• 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!

Will you be protesting the Restoring Honor Rally in D.C. on 8/28?

Will you be protesting the Restoring Honor Rally?

  • Yes! I'll be there protesting!

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • No! I'll be an audience member of the rally.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No. I wish I could go!

    Votes: 12 57.1%
  • Yes! I can't go, but I'll speak out online or other ways.

    Votes: 8 38.1%

  • Total voters
    21
I think the most telling association is Frank Marshall Davis. Known simply as Frank in Obama's book. He was his mentor in his formative yrs. starting at age 10.
Also what's not to believe about Van Jones. He admits to being a self avowed Communist. Are you calling Van Jones a liar?

Davis and Barack Obama
In his memoir Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote about "Frank", a friend of his grandfather's. "Frank" told Obama that he and Stanley (Obama's maternal grandfather) both had grown up only 50 miles apart, near Wichita, although they did not meet until Hawaii. He described the way race relations were back then, including Jim Crow, and his view that there had been little progress since then. As Obama remembered, "It made me smile, thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created."[19] Obama also remembered Frank later in life when he took a job in South Chicago as a community organizer and took some time one day to visit the areas where Frank had lived and wrote in his book, "I imagined Frank in a baggy suit and wide lapels, standing in front of the old Regal Theatre, waiting to see Duke or Ella emerge from a gig." [20]

Gerald Horne, a contributing editor to the CPUSA official publication Political Affairs, identified "Frank" as Davis, and "a decisive influence in helping Obama to find his present identity" as an African-American.[21] Claims that Davis was a political influence on Obama were reiterated in the hotly-disputed anti-Obama book The Obama Nation.[22] A rebuttal released by Obama's presidential campaign, titled Unfit for Publication, confirmed that "Frank" was, in fact, Frank Marshall Davis, but disputes certain claims about the nature of their relationship.[23]
Frank Marshall Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, Jones admitted when he was young, he was a communist. However, that doesn't really mean he was. Even if he was a communist, that doesn't mean he still is. uber conservative David Horowitz was once a Marxist and both of his parents were Communists.
 
Damn I love Sci Fi and all but heck the nerds come up with so many rules it ruins the whole thing.:mrgreen:

Not to mention you would be dead after like two movies.


On topic as others have said don't care, isn't going, and will probably have something better to do than even pay attention unless I see another thread here.
 
There was something I heard James Carville say about the news media nowadays. "People nowadays use the news channels the way a drunk uses a lamppost - for support instead of illumination." He went on to explain how people today don't listen to pundits to get information - rather, they listen to pundits to get validation of their own political beliefs. And pundits do that validation so they can gain an audience that they can then sell commercials to.

I think this is, sadly, exactly what goes on these days. People are looking for nothing more than confirmation of their ideals without having to think about the ramifications or the realities of what they call for. So they turn to emotional outburst and hyperbole in order to confirm their own beliefs. I watch FOX news a bit, I try to catch Hannity. But it's hard to watch. Not only is it mostly intellectually dishonest and propaganda, but people eat up these words without much thought at all. I can't help but think that on some level we're regressing back to monkeys.
 
I think this is, sadly, exactly what goes on these days. People are looking for nothing more than confirmation of their ideals without having to think about the ramifications or the realities of what they call for. So they turn to emotional outburst and hyperbole in order to confirm their own beliefs. I watch FOX news a bit, I try to catch Hannity. But it's hard to watch. Not only is it mostly intellectually dishonest and propaganda, but people eat up these words without much thought at all. I can't help but think that on some level we're regressing back to monkeys.

I agree and it what angers me about pundits. Their viewers believe that their pundit is right and the other sides pundits is wrong. I got into a political argument with my grandmother and aunt and all they could say was well Beck said this or Hannity said that.
 
I don't refer to them as pundits anymore. I call them political entertainers.
 
But it hurts my brain when I have to think!!!!!!!!
 
I think this is, sadly, exactly what goes on these days. People are looking for nothing more than confirmation of their ideals without having to think about the ramifications or the realities of what they call for. So they turn to emotional outburst and hyperbole in order to confirm their own beliefs. I watch FOX news a bit, I try to catch Hannity. But it's hard to watch. Not only is it mostly intellectually dishonest and propaganda, but people eat up these words without much thought at all. I can't help but think that on some level we're regressing back to monkeys.

Well, to be fair, Carville then went on to say that that was the same kind of climate for news media back in the Colonial days that caused the Colonies to rebel against the British. Only instead of the internet and 24-hour cable news channels, we had printing pressing pumping out pamphlets as fast as they could be written.

But I don't put the blame on the news media that pumps out whatever will sell commercials - I blame the people who only seek validation rather than information in their news.
 
Well, to be fair, Carville then went on to say that that was the same kind of climate for news media back in the Colonial days that caused the Colonies to rebel against the British. Only instead of the internet and 24-hour cable news channels, we had printing pressing pumping out pamphlets as fast as they could be written.

But I don't put the blame on the news media that pumps out whatever will sell commercials - I blame the people who only seek validation rather than information in their news.

The same thing happened wit yellow journalism as well. And Hurst did have political goals kinda like Murdoch does.
 
I won't be there. It has nothing to do with the cause or anything, I just don't go to political rallies.
 
Whose protesting the military now? You were making the statement it seemed that protests/rallies concerning the military (Such as anti-war protests, pro-war rallies, etc) are suggesting those people do'nt think "our troops deserve our undivided attention while at war?"

I have no idea who is protesting the military. I didn't say anyone was.

