Glenn Beck rally will be a measure of the tea party's strength

Re: Still waiting....

Grant said:

Yes, I did, thanks.

It seems many of the quotes are relating more to the corruption of Christianity rather than Christianity itself. And of course, context is everything, and questioning God's existence is nothing new. Many have their doubts.

Click to expand...

well, that was kinda my whole point to begin with.

Re: Still waiting....

FilmFestGuy said:

When you say progressives are all communists, fascists, or socialists you are lying or you are ill-informed. So, you're saying that Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Sergey Brin, and Oprah Winfrey (all known to varying degrees as progressive) aren't all also capitalists? Again, either you are ill-informed, or you're lying. So, please explain how it's not possible for most progessive Americans to also be capitalists?

And Sanger did some great things for women, but - like many of our American ancestors - held views that we now consider archaic. Let's also recall that a lot of American heroes have significant flaws when it comes to views of things like race, the mentally ill, sex. I mean, our Founding Fathers were largely slave-owners. We can acknowledge the great things they did, but still be against slavery, can't we? Or should we condemn them for their racial views and reject everything positive they did?

Click to expand...

FilmFestGuy, did Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey call themselves "Progressive" or is it your opinion that they are?

I doubt, if asked, that any of them would want that appellation.

Re: Still waiting....

Glinda said:

I'm for public assistance programs and a nationalized health plan. I have a gun and kill things with it. I'd put violent criminals in 24-hour lockdown and feed them bread and water, and I don't think we use the death penalty often enough.

What lame broad brush title are you going to attempt to use on me? :roll:




Hunh. Didn't you just call your fellow Americans (that happen to be Progressives), "Communists?"

:lamo


Oh please. Go ahead and search my posting history. You'll not find me using terms like "chimp" when referring to Bush (although his intelligence/wisdom is certainly debatable), or insisting that all conservatives are hard-right, neocon assholes (even though it often seems that way).

You're just butt-hurt because I think Glenn Beck and those who listen to/believe his self-promotional drivel are idiots, and because I condemn holding a Glenn Beck fan club rally on the anniversary of MLK's most memorable and important speech in order to jerk each other off in public, while insisting that doing so is somehow "patriotic" and "honorable."

WAaaahaaaa!!!! :boohoo:

Click to expand...

What I see from you are a lot of personal opinions that I believe are based upon ignorance. Cite specifics of the self promotional drivel and why you believe people that watch or listen to him are idiots. I have said the same thing about liberals and backed my rhetoric up with actual verifiable facts. You have no credibility unless you can do the same thing.

Your support for taxpayer funding of personal choice issues says a lot about you and your failure to understand personal responsibility. It is all feel good rhetoric when you believe a bureaucrat in D.C. can administer personal responsibility issues from a desk in D.C. Liberal social engineering starting with the Great Society have created most of the debt we have today as evidenced by the actual budget of the United States. Doubt you have ever read that budget. So when Glenn Beck takes on the Republicans you are silent but when he attacks the left he is demonized.

Beck's rally today brought hundreds of thousands of people to D.C. or to cites that actually broadcast the rally today and that just irritates people like you. That simply is liberal arrogance that cannot understand human behavior and people who truly love this country and the foundation upon which it was built. Anyone that gets in the way of the liberal ideology of bigger govt, involvement in personal responsibility issues, and devisive govt. has to be destroyed and that in a nutshell defines liberals and what is wrong with this country today.

Re: Still waiting....

donc said:

Fine. Don’t call people commies or fascist just because you disagree with them politically.

Click to expand...

Nice comparison between calling Progressives Communists--when they are--and calling another poster a "faggot".

Look, you got thanked and they don't even know that you just called me a, "faggot". Not, "gay", not, "alternate lifestyle", not, "homosexual", but, "faggot". Good job, driver.

Re: Still waiting....

Glinda said:

Exactly. Calling those to their left (no matter how slightly) communists is how the Beckies restore honor to America. :roll:

Click to expand...

