule Beck instead of destroy him or kill him.

Beck's facts are FAR from indisputable. FA_Q2 is much closer to the mark about Beck.
He's a shock jock going for effect...not the technicalities. Also right on the mark that the only way to get viewership on these shows is to be an EXTREEEMMEEE personality. (Maddow breaks that mold which is why I like her show)

Don't be melodramatic about the threats to Beck's life. The same kooks exist for Limbaugh and Olbermann and Matthews and Maddow. Stop turning him into a martyr. He's making BANK off his looney concoctions. And there's nothing wrong with a profit...if you come by it honestly.

 

[mudwhistle]

Glen Beck makes a very good and valid point here: BOTH parties have been taken over within by people who do not ascribe to their core values. Beck has some very good points all the time; you just have to know haw and what you are listening to. Her you are arguing semantics when you should be understanding that he uses these phrases not for their minute accuracies but the shock factor that goes with them. Beck is first and foremost a shock jock, just like his left counterparts. He has to play it all up to get ratings or there would never be a show in the first place. Why is it so hard for everyone to understand this and use some simple common sense to sift through the fluff. It is not that hard.

I have enjoyed the last few eps. that were pointing out some of the ‘liberal’ basic rights that were in the USSR constitution but not the USA’s constitution. It does drive a point through but is sensationalized for ratings. You have to admit he is better than Bill O’Riely. I can’t even stomach him!

This is what Beck does. Sometimes he sounds too much like Chicken Little but his facts are indisputable.

You're so cynical that you can't recognize when someone is serious.

Beck is serious as a heart-attack. He tried to point alot of this stuff out at CNN and they told him not to. He's not risking his life and his family just for ratings. The people he's exposing are capable of just about anything....and what they chose to do was ridicule Beck instead of destroy him or kill him.

Beck's facts are FAR from indisputable. FA_Q2 is much closer to the mark about Beck.
He's a shock jock going for effect...not the technicalities. Also right on the mark that the only way to get viewership on these shows is to be an EXTREEEMMEEE personality. (Maddow breaks that mold which is why I like her show)

Don't be melodramatic about the threats to Beck's life. The same kooks exist for Limbaugh and Olbermann and Matthews and Maddow. Stop turning him into a martyr. He's making BANK off his looney concoctions. And there's nothing wrong with a profit...if you come by it honestly.

Say that to Al Gore.

I'm not being melodramatic. Ask Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber what happens to you when you go up against these people.

Then there's the typical nut-case that believes the way you do, that Beck is just spreading lies for profit.
You can believe what you want....but all you have to do is get off your ass and check his facts and then you'll know for sure. Look up the names and you'll find out. Beck set up a phone specifically for the White House to call him and dispute any of what he says and they refuse to do it...because they can't despute it. It's all true.

 

[Vanquish]

Sigh. Drivel.

 

[antagon]

Beck set up a phone specifically for the White House to call him and dispute any of what he says and they refuse to do it...because they can't despute it. It's all true.

i set up a phone specifically for the white house to call and donate $4 million to my discretionary fund and they refuse to do it...because they cant afford it. its too much.

 

[amrchaos]

He pointed out that the right calls left communist and left calls the right fascist whenever one side seeks to gain power over someone else but he pointed out that communism and fascism were nearly identical to each other on a philosophical level about the rights of individuals. He then pointed out that America doesn't have a communist or fascist problem but a progressive problem witch is neither liberal or conservative in any way. The philospophy that started in the beginning of the 20th century in American and has always infected both parties and definately was not friendly to the rights of individuals or freedom in any way.

It kind of made me wonder if you stripped the progressive out of both parties would would liberals and conservative be any different from each other?

The similiarity that exists between communism and fascism is called Authoritarianism--not progressivism.

Authoritarianism exists in exery nation and every political system and neither right/left/centrist are immune to it. It is more of a social mode and need not be malevolent in its application and, in truth, is a necessary ingredient to form society. Light application of authoritarianism leads to order. Heavy application of it leads to dictorial-like control of the citizenry.


A number of our most respected presidents where Authoritarians. Parents, Orthodox Clergymen, ultra-conservatives and Neo-conservatives are also considered authoritarians. Authoritarians constantly seek control of others(domestically and/or internationally) and situations and justify this by presenting possible ramifications if control is not obtained before an incident occurs. Their intentions can be well meaning but sometimes their methods are questionable.

 

[amrchaos]

When I was offline for a few weeks moving house and getting my ISP sorted out, I had to keep my right wingnut habit so I watched Fox News. I watched Beck. Shallow. Very shallow. That was the most disappointing aspect. Not loud and boofheaded like Hannity, just shallow.

