AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

When you say something like "Obama is violating the Constitution by transferring wealth.. . ." etc., I think that just sounds nuts and extremist to the far Leftists, Obama worshippers, and numbnuts who have no clue re the principles involved. (In fairness to you, they wouldn't discuss it if they did have a clue but would do their damndest to make sure no discussion took place

It has been pointed out a number of times to ican that his statement has no merit based on the Constitution. He is the one that refuses to discuss it.
1. Taxation and spending is NOT 'transferring wealth" and no court would say it is in violation of the Constitution.
2. Taxation and spending do NOT violate the Constitution.
3. General Welfare is part of the Constitution and has been ruled as a Constitutional reason for spending.
4. General Welfare does not require that ALL persons benefit from an expenditure.
5. It is the court that decides WHAT is Constitutional. Ican refuses to accept this which is in the constitution.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

33 advertisers have now dropped Beck.

Well I don't know whether it's 33 but isn't it great? Beck's ratings are sky rocketing, Fox hasn't lost any advertisers, but to get off Beck's show, cowardly advertisers are disavowing any intent to advertise on ANY political talk shows which means they are also pulling their advertising off the minimal audience and struggling shows and truly hate TV on NBC, MSNBC, CNN etc.

The law of unintended consequences is kicking in. Beck is thriving while ColorofChange may just shut down the Left's favorite channels of hate TV.

You gotta love it.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

The funny thing is News Corp, the parent company of Fox lost $1.29 per share last quarter but GE, the parent company of MSNBC made $1.34 per share.

Murdoch can lose money for a while but eventually he has to make some to keep Fox going. The law of unintended consequences is that Beck can have great ratings but if Murdoch can't sell ad space then Beck will be gone because Murdoch can't lose money forever.

It looks like Murdoch is already having to dump parts of his empire in the report that the Dow Jones Index is up for sale.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Your alleged 33 advertiser that have now dropped Beck have now been replaced by my alleged 34 advertisers that have replaced them.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

It's funny that ColorofChange--it's founder is now one of Obama's advisors--cited Best Buy and Wal-mart as advertisers who dropped Glenn Beck. Both have publically stated that they do advertise on Fox but in intentional morning slots only and neither have ever advertised on Glenn Beck. But I bet they're among Blatham's alleged 33. Very Happy

Those companies like General Electric who are trying to capitalize by clinging to Obama's coattails may start bailing out soon. I mention GE because it owns NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC and has all under orders not to directly criticize Obama or his programs. But maybe the biggest non-financial corporation fully in bed with Obama, it does heavily advertise on its own networks and could take a beating with the ColorofChange anti-free speech and hate campaign.

And I wonder if an organized and effective 'defend Glenn Beck' backlash might not so severely impact on other networks--you know those that call everybody else racist and worse with impunity up to now--that pressure won't be brought to bear by Obama and company to call off the dogs.

Quote:

General Electric: Up, down or sideways?
Posted Jul 2nd 2009 2:45PM by Alex Salkever
Filed under: General Electric (GE), Recession

After a nifty rebound off a 52-week low of $5.73, industrial and financial services giant General Electric (NYSE: GE) is in a weird place. The company's shares are trading at around $11.75, which is well below the $15 levels achieved in early May. This would seem odd as GE appears to be well positioned for the Green Shoots Scenario. The company has a big presence in alternative energy, health care solutions, and industrial products -- all big beneficiaries of both the Obama stimulus package and a nascent economic rebound.

So why does the market seem to be scared of GE? A couple of key reasons. First, GE's investments in commercial real estate (CRE) are looking increasingly toxic as the rate of CRE failures soars and CRE debt remains difficult to roll over.

Second, the airline industry is looking extremely vulnerable and that represents a large chunk of business to GE on both the industrial and the financial services side. . . ..

. . . . GE Capital, GE's finance arm, has participated in other Federal guarantee programs, including the U.S. Government's Commercial Paper Funding Facility and FDIC's Temporary Loan Guarantee Program, called the CPFF and TLGP respectively. According to Bloomberg, GE Capital was one of the first participants in the CPFF. According to The Washington Post, GE Capital is the largest TLGP recipient.

The pros and cons of GE line up evenly. Piqqem Sentiment for GE has been trending bullish for the past few weeks. On the other hand, the problems in commercial real estate are very hard to fathom and could be nearly on par with the problems with the residential mortgage market. At a price-to-earnings ratio of 7.28, GE seems extremely cheap by historical standards.