I think you are reading too much into that comment I made. Let's say I hold a rally that I say isn't political and the proceeds go to a charity. It's not right to say that people who disagree with the premise of my rally also disagree with my charity. Basically my statement was a challenge to that line of thinking. If this is about the military, then make it about the military. But alas, they aren't holding a rally to restore honor to the military.

Which is funny, because you're suggesting that doing a protest that...perhaps even partisan in nature...is supposed to be in part about supporting the troops and is donating money to troops is enough to chastise someone about apparently not giving our troops our undivided attention while at war, and yet I never once can remember you chastising anti-war protestors in a similar way for their actions regarding the military.

Code Pink are a bunch of retards. Remember I said this. ;)

Anti/pro war rallies/protests actually involve the military. The topic of this rally does not. Just because a rally may donate to a noble cause does not insulate it from criticism. Let's say a NORML rally decided to donate proceeds (let's pretend they would exist :lol:) to a military charity. It would be perfectly legitimate to criticize the cause of their rally and still support the charity.
 
Correct, and thanks for proving my point. You could say this about any politician, with Obama being an extreme example recently, yet you generally don't yet of course you come out swinging about it with Beck. Making your comment look incredibly disingenuous.

I'm sorry Zyphlin, but Glenn Beck isn't a politician. He's a media personality. But to set your mind at ease, Keith Olbermann was a douchebag for his Special Comment about Scott Brown.

There's no indication prior to the "I'm convinced of it" to indicate he's switching into that type of phrasing again. Its the end, after saying that YOU'LL make the changes and stating his view on that.

He said "you" like 13 times and switched it to "I" when it would have made more sense to say "you" if that was his intent. That's how I saw it. I see what you are saying. I thought it was worded poorly and the intent was ambiguous. He sets the tone with this:

I hope it will be something much, much deeper than a tea party. I believe what we are creating is going to be something that will be one for the history books. There is not going to be one word of politics from the stage, not one. Because the way to fix Washington is not through politics but through each of us as individuals. Because when we fix ourselves and we are united on the principle of honor and honesty and integrity, they will fear us like they've never feared us before.

Then unfortunately I got hung up on repetition of "you". When he said "I" I missed the context. It didn't help that they stopped the sentence unnecessarily and started a new sentence with "Or". It would have made more sense if it was grammatically correct. I misread that and see your point. I wasn't being disingenuous.

He mentions the game earlier, talking about being part of the problem or the solution in Washington. He references the game in that passage, talking about how "you don't have to solve Washington. The tea parties have the backdrop of the capitol. The capitol could go into a giant sinkhole as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't matter to me. You are not going to be able to go in there and fix that."

The game, that he's referencing, is the political game played on the capital where people are trying to fix Washington. He's suggesting you can either keep playing that, or be like what he's describing Washington and Lincoln as doing and fix the COUNTRY.

So Washington and Lincoln didn't play the political game on the Capitol? I'm not sure I understand what was different about them. And it sure seems to me that he is suggesting that if you go to his rally, think about Washington and Lincoln and emulate them, the country will be fixed. But this won't be political. Somehow our country will be fixed by people emulating former Presidents that supposedly didn't deal with Congress.

No, he said "Once you do that and then make your choice"

Seriously, I'm not a fan of Beck, but in no way shape or form is he suggesting he's like Lincoln or Washington

I agree. I retract that accusation.
 
In regards to Lincoln and Washington not playing the political games in the capital...

I never said Glenn Beck stuck to facts, was overly intelligent, or doesn't use hyperbole and misrepresentation if not outright lies at times

I'm by no means a big fan. I just had issue with the notion he was putting himself on their level.
 
No. I will be in and around Charoltte Amalie.
 
Don't be so quick to judge next time. Your prejudice against Beck got in the way of your reading comprehension.

I'm human. I still think it will be a partisan/political affair.

Have any liberals been invited to perform?
 
I'm human. I still think it will be a partisan/political affair.

Have any liberals been invited to perform?

No idea. Would any liberals put aside their prejudices against Glenn Beck long enough to find out what it's actually about?
 
No idea. Would any liberals put aside their prejudices against Glenn Beck long enough to find out what it's actually about?

When someone loses credibility like he has done then people will be prejudiced against them. I'd listen to George Will.
 
I'm human. I still think it will be a partisan/political affair.

Have any liberals been invited to perform?

If it's anything but, I expect the Cubs to make a turnaround and win the World Series this year.
 
When someone loses credibility like he has done then people will be prejudiced against them. I'd listen to George Will.

Just because people may not like him or what he has to say, doesn't mean he lacks credibility.
 
No idea. Would any liberals put aside their prejudices against Glenn Beck long enough to find out what it's actually about?

I asked this question before. It was an honest question. I'd really like to know if there are any liberal speakers asked to perform.
 
I asked this question before. It was an honest question. I'd really like to know if there are any liberal speakers asked to perform.

I doubt it. I also doubt there will be very many attending either though everyone is welcome. I suppose it will mostly be conservatives, liberals, and independants.
Although stranger things have happened. Elton John performed at Rush's wedding and threw all the liberals into a tizzy.
 
Whoops! I meant libertarians not liberals will be attending.
 
When someone loses credibility like he has done then people will be prejudiced against them. I'd listen to George Will.

"Loses credibility" like you pretended he said something he never said at all?
 
Last edited:
Just because people may not like him or what he has to say, doesn't mean he lacks credibility.

People don't like him or what he has to say because he has no credibility.
 
"Loses credibility" like you pretended he said something he never said at all?

I explained how I made my mistake. I wasn't pretending.
 
Back
Top Bottom