Beck...

[☭proletarian☭]

Operation Chrome Dome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chop Top - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says.

Glenn Beck Inc - Forbes.com

I think there is an interesting overlap in the response of the left to both Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh.

Both admit and revel in being entertainers, and very successful at same.

Yet many of their devotees see them as educators, as well.


Neither are the two categories mutually exclusive, nor are are the two impediments to listenership.


In short, their popularity is is large measure because they enlighten.


And if I may endulge in a bit of a poke, the enmity that I detect is often from those with an antipathy to education.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is no 'rest of the program'.

Beck is a comedian, an entertainer. He doesn't give a flying crap about any of it.


His own words.

Let's try again o Dense one.

You want it both ways. When he's right (which is way too often for your kind) he's a clown, a jester, an entertainer.

But, when he's wrong... He's suddenly a commentator, or member of the media.

You don't listen to his show, as it is painfully obvious. But if you by some chance listen and are still this goofy on the topic... yeah, not worth talking to anymore.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And the rest of us believe in the Constitution.

That's nothing but an out for people with no principles who want to present themselves as blind patriots. What 'Constitution' do you believe in? The one that prevented any law from being passed outlawing slavery for some years afters its signing? Or the Constitution as it existed after the Thirteenth Amendment? The one that had the state legislatures choosing our congressman (well, in one house), or the one that has them elected by popular vote? The Constitution as it existed during prohibition, or as it existed before/after if was repealed? Do you believe in the Constitution before or after women and blacks got the right to vote?

Do you believe in the Constitution of the FF or the Constitution as it exists today, after the Leftists got a hold of it and started reforming things? Or maybe you mean the Constitution you envision after you add an amendment banning gay marriage?

Your little one-liner about believing in the Constitution is nothing but an out- cheap political points for those who can't actually state what they believe in.

Since all you believe in is the Constitution, do tell us which version of this infallible document you worship so.

Now, before I accept your Constitutional 'expertise,' I need to verify your identity.

Are you the one who said:

"“Nobody was ever starved or slaughtered in a Communist State under communist ideology.”

Or, did I confuse you with some other dolt?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says.

Glenn Beck Inc - Forbes.com

I think there is an interesting overlap in the response of the left to both Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh.

Both admit and revel in being entertainers, and very successful at same.

Yet many of their devotees see them as educators, as well.


Neither are the two categories mutually exclusive, nor are are the two impediments to listenership.


In short, their popularity is is large measure because they enlighten.


And if I may endulge in a bit of a poke, the enmity that I detect is often from those with an antipathy to education.

What's Beck's education? What's yours?

When people with real educations are on TV, you people attack their education. It is the right who abhors education, as they make clear when they attack Ms. Maddow because she's a doctor and a Rhodes Scholar.

Also, I find it funny that you misspell 'indulge' while accusing others of having an aversion to education.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You don't listen to his show

I turned him off when he was wrong about damn near everything and he was caught lying about what he'd said.

I suggest you tune in to The Rachel Maddow Show. While I don't agree with her on everything, she prevents the facts instead of merely yelling 'GET OFF MY PHONE!!!!!' as loudly as possible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says.

Glenn Beck Inc - Forbes.com

I think there is an interesting overlap in the response of the left to both Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh.

Both admit and revel in being entertainers, and very successful at same.

Yet many of their devotees see them as educators, as well.


Neither are the two categories mutually exclusive, nor are are the two impediments to listenership.


In short, their popularity is is large measure because they enlighten.


And if I may endulge in a bit of a poke, the enmity that I detect is often from those with an antipathy to education.

What's Beck's education? What's yours?

When people with real educations are on TV, you people attack their education. It is the right who abhors education, as they make clear when they attack Ms. Maddow because she's a doctor and a Rhodes Scholar.

Also, I find it funny that you misspell 'indulge' while accusing others of having an aversion to education.

I sent you a rep for catching my spelling error.

I hate it when I do that.

As for my education, I think you my be making an error of your own if you try to match mine.


"When people with real educations are on TV, you people attack their education..." Unless you can find where I have done that, you should either retract or reform the sentence.

In fact, I found your earlier post about not attacking a website rather than showing where the statement was in error, perfectly correct.


Actually, I enjoy the bumping heads about real differences re: politics.

Carry on.

 

[Big Fitz]

Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says.

Glenn Beck Inc - Forbes.com

I think there is an interesting overlap in the response of the left to both Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh.

Both admit and revel in being entertainers, and very successful at same.

Yet many of their devotees see them as educators, as well.


Neither are the two categories mutually exclusive, nor are are the two impediments to listenership.


In short, their popularity is is large measure because they enlighten.


And if I may endulge in a bit of a poke, the enmity that I detect is often from those with an antipathy to education.

What's Beck's education? What's yours?

When people with real educations are on TV, you people attack their education. It is the right who abhors education, as they make clear when they attack Ms. Maddow because she's a doctor and a Rhodes Scholar.

Also, I find it funny that you misspell 'indulge' while accusing others of having an aversion to education.

Ohh ho ho ho...

Elitism and egotism run amok again.

Some of the world's biggest morons have big degrees and Rhodes Scholarships. So smart they can talk themselves into anything and deny the most plain of truths to everyone else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can't prove him wrong?

See Rinata's link- he (Beck) proves himself wrong.

It seems a great deal of Mr. Beck's agenda is about Progressives, and linking same to President Obama...

And he has done that last part quite well.

Here are some of his points vis-a-vis Progressives.

Are you able to dispute the veracity of same?

Of any?

1. The Progressive is the first major movement based on an attempt to diminish the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence

2. Progressives view the state as primary and the individual, secondary.

3. The concept of ‘checks and balances’ is viewed by Progressives as standing in the way of addressing every and any ‘social ill.’

4. While Constitutionalists view inalienable rights stemming from natural law, the Progressive sees rights as bestowed by government.

5. The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled.


If not, this seems to be an overwhelming weakness in both your OP and your understanding of political science.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

1. The Progressive is the first major movement based on an attempt to diminish the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence

First demonstrate how progressivism does any such thing.

2. Progressives view the state as primary and the individual, secondary.

First back up your assertion. If that were the case, then why would progressives have been involved in civil rights movements?

3. The concept of ‘checks and balances’ is viewed by Progressives as standing in the way of addressing every and any ‘social ill.’

You make broad assertions about an ideology. Care to cite those you consider major players in progressive ideology as they state such things?

4. While Constitutionalists view inalienable rights stemming from natural law, the Progressive sees rights as bestowed by government.

Same as number 3. Progressives and Leftists see the government as a tool to protect rights, just as the FF did.

5. The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled.

So you assert that Progressivism = Hegel?

If not, this seems to be an overwhelming weakness in both your OP and your understanding of political science.

So you claim that it takes 'an overwhelming weakness in understanding of political science' to be unable to refute your assertions? Therefore, someone with a proper understanding of the matter would recognize your assertions as fallacious?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The Progressive is the first major movement based on an attempt to diminish the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence

First demonstrate how progressivism does any such thing.

2. Progressives view the state as primary and the individual, secondary.

First back up your assertion. If that were the case, then why would progressives have been involved in civil rights movements?


You make broad assertions about an ideology. Care to cite those you consider major players in progressive ideology as they state such things?


Same as number 3. Progressives and Leftists see the government as a tool to protect rights, just as the FF did.

5. The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled.

So you assert that Progressivism = Hegel?

If not, this seems to be an overwhelming weakness in both your OP and your understanding of political science.

So you claim that it takes 'an overwhelming weakness in understanding of political science' to be unable to refute your assertions? Therefore, someone with a proper understanding of the matter would recognize your assertions as fallacious?

So good of you to accept the remediation that you so clearly require,,,

Let’s begin with the idea that Teddy Roosevelt viewed his powers as President as superior to the restrictions of the Constitution, as in
a. Teddy Roosevelt, during the Coal Strike of 1902: “To hell with the Constitution when people want coal.”
b. And in his (Roosevelt’s) speech “The New Nationalism,” 1902: “The state has a role in effecting economic equality, and superintending private property.”
c. And “The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted. Let us admit also the right to regulate the terms and conditions of labor, which is the chief element of wealth, directly in the interest of the common good.”