Then again, it has been the worst performing stock in the in the Dow Jones in 2009, declining by a whopping 22-plus percent in one of the biggest bull markets ever. That's a hard tide to swim against, even for contrarians, and particularly in an environment when other value plays boast higher dividends and cleaner balance sheets.
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/07/02/general-electric-up-down-or-sideways-ok-to-post-melly/

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

So, just curious, you are okay with Beck saying that Obama is a racist and has a deep seated hatred for white people? Or are you saying you disagree with that but agree with his other opinions so it's ok?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

It has been pointed out a number of times to ican that his statement has no merit based on the Constitution. He is the one that refuses to discuss it.
1. Taxation and spending is NOT 'transferring wealth" and no court would say it is in violation of the Constitution.
2. Taxation and spending do NOT violate the Constitution.
3.General Welfare is part of the Constitution and has been ruled as a Constitutional reason for spending.
4. General Welfare does not require that ALL persons benefit from an expenditure.
5. It is the court that decides WHAT is Constitutional. Ican refuses to accept this which is in the constitution.

(1)Transfering taxes paid by tax payers to other persons who did not lawfully earn it, is most certainly a transfer of wealth.
(2) That portion of taxes that the federal government levies, but has not been granted the power by the Constitution to levy, violates the Constitution. That portion of tax spending that the federal government spends, but has not been granted the power by the Constitution to spend, violates the Constitution.
(3) To "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" is a part of the Constitution and is a Constitutional reason for spending. But providing for the general welfare of selected persons is not a part of the Constitution and is not a reason for spending, even though the federal courts have unlawfully granted themselves the power to amend the Constitution, and have unlawfully ruled that providing for the general welfare of selected persons is a part of the Constitution.
(4) Providing for the "General Welfare of the United States" does require that the security of the rights of ALL Americans shall be increased by expenditures providing for the general welfare of the United States.
(5) "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." but shall not extend to the power of legislating the law or amending the Constitution.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican wrote:"

Quote:

Your alleged 33 advertiser that have now dropped Beck have now been replaced by my alleged 34 advertisers that have replaced them. "

Still, not to worry. If more sponsers cancel on Beck , Rupert could just follow the model currently favored by the current government administration: subsidize (Paul) Beck with the advertising from his other (Peter) shows on the Fox network ,which seem to be extremely popular. If necessary, Murdock may even charge those sponsers a bit more if the market would so allow (a tax if you will). Admittedly,this analogy, is somewhat flawed since such actions by Murdock are entirely constitional (so far) whereas those of this adminstration are just beginning to be questioned by American tax payers.

A fateful twist here? The birth of our great nation was sponsered by the French nation. Could it be that an Australian capitalist will help persuade Americans to retake their national birthright?

JM

3 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

So, just curious, you are okay with Beck saying that Obama is a racist and has a deep seated hatred for white people? Or are you saying you disagree with that but agree with his other opinions so it's ok?

I believe that the evidence is clear as demonstrated in Obama's own books, by virtue of his own statements, and by virtue of his sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years while being 'unaware' of its strong black liberation theology message and racial overtones, and most recently by his reaction to the "Professor Gates' incident, that President Obama holds deep seated racist views and opinions. So in that sense, I say yes, President Obama is racist.

Racism however can be overt or benign, destructive or of little or no consequence, hateful or harmless.

I don't know whether Beck is correct that such racism as the President has demonstrated translates to a "deep seated hatred of white people' or not. I have not personally arrived at that conclusion. But whether it does or not, it is purely a personal opinion. It is not calling for anybody to boycott something or do harm to anybody or trash somebody's family including their kids. It is not accusing somebody of a crime or an attempt to use false witness or threats or intimidation to destroy somebody politically or create disaffection among somebody's friends and associates or destroy somebody financially.

In the grand scheme of things, when you see the pure unadulterated hatred, scorn, ridicule, and visciousness directed at a George W. Bush or a John McCain or a Trent Lott or a Sarah Palin--many of these with racial overtones--with nary a strong murmur of objection about that from anybody on the Left, many of whom joined in and defended it, the principle of free speech was evoked every time it happened.

For the Left to then condone--even cheer--a political activist group intent on destroying a television talk show guy because he used the "R" word re the President--that same political activist group whose founder is now an advisor to the President--just strikes me as a double standard so unfair as to be disgusting and reprehensible.

So what do you think?

(I do think Beck in retrospect would have chosen his words more carefully and now wishes he hadn't stirred up that particular hornets nest.)

