• 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!

Beck, Palin Stress 'Honor' at Rally

BDBoop said:
As my mother always said, since I am incredibly absentminded, "Okay, Bob; where did you see it last?"
Click to expand...

lol....while people have every right to rally, and i am happy it was peaceful....wtf? were they trying to say THEY weren't honorable, or america wasn't honorable? it's true, we definitely lost some of our sheen when we attacked iraq, but who set that motion? lol.
 
Isn't this the same rally that Glenn Beck insisted was going to be non-political?
 
Hicup said:
Not sure.. :)

I do know that no where in MLK speech can it be construed that he was advocating bigger government, only an honoring of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I think what was meant was, the government had to step in to essentially force the rest of America to give equal rights to blacks, such as little thing like where to sit in the bus...

I mean technically that would expand government and take away business' right to discriminate against blacks who wanted a meal in their establishment...

And of course he was talking about honoring the constitution... by that he meant honoring the fact that all are equal.
 
Your Star said:
Well, there's a democrat in the white house so you know, we need to "restore honor" :lol:
Click to expand...

No, it goes back way further than Obama. I think Beck means to restore our honor, in that, we need to return to the basic, and plain meaning of the words, and there intent. Also, as some have said here already but bears repeating, we need to shake the power of the central authority, and return governance back to the localities, and the states.


Tim-
 
Jetboogieman said:
I think what was meant was, the government had to step in to essentially force the rest of America to give equal rights to blacks, such as little thing like where to sit in the bus...

I mean technically that would expand government and take away business' right to discriminate against blacks who wanted a meal in their establishment...

And of course he was talking about honoring the constitution... by that he meant honoring the fact that all are equal.
Click to expand...


the Government's check are the people.


j-mac
 
Hicup said:
No, it goes back way further than Obama. I think Beck means to restore our honor, in that, we need to return to the basic, and plain meaning of the words, and there intent. Also, as some have said here already but bears repeating, we need to shake the power of the central authority, and return governance back to the localities, and the states.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Who decides the plain meaning? Any possibility that honest people can disagree about the emaning of large sections of words? What they add up to?
 
j-mac said:
the Government's check are the people.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yeah and the "people" are sometimes wrong.

In fact alot of you in this thread thump your chest on Constitution this and constitution that.

YOU DO understand that it's far easier to fight for principles, then to live up to them.

If you truly meant everything you said in this thread it would mean repealing the patriot act...

BUT NO, We only worry about the constitution when there's a (D) next to the name.

I never heard a ****ing whisper about the constitution under Bush from conservatives...
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah and the "people" are sometimes wrong.

In fact alot of you in this thread thump your chest on Constitution this and constitution that.

YOU DO understand that it's far easier to fight for principles, then to live up to them.

If you truly meant everything you said in this thread it would mean repealing the patriot act...

BUT NO, We only worry about the constitution when there's a (D) next to the name.

I never heard a ****ing whisper about the constitution under Bush from conservatives...
Click to expand...

Exactly right. But then again, fear works on some. Scare them enough, and the Consitiution means next to nothing. Sadly.
 
Boo Radley said:
Who decides the plain meaning? Any possibility that honest people can disagree about the emaning of large sections of words? What they add up to?
Click to expand...

If it were the case, then I'd agree with you. But surely, you must agree that politicians are rarely thought of as honest people? See my sig, line two.

Also, we have a large divide in just exactly what kind of political environment most of us feel is ideal. Right now, and for some time now, politics has been about securing the most votes. How they go about it, is dishonorable. A large part of this is the people themselves. What Apsts said about the black "culture" in this nation is exactly right. Factor in the Jews, the Catholics, the Latino's, the Asians, and all of us seem to disregard what's best for everyone instead looking out for number one.

It's "precisely" why local governments should be the larger of the representaive structure. Without local authortative representation, large democracies, or democratic republics will fail. It's inevitable.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
If it were the case, then I'd agree with you. But surely, you must agree that politicians are rarely thought of as honest people? See my sig, line two.

Also, we have a large divide in just exactly what kind of political environment most of us feel is ideal. Right now, and for some time now, politics has been about securing the most votes. How they go about it, is dishonorable. A large part of this is the people themselves. What Apsts said about the black "culture" in this nation is exactly right. Factor in the Jews, the Catholics, the Latino's, the Asians, and all of us seem to disregard what's best for everyone instead looking out for number one.

It's "precisely" why local governments should be the larger of the representaive structure. Without local authortative representation, large democracies, or democratic republics will fail. It's inevitable.


Tim-
Click to expand...

There is a place for local government and federal government. Where those lines are is a reasonable place for debate. And while I would never argue only republicans use the politicis of fear, I would argue that fear was used to lessen rights of people after 9/11. And many supported things I would never have thought possible before 9/11. The over reaction and the fear mongering did seriously derail valid debate, and allowed government to increase power in our private lives. And they didso with nearly no out cry from republicans.

Now, the rest is a another discussion, IMHO. And you might find we argee in some places, and not others. But the battle of where the line is, between states and the federal government is not a new one.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah and the "people" are sometimes wrong.
Click to expand...

Agreed, they sure were in Nov. of 2008, that's for sure.


In fact alot of you in this thread thump your chest on Constitution this and constitution that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, it's just a GD piece of paper isn't it?

YOU DO understand that it's far easier to fight for principles, then to live up to them.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse doing the right thing is hard. But there comes a time when it is the only choice.

If you truly meant everything you said in this thread it would mean repealing the patriot act...
Click to expand...