Glinda, many Communists and Socialists have called themselves "Progressives". It's a well established fact.

If people don't want to be associated with Communists or Socialists than they should find something else to call themselves.

"Progressives" is such a silly and misleading term anyway. Communists, and Socialists, have never been "Progressive" in the original sense of the word.

Grant said:

It's already an Us versus Them mentality, FilmFestGuy, because 90% of Black people supported BHO and the Democratic Party. Focusing on one America for all, and fiscal responsibility of course, is something every person can relate to, once the rhetoric subsides.

Click to expand...

What is quite telling as well is that 47% of the workers in this country pay no Federal income taxes thus don't seem to have a problem creating greater penalties to those that do. The facts seem to support your comments regarding support for Obama from the black community most of whom continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. Beck points that out and that drives liberals crazy.

Conservative said:

I am not the one having trouble with the facts, the Anchorage Paper has a good article on those so called facts. Further it is all old news that means nothing today. Your hatred for Palin is your right, but it is mine to point out that hatred and its irrelevance today.

Click to expand...

Yes you are. You claim the Anchorage paper vindicates Palin, then when I post an article by the Anchorage paper that exposes her lies, you claim that it is old news and doesn't mean anything. The same usual twisting of facts or discounting facts most of the conservatives do on a regular basis.

And I don't hate Palin - that is what most cons keep claiming because they don't want to face the fact that she is a fake, more interested in money and fooling people into thinking she cares about their ideals for the country, so accusing those who oppose her of hate is a way to escape reality.

If she runs for office then she will have to answer for those "allegations" most of which have been dismissed. I tend to let facts actual rule my beliefs not allegations. Wasn't it liberals who said, we need to wait for all the evidence to be aired before making judgment? Does that only apply to liberal causes or people that liberals support?

Click to expand...

What about the ones where she has been found guilty? You seem to want to sweep those under the rug along with those that were dismissed. And you can't handle the facts. Your way of responding to facts is to say they are lies.

You sure are spending a lot of time on issues that surfaced back in 2008. Your so called facts amount to allegations which have been dismissed. Not sure what the issue is here other than diversion from what is going on right now? Whether or not Palin loves money is irrelevant as she lives in the U.S. and thus is able to make as much money as she is capable of making. Sounds to me like a little class envy here.

Click to expand...

Considering you know nothing about me, I will just have to chuckle at your assumptions. You are spending a lot of time defending those same issues you claim surfaced back in 2008 - so, if you don't want to discuss Palin, why did you bring her up in the first place?

I have no problem blaming Bush but do so with actual facts, not opinions like you are doing. There is much I didn't like about Bush but he had a lot of help from Congress in creating the mess we have today including Obama in that Congress.

Click to expand...

That is so lame. Bush and Company had 6 years of total control (2001 - 2006). They did nothing in regards to health care, immigration reform, finance reform, etc. For you to blame Obama, who only came to the Senate in 2005, is so typical of conservatives who don't want to accept responsibility for the mess they put the country in.

There is absolutely nothing that Obama has done that I support and results show that I was accurate in not supporting his agenda.

Click to expand...

What a surprise, coming from a member of the party of "no".

Obama has a total Democrat Congress that is implementing his agenda. To say the mess we have today has nothing to do with that agenda is typical liberal spin and a downright lie.

Click to expand...

To ignore what led to the big mess and try to heap 8 years of Bush's ineptness on Obama is a typical right-wing spin and downright lie.

Republicans and Conservatives don't have to scamper around to "try" and put the blame on Obama, the results do that work for them. Obama policies have indeed flopped so all you can do is blame Bush.

Click to expand...

That's only according to the spin-meister machine, however, we are still in recovery mode from the 8 years of totally failed policies. So much for you relying on facts.

Maybe you can tell me how someone so stupid and dumb(Bush) was able to fool so many "intelligent"(Democrats) into passing the Iraq Resolution in a Democrat Controlled Senate?

Click to expand...