2 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

Hi James. Welcome back. I thought we had lost you. Smile

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

ican wrote:"
Quote:
Your alleged 33 advertiser that have now dropped Beck have now been replaced by my alleged 34 advertisers that have replaced them. "

Still, not to worry. If more sponsers cancel on Beck , Rupert could just follow the model currently favored by the current government administration: subsidize (Paul) Beck with the advertising from his other (Peter) shows on the Fox network ,which seem to be extremely popular. If necessary, Murdock may even charge those sponsers a bit more if the market would so allow (a tax if you will). Admittedly,this analogy, is somewhat flawed since such actions by Murdock are entirely constitional (so far) whereas those of this adminstration are just beginning to be questioned by American tax payers.

A fateful twist here? The birth of our great nation was sponsered by the French nation. Could it be that an Australian capitalist will help persuade Americans to retake their national birthright?

JM

I was reading one commentary recently, somebody who obviously was not all that fond of Glenn Beck, but who recognized the real damage that the attack dogs going after Beck are also doing to all their own favorite radical left talkshow people. And he also mentioned that Beck's ratings are soaring to new heights due to all the publicity and that is increasing Fox News' fortunes in various ways, and at the very least fewer advertisements on the Beck show give him more time to talk. Smile

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

1. you may think so but the courts and the constitution don't think so.
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.
3. Your argument goes against Court rulings. The COURT takes precedence over ican.
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.
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.

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

Except that Fox is losing money James as is News Corp.

You can't subsidize one part of the company with profits from another when the ENTIRE COMPANY is LOSING MONEY. Anyone should realize that. I'm sure Murdoch will.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

if by whiskey... if by racism...

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

So what do you think?

I think that the idea that the president is a racist and has a deep seated hatred for white people is absurd on its face and a hateful accusation that feeds the fears of people who are not happy to have a black president. I think (hope) it is right wing fringe talk that should not have a place in mainstream discourse. I am surprised that you would agree with even the racist portion of the statement. But personally I think they should allow Beck to spiral out of control on the air until he self-destructs.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

And I think that your view that there is no other possible motive for Beck's opinion and that therefore he must base it on the fact that the President is black or that Beck is not happy with a black President is in itself a racist view.

Remember that the discussion was within the context of President Obama's public reaction to Professor Gates' arrest. Obama immediately saw racism and didn't consider any other possible reason for the arrest. There are simply too many such incidents in President Obama's record to dismiss them all as irrelevent. Even conservative blacks have raised the issue more than once.

As I said, I think Beck is seeing it as more extreme than it probably is. But that is Beck's perception and he is being demonized for it, even as you folks defend the President's racist response re Professor Gates.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And I think that your view that there is no other possible motive for Beck's opinion and that therefore he must base it on the fact that the President is black or that Beck is not happy with a black President is in itself a racist view.

Remember that the discussion was within the context of President Obama's public reaction to Professor Gates' arrest. Obama immediately saw racism and didn't consider any other possible reason for the arrest.

I find your attitude that Obama is 'racist' to be disgusting and revealing. It means you've bought into the shallowest and worst analysis, the kind you regularly knocked when applied to Bush.

I think FD is purely and 100% correct on this one. How sad.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm sure you do. You have yet to fail to defend the President in every absurd statement he has made. You have yet to fail to defend anybody else who will defend him. You have yet to fail to excoriate or express disgust for anybody who doesn't see it as you see it.

But the bottom line is that the double standard is alive and well. The Left will do their damndest to destroy Beck even as they defend or let slide those on their side who have said far far worse.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

For instance, was the Rev. Jesse Jackson 'racist' in this statement?

Quote:

Some years ago, the Rev. Jesse Jackson complained, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/08/19/is_racial_profiling_racist?page=full&comments=true

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And I think that your view that there is no other possible motive for Beck's opinion and that therefore he must base it on the fact that the President is black or that Beck is not happy with a black President is in itself a racist view.

Except that's clearly not what I said. I don't profess to know Beck's motive, but the effects of his words are what I'm talking about. You seem to want to modify the definition of racist to be "someone who perceives racism". You muddle definitions of words at your own risk.

Quote:

Remember that the discussion was within the context of President Obama's public reaction to Professor Gates' arrest. Obama immediately saw racism and didn't consider any other possible reason for the arrest. There are simply too many such incidents in President Obama's record to dismiss them all as irrelevent. Even conservative blacks have raised the issue more than once.

Even if he "immediately saw racism" that doesn't make him a racist with a deep seated hatred of white people.

Quote:

As I said, I think Beck is seeing it as more extreme than it probably is. But that is Beck's perception and he is being demonized for it, even as you folks defend the President's racist response re Professor Gates.

I don't think his response was racist. He may have jumped to conclusions or been defending a friend, both of which are mistakes but neither of which are racist. And if Beck is allowed his perception then so am I. And I think Beck is a paranoid douche bag.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know