AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Glenn Beck: "This president has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture, I don't know what it is."

This statement is more than just "seeing a racist component" to the president. Beck is falsely accusing the president of showing "over and over and over...a deep-seated hatred for white people."

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Glenn Beck: "This president has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture, I don't know what it is."

This statement is more than just "seeing a racist component" to the president. Beck is falsely accusing the president of showing "over and over and over...a deep-seated hatred for white people."

Again Beck's extrapolating it to a 'deep seated hatred for white people' is an opinion I don't share. But neither do I share the obvious prejudicial contempt that you, Freeduck, et al hold for Glenn Beck, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin et al, even though I do disagree with all of them on quite a few things.

So why is Beck holding and stating such an opinion of the President so much worse than the opinion that you and others hold of other people? Opinions that I see as not at all defensible but based purely on your perceptions?

And if it is okay to do it to Beck because he holds an opinion you don't share, why wouldn't it be okay for a group to organize and attack your means of livelihood and attempt to destroy you if you express opinions they don't like?

Or maybe honorable people might come to a conclusion that engaging in debate and refutation is appropriate, but it isn't okay to try to destroy people just because they express an unpopular opinion.

0 Replies

In other news, more related to American Conservatism,

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/25/sanford-impeachment-considered/

Quote:

South Carolina state house Republicans are meeting this weekend to discuss “what it would take to force the Republican governor out and how the process would work.”

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@parados,

ican's paraphrases of the Constitution to help you better understand what it says, are in blue

parados wrote:

1. you may think so but the courts and the constitution don't think so.

The Constitution says no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law: for example, without their day in court.

The Constitution says no person shall be deprived of his property without fair compensation: that is, without being paid what that property is worth; And a person's property includes a person's wealth.

2. There is NO LIMIT on what the federal government can levy. It has the ability to tax and there is NO LIMIT set anywhere in the constitution.

The Congress is limited to the power to lay and collect Taxes for the purpose of paying the USA's debts, provide for the COMMON Defense, and provide for the GENERAL welfare of the United States by doing 17 things stated in the Constitution.

3. Your argument goes against Court rulings. The COURT takes precedence over ican.

The COURT does not take precedence over what the Constitution actually says according to the founding fathers: for example, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison. The COURT is not empowered by the Constitution to legislate the law or amend the Constitution. The Constitution is "the supreme law of the land," not the COURT.

However, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison take precedence over ican, and ican takes precedence over parados.

4. What kind of nonsense is that statement? It makes no sense and you can't show me anywhere in the constitution where it requires that "general welfare" means securing rights. In fact there is NOTHING in the constitution about expenditures going to secure rights. Your argument violates the constitution.

Read the Declaration of Independence made by our founding fathers. It declares that governments are instituted among men to secure their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Read the Constitution's preamble. It says, among other things, that it is designed to promote the GENERAL welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Our GENERAL welfare is clearly promoted by securing our liberty

5. Yeah? and? The courts are not the legislature but the courts can rule on laws passed by the legislature. There is no instance of the court ruling that "transfer of wealth" is unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not specify anywhere that Congress and/or the President can "transfer wealth." The Constitution says what our government can do, what it must do, and what it cannot do. One of the things the Constitution says--in the 10th Amendment--the government cannot do is exercise powers the constitution does not delegate to the government.

Our government is not empowered to do anything that the Constitution does not say our government cannot do. Again, our government cannot do anything the Constitution does not say our government cannot do. Our government can do only that which the Constitution says it can do, or must do.

One more time, if the Constitution does not say our government can or must do something, then our government cannot lawfully do that something.

The Constitution does not say Congress and/or the President can "transfer wealth." Therefore the government cannot "transfer wealth."

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

As I said: it's the free market at work. As I'm sure that you'd be perfectly happy with the results listed in your link.... so you should be equally happy if Glenn Beck gets taken off the air. Nobody advocates censorship. It's a free marketplace of ideas. Glenn Beck can opine on TV that the President is a racist who hates white people, and people can tell advertisers that Glenn Beck is a hatemonger. You still like the idea of free speech, don't you?