But, the most powerful Progressive President was Woodrow Wilson…
“…no one was more important to the origins of the administrative state in America than Woodrow Wilson and Frank Goodnow. Wilson served as the 26th President of the United States and was a leading academic advocate of Progressive ideas long before his entry into politics. Much of his contribution to Progressive thought came in his work from the 1880s,…” The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government | The Heritage Foundation



1. The Progressive is the first major movement based on an attempt to diminish the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
. a. Wilson: “ the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…”( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law)

b. Frank Goodnow, “The American Conception of Liberty and Government,” a president of Johns Hopkins University, and pioneered with Woodrow Wilson a science of administration separated from the limits of constitutional government. In this essay, Goodnow both promotes the idea of separation of politics and administration, and critiques the human rights theory of the Declaration of Independence and its influence on the practice of American government

c. Woodrow Wilson, of the Declaration of Independence, from “What is Progress?”“Some citizens of this country never got beyond the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, July 4th, 1776….The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us unless we can translate its general terms into examples of the present day and substitute them in some vital way for the examples it itself gives…”


2. Progressives view the state as primary and the individual, secondary.
a. Woodrow Wilson essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’The collective is not limited by individual rights.

b. . “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.”
War Is the Health of the State

Progressives tried to use war to change the American psyche to erase ‘individualism:’
a. “Once the war is on, the conviction spreads that individual thought is helpless, that the only way one can count is as a cog in the great wheel. There is no good holding back. We are told to dry our unnoticed and ineffective tears and plunge into the great work.” From a Randolph Bourne essay published in June 1917, “The War and the Intellectuals.”

b. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-goldberg20jan20,1,3087455.column


3. The concept of ‘checks and balances’ is viewed by Progressives as standing in the way of addressing every and any ‘social ill.’
a. It is of more than passing interesting that Progressives view of government is of the contrary: powers must be centralized in an executive, and the bureaucrats that invest this type of government. “…the agencies comprising the bureaucracy reside within the executive branch of our national government, but their powers transcend the traditional boundaries of executive power to include both legislative and judicial functions, and these powers are often exercised in a manner that is largely independent of presidential control and altogether independent of political control.” The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government | The Heritage Foundation

b. . Woodrow Wilson essay “Socialism and Democracy:” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will. ’The collective is not limited by individual rights. Progressives like Woodrow Wilson detested the separation, as it stood in the way of the Progressive agenda.

c. Woodrow Wilson wrote in The State, "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand."


4. While Constitutionalists view inalienable rights stemming from natural law, the Progressive sees rights as bestowed by government.

a. Woodrow Wilson essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’The collective is not limited by individual rights.”

b. Goodnow explains the European viewpoint toward the rights of the individual: “In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.”

This, of course was the desire of Goodnow and the Progressives for America.



5. The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled.

a. "It was initially an academic phenomenon far removed from American politics. Particularly in the post–Civil War American university, professors — many of whom had obtained their graduate training in German universities, and whose thought reflected the “intoxicating effect of the undiluted Hegelian philosophy upon the American mind,” as progressive Charles Merriam once put it — articulated a critique of America that was as deep as it was wide. It began with a conscious rejection of the natural-rights principles of the American founding and the promotion of a new understanding of freedom, history, and the state in their stead. From this foundation, the progressives then criticized virtually every aspect of our traditional way of life, recommending reforms or “social reorganization” on a sweeping scale, the primary engine of which was to be a new, “positive” role for the state."
John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America by Tiffany Jones Miller on National Review / Digital

b. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often described as a "progression in which each successive movement emerges as a resolution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Read carefully, my friend, and see how those of good will on the left have been manipulated by these elite-intellectuals.