Maybe you can tell me why a dishonest Bush, didn't share with Congress information that he received that might suggest there were no WMD's. Are these Democrats supposed to be mind readers?

Then tell me why that intellectually superior Democrat Party that controlled the Congress in 2007 on didn't do something to stop Bush from destroying the economy all buy himself?

Click to expand...

Ever hear of the "filibuster"?

In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent.
PostPartisan - Not your father's filibuster (or your mother's)

Then tell me what Bush did to cause unemployment to rise every month of 2010 and to add 1.4 trillion more to the debt?

Click to expand...

Ever heard of the rippling effect. Surely you didn't expect everything to happen all at once, unless you are very naive.

By the way this is the Glenn Beck thread and really has nothing to do with Bush, Palin or anyone of the masses attending that rally in D.C. Nice diversion though and thanks for allowing me the opportunity to prove your points wrong.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I noticed you said that after you posted all that crap in defense of them. And your delusional assumption that you proved anyone wrong is so typical of conservative's fantasies.

Re: Still waiting....

Conservative said:

What I see from you are a lot of personal opinions that I believe are based upon ignorance. Cite specifics of the self promotional drivel and why you believe people that watch or listen to him are idiots. I have said the same thing about liberals and backed my rhetoric up with actual verifiable facts. You have no credibility unless you can do the same thing.

Your support for taxpayer funding of personal choice issues says a lot about you and your failure to understand personal responsibility. It is all feel good rhetoric when you believe a bureaucrat in D.C. can administer personal responsibility issues from a desk in D.C. Liberal social engineering starting with the Great Society have created most of the debt we have today as evidenced by the actual budget of the United States. Doubt you have ever read that budget. So when Glenn Beck takes on the Republicans you are silent but when he attacks the left he is demonized.

Beck's rally today brought hundreds of thousands of people to D.C. or to cites that actually broadcast the rally today and that just irritates people like you. That simply is liberal arrogance that cannot understand human behavior and people who truly love this country and the foundation upon which it was built. Anyone that gets in the way of the liberal ideology of bigger govt, involvement in personal responsibility issues, and devisive govt. has to be destroyed and that in a nutshell defines liberals and what is wrong with this country today.

Click to expand...

This is rich conservative, first you say to Glenda

“What I see from you are a lot of personal opinions that I believe are based upon ignorance “

Click to expand...

then in the second paragraph you give your. OPINION.

” Your support for taxpayer funding of personal choice issues says a lot about you and your failure to understand personal responsibility. “

Click to expand...

:2rofll:

Re: Still waiting....

FilmFestGuy said:

When you say progressives are all communists, fascists, or socialists you are lying or you are ill-informed. So, you're saying that Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Sergey Brin, and Oprah Winfrey (all known to varying degrees as progressive) aren't all also capitalists? Again, either you are ill-informed, or you're lying. So, please explain how it's not possible for most progessive Americans to also be capitalists?

Click to expand...

Progressives are Communists/Socialists. It's an historical fact.

And Sanger did some great things for women, but - like many of our American ancestors - held views that we now consider archaic. Let's also recall that a lot of American heroes have significant flaws when it comes to views of things like race, the mentally ill, sex. I mean, our Founding Fathers were largely slave-owners. We can acknowledge the great things they did, but still be against slavery, can't we? Or should we condemn them for their racial views and reject everything positive they did?

Click to expand...

Margaret Sanger gave us The Negro Project which was designed to keep blacks from breeding, because they're an inferior people. And all you can say about that is her views are, "archaic"? :rofl I guess Hitler was just, "archaic".

Re: Still waiting....

Grant said:

Glinda, many Communists and Socialists have called themselves "Progressives". It's a well established fact.

If people don't want to be associated with Communists or Socialists than they should find something else to call themselves.

"Progressives" is such a silly and misleading term anyway. Communists, and Socialists, have never been "Progressive" in the original sense of the word.

Click to expand...

That's why Progressives started calling themselves, "Liberals". However, in recent years I've noticed that--out of historical ignorance--some Liberals are reverting back to, "Progressive".

