Just saw this:
Awesome! No more proof needed that he is Grand Cyclops of the Tinfoil Brigade.
Epic Seduction Fail. Try to read her thoughts of him on her face.
Glenn Beck screaming like a girl getting dumped by the Jonas Brothers. Starts at 3:38 for the preliminary screams but the epic yell comes at 3:52. It's really worth watching from the beginning.
Beck finally meets his master ... or rather mistress. Hard to believe but it's possible to outcrazy even him. Michele Bachmann's insane ramblings are too much even for Beck.
Potato, potatoe.
Dan 'Confucious' Quayle
The only problem Goldberg has is that everyone he's interviewed by is a damned idiot.
The classical definition of liberal is based on the origin of the word, liberty. The group in US politics that defines that would be the libertarians. They are both socially and fiscally hands off. The government should be as small as possible, only doing that which is necessity. By necessity, they mean actual necessity, not these horse shit excuses we keep making these days. A defense force is necessity, a highway system is probably necessity, much further than that and you're shit out of luck.
The self ascribed modern liberal is no such thing. They are the exact opposite of liberty, as they continually tell people how to do things. It's supposedly for their own good, but you cannot take control from the populace and be a classical liberal at the same time. They claim to be liberals because those evil conservatives have all them irritating moral issues. What they really mean is they want buttsex, open borders, etcetera. They are however going to tell you how to raise your kids, who you can hire, what kind of church you can have, the list goes on. Pushing for organic foods is yet another thing the state is trying to tell you to do. Any compulsory requirement is the opposite of liberty. The dissolution of the flop house was an infringment on liberty, rent control is an infringment on liberty, our needing a permit and a perc test to stick a septic system on 780 acres is an infringment on liberty. Control and freedom are incompatible.
Classical liberalism died in this country with the rise of the progressive movement in the late 1800's, and it hasn't resurrected since. That progressive movement was the rise of fascism in Europe and communism in Russia. Your education sucks though, so you never learned that they were all the same brand of trash with minor differences. The only pertinent difference between them was their level of success. All of them led to more dominant central governments, less liberty.
Instead of expressing disbelief that anyone believes Beck, you should delve into history for yourself. You needn't go back very far, freedom has had a rather brief, and likely soon to be gone stint. It's not even hard to find the information. All you have to do is avoid your school text books, they're approved by those same wolves pretending to be sheep. You could try some economics while you're at it, truly depressing how well that brain washing has taken.
Uh-huh.
So your fear of buttsex drives your hate against liberals?
And conservatives want to uphold values of living but are against being told how to raise their kids?
Strange. I always had the impression that it was conservatives trying to protect their kiddies from the dangers of buttsex. By the force of law.
But kidding aside: Compulsory requirements (such as laws) aren't the opposite of liberty. They are the borders in which liberty can thrive. Some might argue that borders are nothing but a cage and liberty doesn't exist inside a cage. But unlimited freedom is nothing but chaos. We have this proverb "Your freedom ends where someone elses freedom begins". Rules define where freedom ends. "Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal.".
Ok, demanding that you eat organic foods is not on the same level as not killing your neighbour - and some liberal ideas are as whacky to me (in my case veganism - i assume that's liberal, too) as some viewpoints of the conservative tinfoil brigade - but trying to change the rules of the country doesn't make them fascists.
Oh, and thank you for telling us that our (or my) education sucks. I thought that was funny coming from an american and I had a good laugh.
Let's share buttsex some time.
I knew that would the first comeback. Bait a hook, works every time.
Kinda depends on the proposed rules, wouldn't ya think?
uh huh ... like patriot act vs. legalizing buttsex marriage?
let's see, one promotes individual freedom, the other limits them ... hmm.
I knew that the first rebuttal would be some helpless shit to avoid defending a lost talking point.
Predictable as always. You can't actually read anything that disagrees with your viewpoint or it would be obvious that I just trashed both sides for being control freaks. I despise federalists in general, liberals are just the more dangerous of the two to me personally.
"Classical liberalism died in this country with the rise of the progressive movement in the late 1800's, and it hasn't resurrected since."