At the time it was passed (by 98% of congress I might add) I agree, and argued from a fearful position. Since that time, and how this administration is turning it against its political enemies then I agree it needs to be scraped and rethought.

BUT NO, We only worry about the constitution when there's a (D) next to the name.
Click to expand...

Someone has to, those with the (D) next to their names take every opportunity to undermine it.

I never heard a ****ing whisper about the constitution under Bush from conservatives...
Click to expand...

Moral relativism? Really? So I guess those that supported Bush should just shut up and sit down eh? Yeah, that's really bringing the country together isn't it? So the conclusion from reading your words here JB, I guess is that those in this country that don't agree with the current President, don't have a President isn't that right?


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
There is a place for local government and federal government. Where those lines are is a reasonable place for debate. And while I would never argue only republicans use the politicis of fear, I would argue that fear was used to lessen rights of people after 9/11. And many supported things I would never have thought possible before 9/11. The over reaction and the fear mongering did seriously derail valid debate, and allowed government to increase power in our private lives. And they didso with nearly no out cry from republicans.

Now, the rest is a another discussion, IMHO. And you might find we argee in some places, and not others. But the battle of where the line is, between states and the federal government is not a new one.
Click to expand...


the line is only unclear to liberals that think that everyone that doesn't think in lockstep with themselves are stupid.


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
There is a place for local government and federal government. Where those lines are is a reasonable place for debate. And while I would never argue only republicans use the politicis of fear, I would argue that fear was used to lessen rights of people after 9/11. And many supported things I would never have thought possible before 9/11. The over reaction and the fear mongering did seriously derail valid debate, and allowed government to increase power in our private lives. And they didso with nearly no out cry from republicans.

Now, the rest is a another discussion, IMHO. And you might find we argee in some places, and not others. But the battle of where the line is, between states and the federal government is not a new one.
Click to expand...

No it's not a new debate in the context of American politics, but philosophically speaking, I see no way for us to survive if America becomes a single centrally governed authority. The "what's best for all of American's" won't work in a representative republican democracy. It isn't sustainable.


Tim-
 
j-mac said:
the line is only unclear to liberals that think that everyone that doesn't think in lockstep with themselves are stupid.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Stereotype much?

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Hicup said:
No it's not a new debate in the context of American politics, but philosophically speaking, I see no way for us to survive if America becomes a single centrally governed authority. The "what's best for all of American's" won't work in a representative republican democracy. It isn't sustainable.


Tim-
Click to expand...

I don't see us becoming a single central government authority. There is a still a division. There are only a few areas up for debate. So, I guess I'm not sur why you're leaping to an end that isn't remotely likley.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't see us becoming a single central government authority. There is a still a division. There are only a few areas up for debate. So, I guess I'm not sur why you're leaping to an end that isn't remotely likley.
Click to expand...

Isn't likely? It's happening right now in front of your eyes. 300K on 8/28, somwhere near 500K last year.. It's exactly why it won't work. People of good conscience need to feel that they are being heard. With a central authority they are not being heard.


Tim-
 
Moot said:
It wasn't exactly a peace rally.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rS8_...layer_embedded

YouTube - Glenn Beck Teabagger Rally - Hostile reactions to questions put to Teabaggers

Glenn Beck wore a bullet proof vest....
beck-vest-back-199x300.jpg

Symbol of Fear: Glenn Beck Wore a Bulletproof Vest At Rally

David Koch's "Americans for Prosperity" sent in 40 buses to the rally.....
YouTube - David Koch sends 40 buses of protesters to Capital Hill
Click to expand...

I would wear a bullet-proof vest too if I got death threats constantly. Alveda King asked Glenn if she could get one too, but then decided at the last minute that she trusted that God would take care of her and decided against it.
 
Hicup said:
Isn't likely? It's happening right now in front of your eyes. 300K on 8/28, somwhere near 500K last year.. It's exactly why it won't work. People of good conscience need to feel that they are being heard. With a central authority they are not being heard.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Tim that is not happening. it is more fear mongering than anything else. there is really nohting new going on. Factually, the line is still there and has not really been pushed back much. Like I said, there are a few areas of concern, of debate, but not a tearing down of the wall completely. And depending on court case outcomes, maybe even less of those. I wouldn't listen too much to disingeuous talking heads or the disjoined and inaccurate tea party movement, but seek factual information.
 
Mellie said:
I would wear a bullet-proof vest too if I got death threats constantly. Alveda King asked Glenn if she could get one too, but then decided at the last minute that she trusted that God would take care of her and decided against it.
Click to expand...

Which is a stupid move, I trust my weapon before God. One you can protect yourself, no one else.
 
j-mac said:
Agreed, they sure were in Nov. of 2008, that's for sure.




Yeah, I know, it's just a GD piece of paper isn't it?



Ofcourse doing the right thing is hard. But there comes a time when it is the only choice.



At the time it was passed (by 98% of congress I might add) I agree, and argued from a fearful position. Since that time, and how this administration is turning it against its political enemies then I agree it needs to be scraped and rethought.



Someone has to, those with the (D) next to their names take every opportunity to undermine it.



Moral relativism? Really? So I guess those that supported Bush should just shut up and sit down eh? Yeah, that's really bringing the country together isn't it? So the conclusion from reading your words here JB, I guess is that those in this country that don't agree with the current President, don't have a President isn't that right?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Why not? They just sat down and shut up when Bush was doing it. Not only that, but they called those who didn't sit down and shup up anti American.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom