• 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 launches online University

just to point out; by the time of the 1930's, 'Progressivism' as a name-brand had been pretty thoroughly tarnished - actually post Wilson it was pretty thoroughly tarnished. Dewey and other leading Progressives made the concious decision to appropriate the name 'Liberal' for themselves in order to try new branding for the same movement. 'Liberalism' as we know it in popular politics today has distinct differences from the 'Liberalism' you are describing, which was based on the concept of negative rights and limiting the power of the state. Liberalism (today's version) has also begun to run into the same problem as Dewey and his cohorts did; which is why (entertainingly) so many of them are now beginning to describe themselves as "progressives" again.

now, some elements of the old Progressives have been left behind. Temperance, for example. but the core assumptions (that 'freedom' is something provided you by the state; that 'management' of human interaction is better than allowing people to run around doing whatever they want; etc) are still there.



frankly, i think this whole thread is hilarious. an entire segment of the American populace is beginning to seriously self-educate about the founding ideals and history of this country.... and all half of you can do.... is make fun of them :).

well that's okay. we have something for that ;)

Yes hence where i typed 'founded'. In no way was i attempting to compare old and new liberalism. I even said that progressives and liberals AGREE on many issues.My point is that there was, and still is a distinct difference between the two even today. As for progressives being liberal, i believe in an earlier post i said as much.

Frankly, i think todays world is hilarious when an entire segment of American populace is actually attempting to learn things on their own, instead blindly listening to a talking head on TV. God forbid they might actually LEARN ANYTHING from their personal research.
 
Last edited:
Publius Infinitum said:
Now just to make sure the point is not lost in the obscurance which your response will no doubt serve, given the record; The challenge has been put to you to DEFINE "America" in such a way which would provide for Leftism in all of it's various conjurings, rationalizations and forms, could be reasonably counted in viable membership. Which simply means, Sis... That I am asking you to explain what America IS and to do so in such a way which allows for Left-think to considered "American".

Best of luck to ya.
I will ignore your random challenges until you counter my Argument based on your allegations in posts #45 and #47.

Best of luck to ya.

As predicted, the Progressive comes to re-state her straw argument; as she's unable to engage the issue at hand. In truth her argument has been consistently engaged, refuted and thoroughly discredited, point for point, line by line and in no small degree of specificity from the very outset.

Progressives... be they active in the Republican Party, Democrat Party; be they claimants of Left, Right or The Middle Way, OKA: Moderate, Centrist, Mainstream populist... seek the same socialist ends. And without exception, they are ALL LEFTISTS. PERIOD! And this without regard for, or consideration of whatever obscurant protestation they may otherwise offer.

But where there may be a sliverous doubt, all one need do to secure their reasoning from such doubt is to challenge them to define America. And where the individual rejoins with dissemblence, obscurance or other such distractions, one can rest assured you're dealing with the subversive Left.

You see friends, the Leftist cannot define America... As to do so as they would have America defined, exposes them for who and what they are... deceitful frauds.

For the Left to define America in such a way which would include thier oppressive, foriegn ideas, they must define America down to what is effectively MEANINGLESS... Which is why, when the issue is forced upon them, they will demand that America is defined by geography, or the Constitution; specifically rejecting that which actually defines America: the charter of American principles set forth in the US Declaration of Independence.

Now, understand friends, just this past weekend we celebrated what? Did we celebrate the Ratification of the US Constitution?

The Progressive would have you believe just that... But in truth, we celebrated the signing of the Declaration of Independence. A document which defines America; a document which defines the principles on which America rests and the divine authority on which she declared those principles, which require independence; and in so requiring, these are the principles which OPPOSE SOCIALISM, on the whole, in total and in finality...
 
My main point is that you CAN be moderate, independant, centrist, liberal, libertarian, and at the same time dislike or disagree with Beck.

People tend to link Progressivism and Liberalism. Although alike they are infact different.

They both feel that the world is dynamic and everchanging.

Although Progressives (centre-Left) tend to be more focused on politics. Changing as historically present.

Liberalism is founded on the idea of protecting rights of life, liberty, and property.

Although they tend to agree on most issues, there are issues that they disagree on.

Naturally If a moderate does not agree on Becks ideas of American Principles, they are in his idea progressive.

The thing is you can still be a moderate and dislike or disagree with Beck. Regardless if you are centre-left, or absolutely agree with said American Principles.