1 Reply

This poor woman's husband, who has a traumatic brain injury, was sent home from the nursing home with a feeding tube. Her health insurance won't provide the medical coverage he needs for rehabilitation. This woman is desperate for help and is crying. Senator Coburn stated he, as an individual, would see what he could do to help her, and that people should rely on their neighbors (apparently like him) but not on their government to resolve the healthcare crisis.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In other news, more related to American Conservatism,

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/25/sanford-impeachment-considered/

Quote:
South Carolina state house Republicans are meeting this weekend to discuss “what it would take to force the Republican governor out and how the process would work.”

Cycloptichorn

I don't know why those damn do-gooder Republicans want to destroy this man in his livelihood simply because he took a vacation--after all, Obama takes vacations all the time. MUHAHAHAHA.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In other news, more related to American Conservatism,

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/25/sanford-impeachment-considered/

Quote:
South Carolina state house Republicans are meeting this weekend to discuss “what it would take to force the Republican governor out and how the process would work.”

Cycloptichorn

It is a conservative concept however to remove people from office who have violated the public trust to the extent that they have become ineffective or unsuitable for their jobs or are engaged in unlawful activities.

The conservative policial cartoonists have also not been kind to Sanford.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0625wj20090625032524.jpg

It is not unlike Ican's opinion that Obama should be impeached precisely because he has violated the public trust to the extent that he is ineffective or unsuitable for his job and/or is engaged in unlawful activities.

It is important to understand that it is not because either Governor Sanford or President Obama have expressed unpopular points of view. It is because both have been engaged in activities that are deemed inappropriate and unacceptable however very different such activities have been for each man.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

As I said: it's the free market at work. As I'm sure that you'd be perfectly happy with the results listed in your link.... so you should be equally happy if Glenn Beck gets taken off the air. Nobody advocates censorship. It's a free marketplace of ideas. Glenn Beck can opine on TV that the President is a racist who hates white people, and people can tell advertisers that Glenn Beck is a hatemonger. You still like the idea of free speech, don't you?

free speech yes, deliberate attempts at censorship, no.

Just remember this event the next time a group tries to censor someone you agree with instead of some one you disagree with.

*(This does not mean that I agree with Beck and in no way constitutes any sort of approval. I don't watch him by choice and that's censorship enough for me.)

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

I don't watch Beck often and I don't believe ever watched intentionally, but I have inadvertently watched enough, and heard him enough on the radio, to know pretty much what he is all about. Sometimes he really is over the top or into an area I can't buy into, and sometimes he has some great video, interesting guests, provocative content. He is much more pessimistic than I am about the future of our country, and he is into conspiracy theories much more than I find plausible, but he usually is entertaining.

0 Replies

This probably has already been pointed out about the Glenn Beck situation (as well as about Imus and Maher). Free speech does not guarantee that your television show will be underwritten by large corporations.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

No. Nor does it mean that it won't be attacked by mean spirited, hateful, and intolerant a-holes who think their opinion is the only one that should be tolerated and who think it is okay to organize intimidate advertisers with thousands of emails sent by people who probably don't know who Glenn Beck is and have never heard or seen his program ever.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No. Nor does it mean that it won't be attacked by mean spirited, hateful, and intolerant a-holes who think their opinion is the only one that should be tolerated and who think it is okay to organize intimidate advertisers with thousands of emails sent by people who probably don't know who Glenn Beck is and have never heard or seen his program ever.

It sounds like you are being mean-spirited, hateful, and intolerant towards those who are organizing the boycott. How do you feel comfortable knocking them for expressing their opinion, while defending Beck for expressing his?

And please don't say that Beck isn't trying to stir up resistance to Obama and his plans, b/c you know very well he is doing exactly this, every single day, on his show. He is doing the same thing the boycott organizers are doing to him. Ain't America grand?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

If it was their opinion they would write to Beck and give him a piece of their mind. if it was their opinion they wouldn't need to be 'organized'. They don't have a clue who Glenn Beck is or what he is all about. They are following a leader who intends to destroy him.

