• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Glenn Beck comes out for Clinton, calling her the 'ethical choice'.

danarhea said:
Show me the evidence.... NOTE: And opinion piece does not count as evidence.
Click to expand...

No evidence would be sufficient for you. It's like OJ Simpson is running for president.
 
Erod said:
No evidence would be sufficient for you. It's like OJ Simpson is running for president.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't present any evidence.
 
dolphinocean said:
Well then you should take issue with muslims for subscribing to a fascist ideology that discriminates unbelievers of islam, aka infidels, calling us worst of beast and demanding our death until all religion is for allah. There's nothing wrong in preventing those harboring such hateful and lethal purpose from harming us and our children, is there?
Click to expand...

Ah, yet another conservative who has zero clue about Islam, who seems to think that they all believe the same thing, that it's all one monolithic religion forcing people to follow Sharia law.

When in reality, Islam is every bit as fractured - and in some ways MORE fractured - than modern-day "Christianity". There are Islamic denominations (though they would not use the word "denominations") whose beliefs vary wildly from the other denominations...including about Sharia law. What's Sharia law for the Shi'a is not the same as for most of the many, many different interpretations of the Sunni sect...and all of those vary wildly from the Sufi and the Alawi and the many others.

What you are seeing today with Islam is the same doggone thing that happened so many times with "Christianity" over the centuries - evil men committing atrocities, and using religion as their excuse. What's the proof? Look at the rich Islamic nations - are they hotbeds of terrorism? Of course not - they're peaceful than we are. Heck, look at Indonesia - it's a freaking third-world nation, but it has a lower homicide rate than the safest state in America! It's the poor AND unstable nations that are the hotbeds of terrorism. The REASON for the terrorism is the poverty and instability - the religion is only the excuse.

Oh, and btw - I'm from deeper in the South than you are, down in the Delta. I just wanted to let you know that I do know what it's like to be part of the heart of the Bible Belt.
 
Aristaeus said:
Hell has officially frozen over as Glenn Beck has backed Hillary Clinton over Trump.

“It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” Beck writes. “If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice."

Even Beck is rational enough to know that just disliking Hillary is not a good enough reason to support Trump. A few posters here could learn a thing or two.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...b05d915e423e8d#block-57fd0952e4b05d915e423e8d
Click to expand...

Glenn Beck is the person responsible for me spending a huge amount of time looking into the connections between groups who are a significant danger to the freedoms and liberty this Nation was founded on.

Someone told me about this long list of groups, with the likes of Alinsky, Soro's, and others, that Beck was talking about on his TV show. I didn't believe it, but I thought, what the hell, something is going on.

With people who worked for me volunteering to help, I checked all his accusations about the Ford Foundation, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, the UN, George Soro's, the Tides Foundation, Annenberg, Poynter Institute, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, SEIU, and on and on.

I read financials, annual reports, etc..

EVERYTHING he claimed was absolutely true.

I now call the apparatus the Progressive Machine.

We the people, are being played.

That being said, it's an absolute shame Glenn Beck has become completely derailed. His network will fail, unless he completes the sell out, vaporizes his credibility, and becomes another MSNBC.

I think the man needs to get in close touch with his sponsor, and perhaps pickup that Big Book, because he is self will run riot, which never ends well.
 
Aristaeus said:
Hell has officially frozen over as Glenn Beck has backed Hillary Clinton over Trump.

“It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” Beck writes. “If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice."

Even Beck is rational enough to know that just disliking Hillary is not a good enough reason to support Trump. A few posters here could learn a thing or two.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...b05d915e423e8d#block-57fd0952e4b05d915e423e8d
Click to expand...

What. The. ****...
 
danarhea said:
Show me the evidence.... NOTE: And opinion piece does not count as evidence.
Click to expand...

Funny how you lying progressives all of the sudden want evidence, and believe in the axiom Innocent until proven guilty, but I guess that is only when it is your ox facing the goring.....

Liberals are such lying hypocrites.
 
Aristaeus said:
Hell has officially frozen over as Glenn Beck has backed Hillary Clinton over Trump.

“It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” Beck writes. “If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice."