Re: Still waiting....

Grant said:

FilmFestGuy, did Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey call themselves "Progressive" or is it your opinion that they are?

I doubt, if asked, that any of them would want that appellation.

Click to expand...

They all support many progressive causes. Progessive, liberal, left - whatever.

But they're all capitalists and they all have political leanings to the left of a lot of Americans and support liberal charities, higher tax brackets for the wealthy, etc.

Common sense (which we are allowed to use) would suggest that calling them progressive capitalists isn't far from accurate.

Saying all progressives are fascists, communists, or socialists is either ill-informed or a lie.

It's no more true than me saying all conservatives hate blacks (which I never said) or all conservatives hate Muslims (though, some clearly do).

Re: Still waiting....

apdst said:

Progressives are Communists/Socialists. It's an historical fact.

Click to expand...

Prove this.

Re: Still waiting....

FilmFestGuy said:

They all support many progressive causes. Progessive, liberal, left - whatever.

But they're all capitalists and they all have political leanings to the left of a lot of Americans and support liberal charities, higher tax brackets for the wealthy, etc.

Common sense (which we are allowed to use) would suggest that calling them progressive capitalists isn't far from accurate.

Saying all progressives are fascists, communists, or socialists is either ill-informed or a lie.

It's no more true than me saying all conservatives hate blacks (which I never said) or all conservatives hate Muslims (though, some clearly do).

Click to expand...

Rich people who support Progressiveism believe they'll be among the chosen few whose riches won't be touched by the new socialist policies. There were rich Russians that supported Lenin and rich Germans that supported Hitler. The members of the Polit Bureau weren't poor, by any means, nor did they share the same hardships of the Russian citizenry.

Re: Still waiting....

Grant said:

Glinda, many Communists and Socialists have called themselves "Progressives". It's a well established fact.

If people don't want to be associated with Communists or Socialists than they should find something else to call themselves.

"Progressives" is such a silly and misleading term anyway. Communists, and Socialists, have never been "Progressive" in the original sense of the word.

Click to expand...

I grew up among socialists and communists, and I never heard the term "progressive" used by anyone as a self-description excepting conservatives.

Re: Still waiting....

Redress said:

Prove this.

Click to expand...

No, you called me ignorant and a liar. You prove me wrong. Show us where Progressives supported Capitalism and rejected socialist ideology. We all await your dosumentation. Theordore Roosevelt was a progressive. He was all about eugenics and wealth redistribution.

Re: Still waiting....

Manc Skipper said:

I grew up among socialists and communists, and I never heard the term "progressive" used by anyone as a self-description excepting conservatives.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I bet.

Re: Still waiting....

apdst said:

No, you called me ignorant and a liar. You prove me wrong. Show us where Progressives supported Capitalism and rejected socialist ideology. We all await your dosumentation. Theordore Roosevelt was a progressive. He was all about eugenics and wealth redistribution.

Click to expand...

Just once, actually back up one of your comments. Just once.

mertex said:

Yes you are. You claim the Anchorage paper vindicates Palin, then when I post an article by the Anchorage paper that exposes her lies, you claim that it is old news and doesn't mean anything. The same usual twisting of facts or discounting facts most of the conservatives do on a regular basis.

And I don't hate Palin - that is what most cons keep claiming because they don't want to face the fact that she is a fake, more interested in money and fooling people into thinking she cares about their ideals for the country, so accusing those who oppose her of hate is a way to escape reality.


What about the ones where she has been found guilty? You seem to want to sweep those under the rug along with those that were dismissed. And you can't handle the facts. Your way of responding to facts is to say they are lies.


Considering you know nothing about me, I will just have to chuckle at your assumptions. You are spending a lot of time defending those same issues you claim surfaced back in 2008 - so, if you don't want to discuss Palin, why did you bring her up in the first place?