And where I come from that's wrong and decent people will stand up and say so..

4 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

If it was their opinion they would write to Beck and give him a piece of their mind.

Oh, come on. Like Beck gives two shits about mean letters written to him. This would be pointless.

Quote:

if it was their opinion they wouldn't need to be 'organized'.

Oh really? I guess you agree with me that all those people at town halls were fake, and didn't really oppose health care; after all, they were organized by Glenn Beck and Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity. If they really had their own opinions, they wouldn't need to be organized.

Rolling Eyes

Quote:

They don't have a clue who Glenn Beck is or what he is all about. They are following a leader who intends to destroy him.

You don't have a clue what they know or don't. I guarantee that I've watched more Glenn Beck than you have; how can you tell me, or describe people you've never met, as 'not having a clue' about someone who you yourself admit you've had very limited interaction with? Ridiculous. You are casting aspersions with no data to back them up at all.

Quote:

And where I come from that's wrong.

Where I come from, blanket indictments of groups with no evidence to support the allegations are wrong.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

If it was their opinion they would write to Beck and give him a piece of their mind. if it was their opinion they wouldn't need to be 'organized'. They don't have a clue who Glenn Beck is or what he is all about. They are following a leader who intends to destroy him.

And where I come from that's wrong and decent people will stand up and say so..

I really find your response, this response very interesting.

From where I come, people say: take the plank out of your own eye ...

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

It is a conservative concept however to remove people from office who have violated the public trust to the extent that they have become ineffective or unsuitable for their jobs or are engaged in unlawful activities.

It is a conservative concept however to remove people from office who have ... engaged in unlawful activities. AND, it is a valid concept.

To whomever it may concern!

The federal government cannot lawfully do anything the Constitution does not say it can do, or does not say it must do.
The federal government cannot lawfully do anything the Constitution does say it cannot do.

The "transfer of wealth" is defined herein to consist of taking property from those persons who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those persons who did not lawfully earn it.

The Constitution does not say the federal government can "transfer wealth."
The Constitution does not say the federal government must "transfer wealth."
The Constitution therefore does logically imply via its 10th Amendment that the federal government cannot "transfer wealth."

Quote:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

A power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution is a power the federal government of the Uited States does not lawfully have.

The federal government has not been delegated by the Constitution the power to "transfer wealth."

Thus, the federal government does not possess the legal power to "transfer wealth."

Therefore, the federal government cannot lawfully "transfer wealth."

Any member of the federal government that assists in the "transfer of wealth" is violating the Constitution, and is thereby violating the law.

The Stimulus bill transfers wealth.

In signing the Stimulus Bill, President Obama violated the law.

Because President Obama violated the law, he should be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The Stimulus bill transfers wealth.

So does any law that involves the expenditure of money. In that respect, how does the stimulus bill differ from any other expenditure bill?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

If it was their opinion they would write to Beck and give him a piece of their mind. if it was their opinion they wouldn't need to be 'organized'. They don't have a clue who Glenn Beck is or what he is all about. They are following a leader who intends to destroy him.

And where I come from that's wrong and decent people will stand up and say so..

I really find your response, this response very interesting.

From where I come, people say: take the plank out of your own eye ...

The plank out of my own eye?

Please show me anyplace where I EVER suggested that any radical rightwing or any other wing group or any group at all organize an effort to destroy the livelihood of somebody purely as punishment for expressing an opinion.

1 Reply

Glen Beck says he thinks Obama is contributing to the unlawful process of destroying our Republic. Beck also thinks we all should commit ourselves to lawfully preventing Obama from destroying our Republic.

Glen beck has said he is an independent liberatarian.

Beck's radio and TV allegations about Obama are rapidly building him a very large audiance.

For me, the problem with Beck's TV show is, it is interupted too often for too long with advertisements.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know