Glenn Beck is an idiot
82 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=navet]
The point of blaming the past administration is that it eliminates the conservative solution, sine it was conservatives that caused the problem.
There is no way you can place the blame on one administration, or even one ideology i.e. Republican vs. Democrat or Liberal vs. Conservative. The blame is shared by all parties and their lack of coming to more of a "center" consensus. Instead of working on current problems and out of date legislation, they ALL choose to "make their name" in history books by creating the next piece legislature that will save us all. We need legislation to save us from legislature.
And waiting for change is actually working against it. You're either a part of the problem or a part of the solution. The change coming has to be progressive.
[/quote] I have spent too much time discussing this with you two already. I will leave you with a quote from the greatly missed former Governor of New York…
“When government accepts responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves.”- George Pataki
navet - So, are you the problem or are you the solution?
Wait...I just reread your last sentence. I answered my own question. Nevermind.
Another question though. If we let Obama and his ilk have free reign with their progressive change, I believe the phrase was "fundamentally transforming America", what will this country look like? Will it look like the country that my grandfather fought for in WW2? Or will it look more like the namby pamby socialist-lite countries like France? Or will it look more like Mother Russia before the collapse?
Blaming Bush for all of the problems we're having right now is a bit short sighted. You've got to go back decades and a few administrations to actually see how we got to where we are. There were certainly some things that happened in his administration that weren't, in hindsight, the best decisions. You can certainly put the first round of bailouts on his shoulders, but I believe Obama is responsible for a far greater amount of bailout money. Bush bailed out the banks. Obama is bailing out banks, countries, homeowners, credit card holders, private corporations, etc. He's strong arming (that kind of makes me chuckle) countries like Germany and France, all the while bowing to dignataries from other countries. Countries whose citizens have waged Jihad on us. Tell me how that makes any sense at all.
I wholeheartedly agree that we need some change in this country. But we do not need that change to come at the expense of the future of this great country.
"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society" Olive Wendell Holmes
Spiff I agree with you that all of the problems fall on one guy(GW) but I will also say we should wait to judge Obama until his term is over(and maybe 4 years past that, same for GW)... I believe that some of the change that Presidents do, takes longer than there term to process, thus why assigning blame and awarding credit is so difficult. Some presidents are just a byproduct of what they walked into... Housing mess, Stock Market crash etc... Sometimes I wonder what McCain would have done differently(not what he is saying he would have done now, but what he actually would have done)... I voted for McCain(because I thought his experience was far superior to Obamas), but I also think during the election he stopped being John McCain and started being "Republican" John McCain and started flip flopping(by the way Palin didn't help)...
I find voting difficult because of the issues..I like Mitt, but struggle with his views on abortion, civil unions,guns the usual.. THough i find it odd he hated the national health care plan, but Mass pretty much had the same thing when he signed the Massachusetts Health Care bill...
[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
navet - So, are you the problem or are you the solution?
Wait...I just reread your last sentence. I answered my own question. Nevermind.
Another question though. If we let Obama and his ilk have free reign with their progressive change, I believe the phrase was "fundamentally transforming America", what will this country look like? Will it look like the country that my grandfather fought for in WW2? Or will it look more like the namby pamby socialist-lite countries like France? Or will it look more like Mother Russia before the collapse?
Blaming Bush for all of the problems we're having right now is a bit short sighted. You've got to go back decades and a few administrations to actually see how we got to where we are. There were certainly some things that happened in his administration that weren't, in hindsight, the best decisions. You can certainly put the first round of bailouts on his shoulders, but I believe Obama is responsible for a far greater amount of bailout money. Bush bailed out the banks. Obama is bailing out banks, countries, homeowners, credit card holders, private corporations, etc.
[/quote]
Why do you believe Obama is responsible for more bailout than Bush? Can you point me a non right wing link that has the facts and figures? I ask because the spin machines on both sides have muddled the facts to a point that getting good info is difficult. I know it's a fact that Bush bailed out all the banks, FDIC, Fannie and Freddie, AIG, and the car companies. But i'm hazy on what Obama has added to the list and the price tag for his loose spending versus Bush. But, you seem to have a handle on it, so let's have it. Can you direct me to the link?
A couple of things.
1) TARP was Bush's. However, the cost of TARP ends up being 50% less than S & L. And about 20% of what the original cost was thought to be.
2) Glenn Beck is an entertainer (again), but not an idiot. He may act like an idiot. But he is laughing all the way to the bank. Not stupid.
3) Bailouts are bad.
4) We're not turning into Russia, or France. Not yet anyway.
5) I have sympathy for people. But people need to pay for their mistakes. Part of the reason in the run up of home prices was because of the easy availability of credit. People who had no business making home purchases made home purchases. When I bought my house, I put 20% down, and the amount of principal I financed was less than my salary at the time. The issue is that people are not educated or responsible enough to make their own financial decisions. The banks preyed on these people.