That is so lame. Bush and Company had 6 years of total control (2001 - 2006). They did nothing in regards to health care, immigration reform, finance reform, etc. For you to blame Obama, who only came to the Senate in 2005, is so typical of conservatives who don't want to accept responsibility for the mess they put the country in.
What a surprise, coming from a member of the party of "no".


To ignore what led to the big mess and try to heap 8 years of Bush's ineptness on Obama is a typical right-wing spin and downright lie.


That's only according to the spin-meister machine, however, we are still in recovery mode from the 8 years of totally failed policies. So much for you relying on facts.


Maybe you can tell me why a dishonest Bush, didn't share with Congress information that he received that might suggest there were no WMD's. Are these Democrats supposed to be mind readers?

Ever hear of the "filibuster"?

In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent.
PostPartisan - Not your father's filibuster (or your mother's)


Ever heard of the rippling effect. Surely you didn't expect everything to happen all at once, unless you are very naive.


Yeah, I noticed you said that after you posted all that crap in defense of them. And your delusional assumption that you proved anyone wrong is so typical of conservative's fantasies.

Click to expand...

I said nothing of the sort, I said that the Anchorage paper listed all the violations and their dispostion. There seems to be a conflict between what you posted and what was posted there but again what does it matter today? Your fixation with Sarah Palin is quite telling especially when the speech she gave today wasn't political at all.

As for Control of Congress, better check the facts as to who controlled the Congress from 2001-2003.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm


Doesn't look to me like you have a clue just like you don't understand the following:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 |

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 |

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 |

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 |

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 |

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 |

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 |

Re: Still waiting....

apdst said:

Progressives are Communists/Socialists. It's an historical fact.



Margaret Sanger gave us The Negro Project which was designed to keep blacks from breeding, because they're an inferior people. And all you can say about that is her views are, "archaic"? :rofl I guess Hitler was just, "archaic".

Click to expand...

So, when Coretta Scott King read her husband's speech, thanking Margaret Sanger for her work in implementing family planning, you're suggesting that he was also in favor of killing off blacks as an inferior race? Or could it be that he believed that family planning could be good for black Americans?

Cristina Page's Blog: Martin Luther King Jr. and Margaret Sanger: Allies

Or is this about you hating the freedom that women gained from effective birth control? Some of her views were wrong, yes. So were some of George Washington's with regard to blacks. It doesn't negate the positive things they did for our nation.

Yours is what we call black-and-white thinking. Look it up.
Cognitive Distortion: How Does Black-and-White Thinking Hurt Us? | World of Psychology

Re: Still waiting....

apdst said:

Rich people who support Progressiveism believe they'll be among the chosen few whose riches won't be touched by the new socialist policies. There were rich Russians that supported Lenin and rich Germans that supported Hitler. The members of the Polit Bureau weren't poor, by any means, nor did they share the same hardships of the Russian citizenry.

Click to expand...

Anything in defense of your cognitive distortion.

Re: Still waiting....

apdst

Progressives are Communists/Socialists. It's an historical fact.

Click to expand...

Where is this "historical fact "that says that Progressives are Communists/Socialists? I looked at the most obvious places and cant find it.

Re: Still waiting....

Redress said:

Just once, actually back up one of your comments. Just once.

Click to expand...

You called me a liar. Obviously, you can prove that I'm wrong.

Re: Still waiting....

apdst said:

That's why Progressives started calling themselves, "Liberals". However, in recent years I've noticed that--out of historical ignorance--some Liberals are reverting back to, "Progressive".

Click to expand...

Yes, name changes among the left occur regularly.

But the product they're selling does need continual rebranding.

Re: Still waiting....

apdst said:

You called me a liar. Obviously, you can prove that I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

You made a direct statement of fact, obviously you can prove yourself right.

Wiki disagrees with you, and every source I have looked at disagrees with you. Since you have not offered a single bit of evidence to back up your wild claim, I think it pretty much conclusively shows that you are, once again, wrong.

Re: Still waiting....

apdst said:

You called me a liar. Obviously, you can prove that I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

I already did.