Beck's claim that fascism and communism are both the same relative to the issue of individualism is simply wrong. Fascism is, to fascists, a complete and final stage in social development. The state incorporates everything into itself, including corporations, the military and individuals. Communism is a complex political and social theory that argues that humans are constantly in transition and that transition is to a stateless society, that's the nirvana of communism, where the state no longer exists. So I think Beck is wrong. And shallow.

I have a problem here.

Who is to say a stateless society is ideal?

I propose a different hypothesis--the idea society is non-existant due to the differences that exist in the individual human. Due to these differences, what is ideal to one individual can therefore be radically different from another and the ability to form an ideal society as agreed on by all in it becomes nil probable.

In other words, communisim is impossible and shall alwalys be impossible. A drive towards it is futile and foolish at best. In fact, no one knows if communism is even left wing in economics due to the fact that we only considered Marx's and his followers deductions of what it should be.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

He pointed out that the right calls left communist and left calls the right fascist whenever one side seeks to gain power over someone else but he pointed out that communism and fascism were nearly identical to each other on a philosophical level about the rights of individuals. He then pointed out that America doesn't have a communist or fascist problem but a progressive problem witch is neither liberal or conservative in any way. The philospophy that started in the beginning of the 20th century in American and has always infected both parties and definately was not friendly to the rights of individuals or freedom in any way.

It kind of made me wonder if you stripped the progressive out of both parties would would liberals and conservative be any different from each other?

The similiarity that exists between communism and fascism is called Authoritarianism--not progressivism.

Most men, after a little freedom, have preferred authority with the consoling assurances and the economy of effort it brings.
Walter Lippmann

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Beck's facts are FAR from indisputable.

proceed
http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/85916-beck-open-book-test.html

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Nitpicking! That nitpicking, as you call it, is what distinguishes the different types of government. If you look at government with a broad enough brush, they are all alike. Calling every form of government 'totalitarian' except ours is an example of that broad brush.

scoff...scoff...is that all you can come back with...?

Again....Fascism is STATE ownership....therefore COLLECTIVE ownership....of the major means of production....

No it isn't. Fascism requires an elite to run the state and its apparatus, that is far from a collective approach.

So what? ... you're saying that communist countries don't have a ruling elite...? That may be their pie-in-the-sky promise/vision/nirvana....but I haven't yet seen one without....

Fascism has elements of collectivism.....it appeals to the proloteriat just like Bolshevism....not to mention it is also a one-party state....yet it appeals more to authoritarian nationalism and racism versus international class struggle...

 

[amrchaos]

Now my last post--and it is on progressivism


I do not think the progressives of the early 20th centurary and todays progressives are the same.


Take note on the wiki entry
Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was a social reaction to failed infrastructure and political systems created by political machines and shady social morals. The progressives were anti-corruption, meritocs(preferring meritocratic officials. This had the negative effect of arguing against minority rights to vote!!) and social/political reformers

Now take a look at what we call todays progressives...
They are evironmentalists, unionists, socialist(sorry, UHC suggest socialism. But so does socaial security so stop bitching when people call Obama a socialist. He is!!--by the way. unionists and socialists are not the same. I wish the right would stop lumping them together. In fact, unionists are corporatists that are on the lower end of the pay scale.) and pacifists.

Todays progressives are radically different from early 20th cent progressives. The only similarity that exists between them is the concept of renewal--and to be honest, this exist in the right wing rebellion also know as the TEA PARTY PROTEST in the desires to "return to the constitution"

Apparently, Glen Beck and his supporters do not realize they are right wing progressives. Authoritarianism is not a prerequisite to become a progressive. Sorry GB, you are going off in the wrong direction only because the democrats and liberals are calling themselves "progressives".

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Now my last post--and it is on progressivism


I do not think the progressives of the early 20th centurary and todays progressives are the same.


Take note on the wiki entry
Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was a social reaction to failed infrastructure and political systems created by political machines and shady social morals. The progressives were anti-corruption, meritocs(preferring meritocratic officials. This had the negative effect of arguing against minority rights to vote!!) and social/political reformers
snip
Apparently, Glen Beck and his supporters do not realize they are right wing progressives. Authoritarianism is not a prerequisite to become a progressive. Sorry GB, you are going off in the wrong direction only because the democrats and liberals are calling themselves "progressives".

Yeah cause progressives are so smart and much better then the little people .
The need to be cared for and not worry about those big bad problems only progressive government can fix.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQrNpkd29o[/ame]