6) Why did the banks prey on these people? Well, regulations were loosened. While the banks did not HAVE to lend, they could easily assume that other banks would lend and make more money than they did. If every bank thought that, what did you think they would do? Lend. For sure.
We, as Americans like to bail people out. Nobody wants to see anybody fail. But we were also founded on personal responsibility. Don't buy what you can't afford. The issue with the people buying what they can't afford is the problem.
Does that mean if someone calls Barney Frank a socialist, he is a ngr as well?
Or does that translate to f*g?
This sounds like an excuse. Our economic situation did not start with Bush. Further, advancing social reforms (such as NCLB) was a plank in the Bush agenda. However, NCLB is an obvious program that doesn't work, but had support of both Democrats and Republicans.
A clear indication that government should keep their noses out of certain things.
[quote=navet]
I am not a democrat, however I have become progressive after experiencing the debacle(both economically and socially) of the Chebey/Bush administration. Conservatives had their chance and blew it. Now we have teabaggers. Whenever a teabagger calls Obama socialist, I hear a white guy saying XXXX. And that is repugnant to any thinking person. And since they are usually carrying a bible(figuratively or literally) it usually speaks volumes about the nature of christianity in America today.
[/quote]
You are a moron, plain and simple. I cannot believe my eyes with the level of ignorance in your posts. How can you make a comment like this? You need to come closer to the center. Unfortunately, it appears you have entered a drunken liberal stupor and ventured way to far on the left side.
I ask the Administrator to delete this user and his posts…
My disdain for Obama's policies and leadership have nothing to do with the color of his skin. My disdain for his policies have to do with the fact that he has said that he wants to fundamentally change this country. Well, the fundamentals of this country aren't broken and they don't need to be changed.
navet - do you even know anyone who would actually claim to be a part of the Tea Party movement? Somehow you are equating the Tea Party with racism and bigotry. Where does that come from? Do you even have any actual references that point to racism in that movement?
Now, I will concede the point that there are some folks in this country who do not like Obama because of the color of his skin. That is racism pure and simple. But that's a two way street. There are black people in this country who believe that the white man is out to get him. That too is racism.
The problem the left has is that when they try to defend an untenable point of view, they often resort to inflammatory name calling. navet's post is a prime example.
navet - The nature of Christianity in America today? Really? Again, what proof do you have that the average Christian in America today is a racist? Have you heard any preacher speaking out against black people since like the 1950's? Have you heard Billy Graham, Jr. saying anything racist in nature? How about Rick Warren, Joel Osteen ( who I don't care for), Dr. Stanley? Those guys are the preachers of some of the largest churches in the country. And to my knowledge don't espouse any sort of racist propoganda from their pulpits. Now, Rev. Jeremiah Wright on the other hand...
ND - I'd ask the Admin to keep his posts up there. They're good character reference posts.
The nature of christianity in the US today follows two paths. The progressive path is harmless, thus fine. The evangelical path is dangerous. Any religion that claims to have the only answer, the be the only conduit to god is potentially dangerous. It leads it's believers to just a step away from terrorism. It shuts down communication between divergent religions and that isolation is dangerous. Now, you can believe in anything you want. Fine with me. Just don't try and dictate to others what they "have to believe". It's coercive. There is nothing worse than going to regional mettings and having to hear bible thumping yahoos thinking that work is an appropriate place to give testimony.
[quote=navet]
The nature of christianity in the US today follows two paths. The progressive path is harmless, thus fine. The evangelical path is dangerous. Any religion that claims to have the only answer, the be the only conduit to god is potentially dangerous. It leads it's believers to just a step away from terrorism. It shuts down communication between divergent religions and that isolation is dangerous. Now, you can believe in anything you want. Fine with me. Just don't try and dictate to others what they "have to believe". It's coercive. There is nothing worse than going to regional mettings and having to hear bible thumping yahoos thinking that work is an appropriate place to give testimony.
[/quote]
What does that have to do with Christians being racist?
[quote=Magician]
[quote=navet]
The nature of christianity in the US today follows two paths. The progressive path is harmless, thus fine. The evangelical path is dangerous. Any religion that claims to have the only answer, the be the only conduit to god is potentially dangerous. It leads it's believers to just a step away from terrorism. It shuts down communication between divergent religions and that isolation is dangerous. Now, you can believe in anything you want. Fine with me. Just don't try and dictate to others what they "have to believe". It's coercive. There is nothing worse than going to regional mettings and having to hear bible thumping yahoos thinking that work is an appropriate place to give testimony.
[/quote]
What does that have to do with Christians being racist?
[/quote]
ZIPPO. Which is why he attacked religion, not defend his original statement that Christians are racists.
navet - What is the progressive path of Christianity? I'm not being argumentative, I've not heard those two terms used to define a mindset of Christians.
While you formulate your answer, I'll give you my thoughts on your comments: HOGWASH!!