If it's been dead for over a century, it obviously can't be one of the two parties that have frequently held power since. If conservatives actually were conservatives, marriage licenses would be a violation of the peoples rights. If the right to have a family isn't one of the unlisted rights, there aren't any. By definition, anyone that wants the state to control who can get a marriage license has already breeched the requirements for being a real conservative by accepting that government should have anything to do with it at all.
Your argument against unrestricted liberty on the otherhand is quite wonderful. Unfortunately, you fail to grasp it entirely or you wouldn't be posting such nonsense. Everything the progressive movement has accomplished has been an infringment on one persons liberty to "help" someone else. The entire concept of progressing society through government is that you force people to behave in a way you think they should. It is the opposite of personal liberty. That nearly every accomplishment has been catastrophic to the target would be poetic if it weren't so damned sad.
Actually, I'm for both. Not that it matters to you.
Aroddo, off topic but I find your posting style pretty repulsive at times.
Sort of an.. I'm so clever attitude.
detracts hugely from any point you might be trying to make I'm afraid.
It's sort of like when someone says.. I don't smell.. leave it to others to let u know how smelly... or clever.. you might be.
My 2c.
Aroddo... this is way out of line. No one should post {as vStyler so rightly put it} repulsive stuff like this. You need to back off language and hateful language like this.
v...thanks for seeing this first and saying something. I'm surprised the Mods haven't lit into this.
In fairness to Aroddo, he was quoting psychoak.
Then why are they laboring so hard to proscribe how we live our lives? What we should think? What we should say? What we can't say? Being illiberal in the name of liberalism makes no sense, unless liberalism (defined as individual freedom, anyway) is not the goal.
No difference imo.
Excellent...then you're going to love the government plan just fine.
Bravo! And the general (0-10) only has to give 30+ years (He/she could retire @ 20 years but would be lucky to have made Colonel in that amount of time) while the congressman gets his 174K for being a noob. Sure the general gets housing, so does the congressmen while in DC. Oh and that congressman... he doesn't have to serve for 20 years to a pension, just win one re-election and he's covered for life. Also if an officer is past over for promotion 3 times (at any point of his career) he goes home. I know it's not a pesky re-election, but hey. Your noob congressmen gets the same vacation as a career congressmen, about 3 or 4 months off for the year. That general gets the same vacation as a private - 30 days a year. Also check your congressman's perks, his/hers medical is the same as it is when active and after they retire. The General has to go to the VA. Lets recap:
Congressman General (0-10)
pay $174k starting day 1 - increase each year $184K after doing 30+ years adjusted annually by congress
retirement Full retirement after 2 terms (8 yrs.) retirement at 20yrs. but nowhere close to reaching 0 -10
paid vacation months 30 days
Housing Paid for while in DC full housing on base, allowance if off base
perks all the military gets, plus military, Medicaid upon 65 years old (usually the age @ retirement)
Allowances ????? Best kept secret in DC Based on location, special skills or status
You decide which is more valuable
Because czars are not vetted by congress. Heck, you could end up with a racist, communist as part of the presidents policy making advisors...wait... isn't that want happened? What's next? Appoint a tax cheat as secretary of the treasury? Oh wait that happened too! But at least the tax cheats in Congress got the final say on that one.
It's true Obama ended the already won Iraq War....my hero. His "focus" on Afghanistan is winning him scores of followers in his own party...not. But it must be nice that media such as NBC doesn't show the anti- war protesters like they did so often for Bush. Good to have GE in your back pocket Mr. President.
Sorry for all the catch up posts...back from Bahrain.
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/04/14/tomo/index.html
Beck's chosen style is to be humorous and over-the-top, just as Limbaugh's is to be pompous and self-righteous. This is done simply to irritate the left. Clearly, it works like a charm, because no matter how they try to marginalize them, or how often they say these men should just be ignored, they, themselves seem incapapable of doing either.
Many, especially younger, people get their "news" from "pundits" such as Jay Leno, David Letterman, Janenne Garofalo, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Is Beck really any better or worse?
Yea... I think so
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