ROFLMNAO...

Well sure... Don't ya see kids? Progressive, Liberal... These are concepts that can mean ANYTHING to ANYONE~ Ya can't really define these terms, because every liberal doesn't believe exactly the same thing as all other liberals... Why some liberals believe in 'protecting rights of life, liberty and property...' and some liberals don't believe in a right to life, or liberty, or property... But they're ALL LIBERALS! It's all very gray and complex...

And if a Moderate does not agree with Beck and the Founding Fathers of America on what American Principles are, well they're entitled to make up whatever THEY believe America IS... because it wouldn't be FAIR if they couldn't and the Constitution says so... at least as they 'interpret' it.

But isn't it cool how she makes the overt reference to "American principles" but cannot on ANY LEVEL define those principles?

ROFLMNAO...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Progressives...
 
Progressives... be they active in the Republican Party, Democrat Party; be they claimants of Left, Right or The Middle Way, OKA: Moderate, Centrist, Mainstream populist... seek the same socialist ends. And without exception, they are ALL LEFTISTS. PERIOD! And this without regard for, or consideration of whatever obscurant protestation they may otherwise offer.

Agreed. As for progressives all seeking the same socialist ends, I beg to differ. By no means is a progressive a socialist. There is a wide margin of difference in those extremes. Can a progressive be a socialist? Sure they can. But it's to the extent of socialism you define as all progressive's having.


As for me not taking up your challenge, I wish to seek a formal answer as to your reasons labeling that 'All moderates, Centrists, independents, and in post #45 even a Libertarian (whom i believe is a regular Beck listener/watcher) are 'leftist' based on the idea that they may dislike or disagree with Beck.

You realize that was my INITIAL argument.
 
ROFLMNAO...

Well sure... Don't ya see kids? Progressive, Liberal... These are concepts that can mean ANYTHING to ANYONE~ Ya can't really define these terms, because every liberal doesn't believe exactly the same thing as all other liberals... Why some liberals believe in 'protecting rights of life, liberty and property...' and some liberals don't believe in a right to life, or liberty, or property... But they're ALL LIBERALS! It's all very gray and complex...

And if a Moderate does not agree with Beck and the Founding Fathers of America on what American Principles are, well they're entitled to make up whatever THEY believe America IS... because it wouldn't be FAIR if they couldn't and the Constitution says so... at least as they 'interpret' it.


But isn't it cool how she makes the overt reference to "American principles" but cannot on ANY LEVEL define those principles?

ROFLMNAO...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Progressives...

The answer lies within the credibility of Mr. Beck himself.
See thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...rack-obamas-views-u-s-constitution-video.html

You would do best arguing his credibility there.
 
just to point out; by the time of the 1930's, 'Progressivism' as a name-brand had been pretty thoroughly tarnished - actually post Wilson it was pretty thoroughly tarnished. Dewey and other leading Progressives made the concious decision to appropriate the name 'Liberal' for themselves in order to try new branding for the same movement. 'Liberalism' as we know it in popular politics today has distinct differences from the 'Liberalism' you are describing, which was based on the concept of negative rights and limiting the power of the state. Liberalism (today's version) has also begun to run into the same problem as Dewey and his cohorts did; which is why (entertainingly) so many of them are now beginning to describe themselves as "progressives" again.

now, some elements of the old Progressives have been left behind. Temperance, for example. but the core assumptions (that 'freedom' is something provided you by the state; that 'management' of human interaction is better than allowing people to run around doing whatever they want; etc) are still there.



frankly, i think this whole thread is hilarious. an entire segment of the American populace is beginning to seriously self-educate about the founding ideals and history of this country.... and all half of you can do.... is make fun of them :).

well that's okay. we have something for that ;)

Well said...

I've been pounding this argument (American Principles and how they stand diametrically opposed to socialism, including the national socialist progressives) out on the web, through these web forums, since the early 90s... and for onehelluva lots less compensation than Beck's reaping.

People FINALLY seem to be recognizing that their means to exercise their Human Rights is being stripped from them and that this is because they are conceding their responsibility... thus the TEA Party. But the distinction here, is that BECK has managed to get the message into the OPEN on a broad spectrum and is shining the light of truth on the infectious PROGRESSIVE insurgency which has completely wiped the Democrat Party of any trace of American principle and has all BUT done so to the GOP.