All religions say they are the one true faith and that everyone else is wrong. Ask a Muslim if he believes a Christian will be in Paradise with him. Ask a Christian if he believes he will be sharing the streets of gold with a Buddhist. They all believe that their path is the only path to God or Allah.
If you hadn't guessed already, I'm one of those dangerous Christian American's today evidently. An evangelical protestant. My belief is that there is only one path to God. It doesn't require Jihad, special underwear, reincarnation, or priests. It requires a personal belief in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the grace and forgivness those events offer us. That's it. Everything beyond that is just window dressing that determines whether you sit in a pew in the Methodist church or the Baptist church on Sunday morning. Which one you choose doesn't matter to me as long as you pick one.
At what point during a regional meeting would anyone have the opportunity to give their testimony? Most of the people in my region know me as one of the religious guys. Mostly because I'm the only one sober at the end of the regional golf outing. But I've never had the opportunity to get up in front of the group and share my faith with them. One on one, sure. But never in front of the group. My RL, who is much more vocal about his faith than I am, doesn't even do that.
Finally, what do you mean by the comment - "It leads it's believers to just a step away from terrorism"?
Actually, evangelical christians, pre vatican 2 catholics and moslems call theirs the one true faith. Other religions are more ecumenical, thus in my words,progressive. I'm glad your Jones region is less evangelical, mine isn't. I have not been at a meeting withoud at least a couple exhorting their christian testimony. As far as christians being racist, I believe that I inferred that teabaggers are racist. A point I certainly still maintain. As far as christians being racist, probably. BTW, at our regional meetings, the born again's get the drunkest.
Actually Spiff, Buddhists don't think everybody should be Buddhists.
Navet - you lump "teabaggers" (which is a term I used for chicks in college) with Christians.
Also, how does being for individual rights and responsibilities make you racist? President Obama is a product of that thinking - that any man or woman may achieve the highest office in the world.
The Tea Party movement is one that is against most government. Remember that our government is there to serve ALL of the people, not just the people who don't earn much. Even the rich deserve representation. When programs that lower their quality of life are put in place, they should have a say in the matter.
Well magic, I guess that you were very outspoken about the bush presidency when the rich recieved greater benefits at the expense of the middle class. I didn't hear it, but I'll assume I just missed it. So far, the laws enacted by our current administration are primarily for the benefit of the middle class. It's pure ignorance to suggest they were for the poor. The poor didn't have investments, therefore the bailouts didn't help them. The poor already had public paid health insurance, so the health care initiative didn't help them. And your stated purpose that the teabaggers are against government makes my point. Less government helps the rich. Pro-rich power brokers are leading you sheep using all kinds of foolish talking heads and appealing to your worse common interests including racism, fear and greed. I have no respect for the movement. I like it though, because by splitting the rebooblican ticket it will insure more progressive legislation, which is dearly needed. Can you say single payor health insurance?
Ah navet. Less government is the reason our country became great. More government will be our downfall. Historical fact.
[quote=Magician]
A couple of things.
1) TARP was Bush's. However, the cost of TARP ends up being 50% less than S & L. And about 20% of what the original cost was thought to be.
2) Glenn Beck is an entertainer (again), but not an idiot. He may act like an idiot. But he is laughing all the way to the bank. Not stupid.
3) Bailouts are bad.
4) We're not turning into Russia, or France. Not yet anyway.
5) I have sympathy for people. But people need to pay for their mistakes. Part of the reason in the run up of home prices was because of the easy availability of credit. People who had no business making home purchases made home purchases. When I bought my house, I put 20% down, and the amount of principal I financed was less than my salary at the time. The issue is that people are not educated or responsible enough to make their own financial decisions. The banks preyed on these people. Sometimes this isn't possible for everyone and the rising rental rates(homes and apts) caused it to be more advantageous to purchase a home. Also what about people who put 20% down and now there home is worth 30% less and they lost their job(so your down payment just evaporated).
6) Why did the banks prey on these people? Well, regulations were loosened. While the banks did not HAVE to lend, they could easily assume that other banks would lend and make more money than they did. If every bank thought that, what did you think they would do? Lend. For sure. And wall street expected certain returns and in order to meet those you have to continue to make money.
We, as Americans like to bail people out. Nobody wants to see anybody fail. But we were also founded on personal responsibility. Don't buy what you can't afford. The issue with the people buying what they can't afford is the problem.
[/quote]
[quote=navet]
I am not a democrat, however I have become progressive after experiencing the debacle(both economically and socially) of the Chebey/Bush administration. Conservatives had their chance and blew it. Now we have teabaggers. Whenever a teabagger calls Obama socialist, I hear a white guy saying n-g--r. Agreed And that is repugnant to any thinking person. And since they are usually carrying a bible(figuratively or literally) it usually speaks volumes about the nature of christianity in America today.
[/quote]
[quote=Magician]
Also, how does being for individual rights and responsibilities make you racist?
[/quote]
Ask tea bagger favorite son Rand Paul.