Is theirs the view of America that you would assume?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The Progressive is the first major movement based on an attempt to diminish the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence

First demonstrate how progressivism does any such thing.

2. Progressives view the state as primary and the individual, secondary.

First back up your assertion. If that were the case, then why would progressives have been involved in civil rights movements?


You make broad assertions about an ideology. Care to cite those you consider major players in progressive ideology as they state such things?


Same as number 3. Progressives and Leftists see the government as a tool to protect rights, just as the FF did.

5. The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled.

So you assert that Progressivism = Hegel?

If not, this seems to be an overwhelming weakness in both your OP and your understanding of political science.

So you claim that it takes 'an overwhelming weakness in understanding of political science' to be unable to refute your assertions? Therefore, someone with a proper understanding of the matter would recognize your assertions as fallacious?

I look forward to educating you as to the totalitarian roots of Progressivism in the terrors of the French Revolution.

 

[Big Fitz]

Stupendous! Marvelous! Incandiferous!

Outstanding post PC.

 

[Rinata]

Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says.

Glenn Beck Inc - Forbes.com

I think there is an interesting overlap in the response of the left to both Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh.

Both admit and revel in being entertainers, and very successful at same.

Yet many of their devotees see them as educators, as well.


Neither are the two categories mutually exclusive, nor are are the two impediments to listenership.


In short, their popularity is is large measure because they enlighten.


And if I may endulge in a bit of a poke, the enmity that I detect is often from those with an antipathy to education.

Look at all of the new words you've learned!!!! Too bad you don't know what any of them mean. You are a joke, dear. A pathetic joke. It's almost sad. Your attempts at humor fall flat as a pancake. As for your attempts to appear to be super intelligent?? You don't even do it well. Poor thing.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

“To hell with the Constitution when people want coal.”

Source? I googled it and only got this thread, and three other forums.

“The state has a role in effecting economic equality, and superintending private property.”

And? What's wrong with saying a poor man should have the opportunity to better his life and not live as The Working Class in England in 1844?

the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…

Finish the quote.

and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws."

You've proven yourself dishonest, so I'll not read any further.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“To hell with the Constitution when people want coal.”

Source? I googled it and only got this thread, and three other forums.

“The state has a role in effecting economic equality, and superintending private property.”

And? What's wrong with saying a poor man should have the opportunity to better his life and not live as The Working Class in England in 1844?

the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…

Finish the quote.

and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws."

You've proven yourself dishonest, so I'll not read any further.

"You've proven yourself dishonest, so I'll not read any further."
Diaphanous attempt to defend the fact that you were totally unaware of these many faults in Progressivism.

When embarrassed, run and hide. Probably costs you a lot in shoeleather. But, when confronted with erudition, I suppose you had no choice.

I suspect that you are ashamed that you were so duped by the elites who never made you aware of the duplicity of Progressivism.


Simply google "Teddy Roosevelt, Coal Strike, 1902, To hell with the Constitution...."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says.

Glenn Beck Inc - Forbes.com

I think there is an interesting overlap in the response of the left to both Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh.

Both admit and revel in being entertainers, and very successful at same.

Yet many of their devotees see them as educators, as well.


Neither are the two categories mutually exclusive, nor are are the two impediments to listenership.


In short, their popularity is is large measure because they enlighten.


And if I may endulge in a bit of a poke, the enmity that I detect is often from those with an antipathy to education.

Look at all of the new words you've learned!!!! Too bad you don't know what any of them mean. You are a joke, dear. A pathetic joke. It's almost sad. Your attempts at humor fall flat as a pancake. As for your attempts to appear to be super intelligent?? You don't even do it well. Poor thing.

Ah, my poor, simple friend.

I suppose words are a new phenomenon for you.
It has been observed many times that good writing is a by-product of good reading.

As an extension of this axiom, it appears that the better part of your reading time has involved comic books and the cartoons in which bubble gum is wrapped. Reform yourself...at least to the extent that your nature allows you to.

As a curative exercise, continue to read my posts...look up words...even copy phrases.
Sorry, but advice is the best I can do for you.