Even Beck is rational enough to know that just disliking Hillary is not a good enough reason to support Trump. A few posters here could learn a thing or two.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...b05d915e423e8d#block-57fd0952e4b05d915e423e8d
Click to expand...

He has not come out for Clinton. Saying you won't vote for Trump is not an endorsement of Clinton.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Given any large group of people, would you agree that some are going to be more capable than others? Of course you would.

Would you agree that in that large group, that there will be some who are incapable of making it on their own without help? If you do agree with that statement, then what's your solution?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are some people who can't make it on their own. But listen up! Even the developmentally disabled, except the most profound, have JOBS. Those that are too profoundly disabled live with family who is subsidized for helping them. That is NOT what we are talking about in our inner cities. Not at all.
 
danarhea said:
Not a lie. That's exactly what Trump said in the second debate.
Click to expand...

He said he was going to appoint a special prosecutor. That is far removed from throwing a political opponent in jail. A significant number of Americans want to see a special prosecutor appointed. Why do people who disagree, even vehemently, with DT persist in lying and intentionally misinterpreting what he says?
 
MaggieD said:
He said he was going to appoint a special prosecutor. That is far removed from throwing a political opponent in jail. A significant number of Americans want to see a special prosecutor appointed. Why do people who disagree, even vehemently, with DT persist in lying and intentionally misinterpreting what he says?
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the part right after that, when Clinton said it's a good thing Trump is not in charge of the law in this country, and Trump responded "Because you'd be in jail".

Selective quote much?
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Have you or yours ever gotten sick and needed medical care?

The answer is almost certainly YES. And if you haven't, you almost certainly will.
Click to expand...
This has no impact on the argument.
Now, the question is, can you pay for that medical care? What if - thanks to whoever it is you want to blame - you don't have a job, and can't pay for your medical care, or your wife's, or your kid's? What happens? You go to the emergency room - which is fine for short-term medical care, but for chronic issues, it's not much better than a band-aid.

And guess who pays for it? You and me - the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

I'm still not for socialized medicine. I'm not for giving up our freedoms and liberties for big government forcing us to do as they say. I don't need government for health care, period.

In other words, if people don't have health insurance, you and I pay for their care anyway. This is why the CONSERVATIVE Cato Institute believed it was a CONSERVATIVE idea to require people to pay for their own health insurance instead of forcing the taxpayers to do it for them. This is why Romney - you know, your last Republican nominee for president - was the first one to implement this strategy, in his own state of Massachusetts.
Click to expand...
That was an absolute failure, like Obamacare. And Romney is no conservative.

So that's your choice: let people who don't (or can't) pay for health insurance die or become permanently disabled (and so become a further drain on society)...OR you can pay for their care through your taxpayer dollars...OR you can require them to pay for health insurance that they should have to begin with.

Those are your choices.
Click to expand...
No, they are not. Libs love to make these arguments where the only solution is higher taxes and big government. We have a Constitution that protects us from governments of the type that people like Hillary want to establish.

The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute thought that the third option was the most sensible and most conservative...and so did Romney. Of course, all that changed when the black guy moved into the White House and said that it was a good idea, too...and all of a sudden, when Obama started pushing the same idea, well, ha-RUMPH, it was suddenly declared a far-left liberal tyrannical boondoggle.
Click to expand...
Now we are delving into idiocy and foolishness. Socialized medicine has never been a conservative fundamental. Never.

Health care: you WILL pay. You'll either pay out of pocket, or you'll pay through your health insurance, or you'll pay through your taxpayer dollars...or you'll pay with your life (for the lack of health care). Choose.
Click to expand...
Let's amend that. We will pay, way, way more and have no choice if government takes over health care, or anything. I'm against that.
 
danarhea said:
Show me the evidence.... NOTE: And opinion piece does not count as evidence.
Click to expand...

Didn't Comey already show us the evidence, despite the paper thin instigation? Of course, he rewrote the statute before our eyes.
 
Aristaeus said:
Hell has officially frozen over as Glenn Beck has backed Hillary Clinton over Trump.

“It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” Beck writes. “If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice."

Even Beck is rational enough to know that just disliking Hillary is not a good enough reason to support Trump. A few posters here could learn a thing or two.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...b05d915e423e8d#block-57fd0952e4b05d915e423e8d
Click to expand...