We're cleaning them from the GOP... While the Democrats promote them.
 
Yes hence where i typed 'founded'. In no way was i attempting to compare old and new liberalism. I even said that progressives and liberals AGREE on many issues.My point is that there was, and still is a distinct difference between the two even today. As for progressives being liberal, i believe in an earlier post i said as much.

Frankly, i think todays world is hilarious when an entire segment of American populace is actually attempting to learn things on their own, instead blindly listening to a talking head on TV. God forbid they might actually LEARN ANYTHING from their personal research.

ROFLMNAO...

Oh they ARE a difficult thing to pin down, those progressives... They're not socialists, while simultaneous being socialists... and isn't it cool how only the Socialists 'do their own research'... which we can be sure does NOT include listening to Glenn Beck, but instead includes perusing the Liberal Echo-chamber of Alternet... The KOS and other such subversive elements of the communist insurgency.
 
Sis, I do well where ever I am. It's the nature of the exceptionalism, of the American.

Just a suggestion. You see, that thread so desperately needs someone to counter argue the topic. Someone such as yourself, could perhaps, spice up a nice debate? ;)
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Dear Liberal Avenger,



Tea Party Inc. is dangerous and must be investigated, exposed and fought at every turn.

WILL YOU HELP US?


For many of us the summer is off to a hot start. But the summer heat is nothing compared to the meltdown our political system could suffer if the Tea Party hits the boiling point -- and succeeds in recruiting millions of angry voters to swing November's election with the promise of a national right-wing agenda.

Right now, the "enthusiasm gap" -- the difference between the positive feelings Republicans have about voting for GOP candidates versus how the Democrats feel about voting for their own -- has a 35-point spread, according to a recent Gallup poll. It's the largest gap since the data has been counted1. And many progressives, liberals and Democrats are in denial, not tuned in to what is happening in Tea Party-land.

AlterNet is working 24/7 to expose the Tea Party, its funders and cheerleaders. Our urgent, clarion call to progressives and Democrats: "Wake up before it's too late!" And you can help us get our wake-up call out to the people who need to hear it.

Fox, Beck and the Tea Party: An Ugly Combination

This right-wing "enthusiasm" is being generated by the conservative message machine, led by Fox News and frequently echoed by corporate media. Right-wing propaganda is having a major impact, tapping into the resentment of working people across the country, and millions of unemployed Americans.

Glenn Beck, man of many lies and emotional breakdowns, is the chief cheerleader for the Tea Party. Beck is willing to say just about anything, and he often does. For example, Beck recently stated that President Obama didn't want to meet with BP CEO Tony Hayward, because Hayward is "a white CEO."2 Beck has called the progressive movement a "cancer" that was "designed to eat the Constitution," and declared that Obama has "a deep-seated hatred of white people."3

We have to push back very hard against Glenn Beck -- because with Beck and the Tea Party, a dangerous brew is steaming up around the country.

Beware of Tea Party Inc.

AlterNet's editorial team has concluded that behind the kooky signs and incoherent rage of Tea Party supporters is a powerful cartel of right-wing interests with very deep pockets. Call them Tea Party Inc. -- a cabal of high-priced political operatives, lobbying groups and for-profit conservative media who fuel this furious right-wing emergence under the Tea Party brand.

Tea Party Inc. is dangerous and must be investigated, exposed and fought at every turn. At AlterNet, we refuse to bury our heads in the sand, and we're not afraid to sound the alarm on this growing right-wing threat. But to do it right, AlterNet needs your help.



We have a network of investigators in the field ferreting out the truth and ready to communicate it far and wide. Help us keep our reporters digging and exposing. We need you to help us reach our immediate goal of $30,000 to pay the bills and keep our people on watch in the field. This project will operate at a high-intensity pitch through the fall election. Your contribution can help save your country from the people who want to repeal health care, close the Department of Education and line the pockets of polluters. Help us out, please.

With my good wishes,


Don Hazen, Executive Editor, AlterNet

P.S. AlterNet, along with the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute, is recruiting "citizen observers" to help us keep an eye on Tea Party actives on the Web and in the field. If you want to help us gather information please click here and sign up. You will hear back from us soon.

Dear Don,

Having read your recent correspondence, I find you to be a major element of the insurgency that is subverting the American culture.

My impression sir, is that you are either part and parcel of a covert organization, not at all unlike and very possibly part and parcel of the Communist Insurgency recently discovered and arrested, or you're simply one of sub-par intellectual means, simply lacking the minimal cogntive means to recognize deceit and fraud when you are exposed to it. As such and to be on the safe side, I have forwarded your correspondence on to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for their consideration.

Ordinarily, I would have simply done so without offering you the benefit of this information; but I feel the highest likelihood is that you're simply a addled-minded dupe, who has bought into this subversive ideology and not an actual active member of a covert insurgency; and as such deserving of the benefit of the doubt; either way, you're a menace to the culture at large and I doubt that you'd be surprised by any investigation regarding your loyalty to the principles that define America.

In my experience, people advocating the species of reasoning such as that inherent in your correspondence, do not possess the intelllectual steam to recognize sound reasoning; and this, sadly, includes circumstances where one is exposed to such in stark detail; but despite such and with that said, I thought it worth yet another try... so towards that end, please allow me the opportunity to demonstrate just one small example of where your letter demonstrates a despicable fraud.

You assert that there exist in the TEA Party "incoherent rage". Now Don, the TEA Party has made it abundantly clear to all but the least common intellectual denominator, that their outrage is anchored in the same steam, which sustained the rage over the Bush deficit spending, which you should recall, reached an unthinkable 350 BILLION DOLLARS at it's peak... and the laughable promise that it was the Ideological Left riding within the Democrat Party that would return the nation to 'fiscal responsibility'; and further recall Don, that your party then immediately went to work converting the 350 billion high-water mark, to a 1.5 TRILLION dollar deficit. A FIGURE 2/3rds LARGER THAN ANY OF THE EIGHT ANNUAL REAGAN BUDGETS. This 'Rage', Don, was then understandably re-doubled when the Democrats and the BOY King DOUBLED DOWN AND PROJECTED THAT THEY WOULD SPEND ANOTHER 1.5 TRILLION IN DEFICIT THE FOLLOWING YEAR... and this without regard to the ADDITIONAL TRILLIONS which will be required in Budget to meet the legislation they deceptively FORCED upon the nation with regard to Obama HealthsCare; along with the oppressive, un-American trampling of the natural, individual human responsibilities and rights that such legislation requires, and quite by default.

So Don, that Alternet, FKA: Common Dreams: The Liberal Echo-Chamber, lacks the coherency to recognize the source of the TEA Party rage, is irrelevant to any discussion, except that which focuses upon why the Ideological Left should be dismissed and otherwise forbidden from participating in the equation that is US Governance; as you people are not Americans, nor anything APPROACHING AMERICANS; you have no concept of what America is and wholly reject the immutable, natural principles which otherwise define this great country; a nation in which you serve no other purpose than to undermine that which has made her exceptional.

Thank you for your time and best of luck with your looming federal investigation,

Publius Infinitum
 
ROFLMNAO...

Oh they ARE a difficult thing to pin down, those progressives... They're not socialists, while simultaneous being socialists... and isn't it cool how only the Socialists 'do their own research'... which we can be sure does NOT include listening to Glenn Beck, but instead includes perusing the Liberal Echo-chamber of Alternet... The KOS and other such subversive elements of the communist insurgency.

Actually i was comparing ones credibility (personal-research) to that of a listener of Glenn Beck (credibility?). You don't sense the sarcasm and irony?

Of course you don't.
 
which were rip-offs of that artist dood in LA who ripped them off from the obey giant who ripped them off from old communist propaganda posters....

Actually, Shepard Fairey, the guy who designed the Obey Giant poster, is the same one who did the Obama poster. He actually got sued by some photog because he designed it from that guy's photo of Obama.
 
Actually, Shepard Fairey, the guy who designed the Obey Giant poster, is the same one who did the Obama poster. He actually got sued by some photog because he designed it from that guy's photo of Obama.



yeah but they are all rips of the old communist posters...... and another guy, i can't remember who.
 
yeah but they are all rips of the old communist posters...... and another guy, i can't remember who.

Oh totally. I've actually ripped off the look of old communist posters for some of my album covers. I think it's an incredibly powerful form of art. The band KMFDM used nothing but the ripped off communist propaganda poster look for their videos, album covers, etc.
 
Oh totally. I've actually ripped off the look of old communist posters for some of my album covers. I think it's an incredibly powerful form of art. The band KMFDM used nothing but the ripped off communist propaganda poster look for their videos, album covers, etc.




That's the artist I was thinking about. the kmfdm guy....
 
Sergeant Peppers Lonely Heart Club Band album cover.
 
Actually i was comparing ones credibility (personal-research) to that of a listener of Glenn Beck (credibility?). You don't sense the sarcasm and irony?

Of course you don't.

Your concession is duly noted...
 
I'll watch the first class later tonight and let you all know what it was about.
 
I'll stick with TTC and academic journals.
 
I'll stick with TTC and academic journals.

ROFLMNAO... Well then you may want to get in on Beck U... as the resources are founded in objective academics.

And would you answer a question for me?

You're listed as a "Centrist"... How are you defining that?

Is it to imply that you're of a sufficient intellect to recognize that the best solution is one which rests in compromise, taking equal measure of right and wrong?
 
Review of Glenn's new endeavor on Reason.com:

Beck U - Reason Magazine

The author corrects some of Glenn's historical details:

The Communist Party of the United States didn’t start as the “Communist Working Party” in 1917.

It is not true that “if you were a Marxist” in 1960s, you were a “Soviet sympathizer,” as former members of the International Socialists can attest.

The Nazis did not “learn propaganda” from Woodrow Wilson.

Beck says that “Most of Europe was preparing for war in 1917.” Europe had been at war since 1914; the Americans joined in in 1917.

The Venona decrypts were not “released in the 1980s,” when the Soviet Union was still in business, but in 1995. Nor was Venona “compiled” by the KGB; Venona was the codename given by United States intelligence services to the collection of intercepts. Incidentally, Beck, demonstrating his lack of familiarity with the subject matter, stumbles when identifying Venona, first calling them the “Verona papers.”

No one claims Castro was “democratically-elected,” except, perhaps, the brothers Castro themselves.
Obama’s mother, who grew up in Kansas, did not attend the Elisabeth Irwin School (“The Little Red Schoolhouse”) in New York City.

Beck’s history of late Weimar Germany manages to be both totally incoherent and completely wrong, such as this comparison of the German Communist Party (KPD) and the Nazis: “The National Socialists, the Nazis, did round up the communists. OK? But the communists, they rounded up the store owners first. Nazis, number two. The old and infirm. Number two on communist's list, farmers and landowners. Three, I think it was Jewish on both sides.”
A list of “1963 communist goals from the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)” Beck presented on his television show (and available here on his website) are not from the CPUSA, but reprinted from The Naked Communist, a bizarre book of conspiracy authored by John Birch Society lunatic Cleon Skousen.

In the aftermath of the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla, Beck argued that anti-Semitism is the inevitable byproduct of socialism. “Socialism and anti-Semitism have complemented each other throughout history.” “How many [Jews] have to die,” Beck asks, “to remember who keeps killing them?” The idea that anti-Semitism flourishes under left-wing regimes because Jews are associated with capitalism is certainly true, though it ignores the long history of far-right anti-Semitism and the Tsarist-era pogroms and blood libels. In far-right circles, Jews, like Bela Kun and Leon Trotsky, were associated with communism and the revolutionary left.

It is apparent that Beck the history preacher isn’t terribly familiar with the very material that so fascinates him, as demonstrated by his difficulty keeping names straight. The former FSB agent poisoned in 2006 was Alexander Litvinenko, not Alexander Lavinko. The Soviet agent accused of “losing China” was Lauchlin Currie, not “Laurie” Currie. His fellow agent in the Silvermaster group was Harry Dexter White, not “Harry Dexter.” During a brief digression into the activities of the Baader-Meinhof groups, Beck received a little help from off-camera: “In the 1970s, the left wing German terrorist, Ulrike Meinhof, he sounds friendly. He said—oh, it's a she?”

Interestingly enough:

Beck doesn’t demonstrate the perils of autodidacticism, but the perils of learning the subject while at the same time attempting to teach it.

Ah, but Reason Magazine writers and editors are just shills for the progressives, right?
 
Last edited:
ROFLMNAO... Well then you may want to get in on Beck U... as the resources are founded in objective academics.

And would you answer a question for me?

You're listed as a "Centrist"... How are you defining that?

Is it to imply that you're of a sufficient intellect to recognize that the best solution is one which rests in compromise, taking equal measure of right and wrong?

At least he labels his lean. I notice that you do not. Are you ashamed to list it?
 
Back
Top Bottom