And know this, you are not without a certain usefulness: watching your attempt to keep up at this board has been more fun than watching the White House spokesman on a lie detector.

 

[midcan5]

I cannot fathom how anyone can defend Beck. He will say something and contradict what he just said five minutes later. That he makes so much money for doing nothing helpful says much about American culture today. He is the idiot student defended because he says things that appeal to the far right. Everyone (well most everyone) loves to hate a good foe and nothing brings together people like hatred for ? pick one: government, taxes, liberals, progressives, Obama, Nancy, on and on.

This article from Media Matters outlines enough Beck nonsense to make one wonder how any intelligent person could listen to him. But it isn't analyzed because it is so much easier to have enemies that build you up.


"....Nor did Time mention Beck's 2001 statement that he'd like to "beat" Rep. Charlie Rangel "to death with a shovel"; his comments about poisoning Nancy Pelosi; his comparison of the Holocaust museum shooter to Thomas Jefferson; this little outburst; or his comparisons of Obama to Adolf Hitler. Let's stop there for a second and go back to Time's opening lines:

On Sept. 12, a large crowd gathered in Washington to protest ... what? The goals of Congress and the Obama Administration, mainly - the cost, the scale, the perceived leftist intent. The crowd's agenda was wide-ranging, so it's hard to be more specific. "End the Fed," a sign read. A schoolboy's placard denounced "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia." Another poster declared, "We the People for Capitalism Not Socialism."

Gee, where did that "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia" garbage come from? It came from Glenn Beck. But Time won't tell you that."

How Time magazine enables Glenn Beck's lies | Media Matters for America

 

[Big Fitz]

I cannot fathom how anyone can defend Beck. He will say something and contradict what he just said five minutes later. That he makes so much money for doing nothing helpful says much about American culture today. He is the idiot student defended because he says things that appeal to the far right. Everyone (well most everyone) loves to hate a good foe and nothing brings together people like hatred for ? pick one: government, taxes, liberals, progressives, Obama, Nancy, on and on.

This article from Media Matters outlines enough Beck nonsense to make one wonder how any intelligent person could listen to him. But it isn't analyzed because it is so much easier to have enemies that build you up.


"....Nor did Time mention Beck's 2001 statement that he'd like to "beat" Rep. Charlie Rangel "to death with a shovel"; his comments about poisoning Nancy Pelosi; his comparison of the Holocaust museum shooter to Thomas Jefferson; this little outburst; or his comparisons of Obama to Adolf Hitler. Let's stop there for a second and go back to Time's opening lines:

On Sept. 12, a large crowd gathered in Washington to protest ... what? The goals of Congress and the Obama Administration, mainly - the cost, the scale, the perceived leftist intent. The crowd's agenda was wide-ranging, so it's hard to be more specific. "End the Fed," a sign read. A schoolboy's placard denounced "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia." Another poster declared, "We the People for Capitalism Not Socialism."

Gee, where did that "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia" garbage come from? It came from Glenn Beck. But Time won't tell you that."

How Time magazine enables Glenn Beck's lies | Media Matters for America

...and then you use the congenital liars at media matters for your "proof", and yet call Beck a liar.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

“To hell with the Constitution when people want coal.”

Source? I googled it and only got this thread, and three other forums.

And? What's wrong with saying a poor man should have the opportunity to better his life and not live as The Working Class in England in 1844?

the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…

Finish the quote.

and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws."

You've proven yourself dishonest, so I'll not read any further.

"You've proven yourself dishonest, so I'll not read any further."
Diaphanous attempt to defend the fact that you were totally unaware of these many faults in Progressivism.

When embarrassed, run and hide. Probably costs you a lot in shoeleather. But, when confronted with erudition, I suppose you had no choice.

I suspect that you are ashamed that you were so duped by the elites who never made you aware of the duplicity of Progressivism.


Simply google "Teddy Roosevelt, Coal Strike, 1902, To hell with the Constitution...."

I notice that your personal attack didn't include any mention of the quotemine on which you were called out.

Why is that?