:shock:

hell_freezes_over.jpg
 
Aristaeus said:
Hell has officially frozen over as Glenn Beck has backed Hillary Clinton over Trump.

“It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” Beck writes. “If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice."

Even Beck is rational enough to know that just disliking Hillary is not a good enough reason to support Trump. A few posters here could learn a thing or two.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...b05d915e423e8d#block-57fd0952e4b05d915e423e8d
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like he is backing Hillary at all. Sounds like he is saying that he can't back Trump, and whatever happens, so be it. More left wing lies.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah, 'cause freedom from discrimination and having a right to access quality health care are tyrannical, whereas freedom TO discriminate and freedom TO deny health care are what freedom's all about, huh?
Click to expand...

I cannot believe you think you are going to get that!
 
Anthony60 said:
Link? to what? His press conference where he outlined what happened? Did you miss that?
Click to expand...

Nope, I didn't miss it. He showed that she was reckless and not too smart, which is one reason of many that I am not voting for her, but he also said no law was broken.

Still waiting for your link that shows that she did what she did criminally. Good luck finding it.
 
Anthony60 said:
This has no impact on the argument.


I'm still not for socialized medicine. I'm not for giving up our freedoms and liberties for big government forcing us to do as they say. I don't need government for health care, period.

That was an absolute failure, like Obamacare. And Romney is no conservative.


No, they are not. Libs love to make these arguments where the only solution is higher taxes and big government. We have a Constitution that protects us from governments of the type that people like Hillary want to establish.

Now we are delving into idiocy and foolishness. Socialized medicine has never been a conservative fundamental. Never.

Let's amend that. We will pay, way, way more and have no choice if government takes over health care, or anything. I'm against that.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I could spend an hour or so typing, detailing all the many ways that you're showing just how little you understand about our healthcare system...

...but instead, I'll just as one question: spent any time on active duty?
 
Aristaeus said:
Hell has officially frozen over as Glenn Beck has backed Hillary Clinton over Trump.

“It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” Beck writes. “If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice."

Even Beck is rational enough to know that just disliking Hillary is not a good enough reason to support Trump. A few posters here could learn a thing or two.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...b05d915e423e8d#block-57fd0952e4b05d915e423e8d
Click to expand...

People are now going to start listening to Glenn Beck because he backs Hillary now? Really?
 
How can you so badly misinterpret what he actually said?
 
chuckiechan said:
I cannot believe you think you are going to get that!
Click to expand...

One side believes in freedom from discrimination, and that health care should be a right.

The other side believes in freedom to discriminate, and that health care should be a privilege.

The better choice is rather obvious.
 
danarhea said:
You seem to have missed the part right after that, when Clinton said it's a good thing Trump is not in charge of the law in this country, and Trump responded "Because you'd be in jail".

Selective quote much?
Click to expand...

Come on, Dan. You understand the spirit behind what he said. Are we THAT anxious to fillet the opposition that we deliberately misinterpret conversation? Apparently some of us are. You have a vote use it. Allow other people the same right.
 
Erod said:
The problem is, as irreprehensible as Trump is, Hillary is far, far worse. She very well may be the most corrupt candidate in American history.
Click to expand...
Yeah man!

Except for Grant.

And Nixon.

And Harding.

And Bush 43.

And yes, Trump, who brags about buying politicians.

I'm sure I could name more, if I actually wanted to trawl through every candidate ever.
 
danarhea said:
Nope, I didn't miss it. He showed that she was reckless and not too smart, which is one reason of many that I am not voting for her, but he also said no law was broken.

Still waiting for your link that shows that she did what she did criminally. Good luck finding it.
Click to expand...

He showed that she broke the law. He said that they weren't charging her because she didn't intend to break the law, which is a slap in the face of the American people, since that is not a factor in whether or not she broke the law. He just made that up.

I wonder what she would have to have done to show intent? She circumvented the system by putting a server at her house. For God's sake, he couldn't find any intent there? I guess it doesn't matter, he would have just made up some other reason to let her go. He clearly wasn't going to charge her no matter what she did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom