The loons here keep calling him a racist, but it’s pretty clear he is anything but.

“Yet we suspect we’ll have to revoke it after his upcoming rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the “I Have a Dream” speech anniversary.”

Wow, no prejudice there, eh?

Well, Beck has already alienated “the jews”.

Props to Beck though for somehow managing to take one of the most liberal people of the 20th century and twisting him into some form of conservative icon.

See, there is no need for this screed we constantly hear that decrying discrimination against African-Americans, we are somehow promoting discrimination against Whites. It was always silly, and this belies it.

m said:
Props to Beck though for somehow managing to take one of the most liberal people of the 20th century and twisting him into some form of conservative icon.

MLK was not liberal, even though many have been attempting to cast him as such. He was a christian first activist who fought bravely to uphold the Christian values that America was founded on. And he fought in a way that was consistent with his christian values. He should be a shining example to everyone, but is especially one to conservatives, who forgot that they were supposed to be conserving the principles that led to the founding of America and not the status quo.

m said:
Well, Beck has already alienated “the jews”. Props to Beck though for somehow managing to take one of the most liberal people of the 20th century and twisting him into some form of conservative icon.

MLK was a freaking life long registered Republican you moron.

atreyue said:
MLK was not liberal, even though many have been attempting to cast him as such. He was a christian first activist who fought bravely to uphold the Christian values that America was founded on. And he fought in a way that was consistent with his christian values. He should be a shining example to everyone, but is especially one to conservatives, who forgot that they were supposed to be conserving the principles that led to the founding of America and not the status quo.

Huzzah for rewriting history!

timzank said:
MLK was a freaking life long registered Republican you moron.

Republicans have not always been extreme rightists, however. That really did not begin until Raygun’s Southern Strategy resulted in an influx of Crackers.

The Real Royal King said:
See, there is no need for this screed we constantly hear that decrying discrimination against African-Americans, we are somehow promoting discrimination against Whites. It was always silly, and this belies it.

They are 2 completely separate issues, and should be dealt with as such. I agree with the substance of your statement, if not the application.

Snipzor said:
Huzzah for rewriting history!

Sinpzor, I have to disagree with you there. There is no question that the Rev. Dr. King was far more guided by his Christian belief and practice than ideology. What we tend to forget is there was a time when racism and Republicanism were not synonomous. In fact, they were once anything but.

atreyue said:
They are 2 completely separate issues, and should be dealt with as such. I agree with the substance of your statement, if not the application.

You are correct.

The Real Royal King said:
Sinpzor, I have to disagree with you there. There is no question that the Rev. Dr. King was far more guided by his Christian belief and practice than ideology. What we tend to forget is there was a time when racism and Republicanism were not synonomous. In fact, they were once anything but.

I was referring to the last bit where conservatism was about the constitution and not the status quo.

Snipzor said:
I was referring to the last bit where conservatism was about the constitution and not the status quo.

I think I’m supposed to point out something here about Lincoln being Republican and using the spirit of the constitution to overturn slavery, which is clearly not in keeping with the spirit of Christianity and all men being created equal. Then I’m supposed to say something about how if you were able to stop being so combative, you’d realize that what I said is more an indictment of conservatism for going astray from what it should have been than an attempt to condone conservatism.

Just in case you missed it, I believe that the constitution itself was an attempt to CONSERVE the spirit of Christianity

Snipzor said:
I was referring to the last bit where conservatism was about the constitution and not the status quo.

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

m said:
Well, Beck has already alienated “the jews”.

Props to Beck though for somehow managing to take one of the most liberal people of the 20th century and twisting him into some form of conservative icon.

Yes, a God-fearing Black Republican is pretty much your worst nightmare, isn’t he?

“File under things you can’t make up” Glynnis MacNichol

Please forgive them Glynnis. Ever since WaPo’s Ezra Klein shut down Journolist, the Left has been in bit of disarray about what and what not to censor.

atreyue said:
I think I’m supposed to point out something here about Lincoln being Republican and using the spirit of the constitution to overturn slavery, which is clearly not in keeping with the spirit of Christianity and all men being created equal. Then I’m supposed to say something about how if you were able to stop being so combative, you’d realize that what I said is more an indictment of conservatism for going astray from what it should have been than an attempt to condone conservatism.

Just in case you missed it, I believe that the constitution itself was an attempt to CONSERVE the spirit of Christianity

Yea, conservatism is a global ideology of protecting the status quo, you can pretend that it means conserving the constitution, but that doesn’t mean much when the constitution is an interpretive document. If conservatism meant truly what you meant, then any interpretation of said constitution would be conservative, even the ones you disagree with. Segregationists and anti-segregationists were both conservative because they both argued it was in the constitution.

Now that this has been said, I shall repeat my first statement. Conservatism is an ideology of protecting the status quo against social/economic progress (Progress being any step forward into new ideology/territory, and since we’re talking about civil rights here, moving away from the slave era was definitely new territory). As for the addition of Christian mythology into this, it would be foolish to bother, because many Christians (Also the majority of the southern Christians along with the dixiecrats, a far-right wing segregationist party) also used the bible to argue against integration.

The Real Royal King said:
See, there is no need for this screed we constantly hear that decrying discrimination against African-Americans, we are somehow promoting discrimination against Whites.

Who is this “we” you speak of? You got a mouse in your pocket?

timzank said:
MLK was a freaking life long registered Republican you moron.

atreyue said:
MLK was not liberal, even though many have been attempting to cast him as such. He was a christian first activist who fought bravely to uphold the Christian values that America was founded on. And he fought in a way that was consistent with his christian values. He should be a shining example to everyone, but is especially one to conservatives, who forgot that they were supposed to be conserving the principles that led to the founding of America and not the status quo.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Very liberal, my friend; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srJu_4LqCrk
Furthermore, in the last book he wrote “Where do we go from here; chaos or community”, King made a call for a guaranteed income. Christian? yes!!!! conservative? NO!!!!!!!! King was a Republican in the sense of Lincoln and Eisenhower meaning he didn’t care about parties but rather looked at whose agenda would be most beneficial to his cause. He expressed support for Nixon, Kennedy and Johnson based on their positions on civil rights. That’s called being an educated citizen. Try it sometime.

The Real Royal King said:
What we tend to forget is there was a time when racism and Republicanism were not synonomous.

Yes, and it continues. Though I suspect the time that you’re talking about is the one where the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.

What status quo? Be specific.

Economic slavery is not progress.

Our Founders made progress when they created this nation and when they finally confronted slavery. Going backwards to a dictatorship or some form of statism is certainly not progress.

Let me see if I have this right. The “white owned” Conservative Washington Post (that just sucked up to Fox yesterday about the “bogus” NBPP) sponsored The Root. And they said that Beck is the 2nd Whitest Man in America.

I think I’ll post this on another site. Nothing like a Good laugh for the masses.

After all the Damage that SOB has done he needs to show African Americans in a positive light.

Sarah Pay-lin stanidng next to him pretending he’s trying to bring people TOGETHER is hilarious. This is hilarious. I’m posting this all over the Internet.

OMG!! Anything to protect their racist.

Snipzor said:
Yea, conservatism is a global ideology of protecting the status quo, you can pretend that it means conserving the constitution, but that doesn’t mean much when the constitution is an interpretive document. If conservatism meant truly what you meant, then any interpretation of said constitution would be conservative, even the ones you disagree with. Segregationists and anti-segregationists were both conservative because they both argued it was in the constitution.

Now that this has been said, I shall repeat my first statement. Conservatism is an ideology of protecting the status quo against social/economic progress (Progress being any step forward into new ideology/territory, and since we’re talking about civil rights here, moving away from the slave era was definitely new territory). As for the addition of Christian mythology into this, it would be foolish to bother, because many Christians (Also the majority of the southern Christians along with the dixiecrats, a far-right wing segregationist party) also used the bible to argue against integration.

Conservatives only care about the constitution when it is convenient for them. When Judge Andrew Napolitano said that the Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional, he was shunned from fox, yet when he said the same of the health care bill, he was there with bells on. Bill O’Reilly became pissed when he said that Obama judging the terrorists in New York was the constitutional thing to do. The GOP was willing to ignore the constitution to introduce a bill of attainder aimed at ACORN. It’s nothing but talk.

Oops 2nd Whitest Black Man in America. And all the haters are jumping up and Down. Now Black Folks lets vote on what the “white owned” Washington Post said about Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck cares about Blacks as much as Reverend Wright cares about Whites.

Mr B said:
What status quo? Be specific.

Economic slavery is not progress.

Our Founders made progress when they created this nation and when they finally confronted slavery. Going backwards to a dictatorship or some form of statism is certainly not progress.

Since the topic at hand is civil rights, let’s talk about the mass institutionalize racism that has forced black men and women out of going to the same schools as whites. Status quo at the time meant preserving that. Or right now, DADT is status quo for institutionalize homophobia, or the current treatment of Muslims in America. Shall we go on? Any preservation of this is status quo, and if anything, the wage freeze since the late 1980′s is economic slavery, but it is very sweet of you to try and argue against that.

Also, you state going forwards, as if you completely missed the point, which you did. Let me repeat it, new territory. If everyone getting healthcare from the taxes you pay anyways is really slavery and dictatorship even though a party was put into office for that reason, then I don’t think a discussion with you will carry any actual merit.

yweston said:
Glenn Beck cares about Blacks as much as Reverend Wright cares about Whites.

Van Jones, is that you?

How can you say that after watching all those black history specials on Glenn’s show? Great stuff by the way. Did you notice how he showed the progressive agenda to hide that side of history and keep blacks on the progressive plantation? Back to slavery……Progress!

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Conservatives only care about the constitution when it is convenient for them.

This is true, but we moderates, liberals and progressives need to guard against this in ourselves, as well, don’t we? That’s not to say there is any evidence we are Cafeteria Constitutionalists, but we need to make sure we don’t become the same.

Blacks can’t go to the same schools as whites? Snip, what century are you living in? You lefties just throw anything out there and expect people to believe it. That’s why you all hate Fox News so badly. They’re the only outlet that points out your crap whenever you spew it.

yweston said:
Glenn Beck cares about Blacks as much as Reverend Wright cares about Whites.

But, the Rev. Mr. Wright had scores of close, White friends and associates. I don’t think we can say that the Charlatan Mr. Beck has scores of African-American friends and associates.

@Mr. B.

Sure he’s showing it NOW. What about all his race Baiting B.S. And….Now since “white folks” said Glenn is OK we’re suppose to “Forgive and Forget” that Bigots B.S.

BTW does Mr. B. stand for Mr. Bigot??

Mr B said:
Van Jones, is that you?

How can you say that after watching all those black history specials on Glenn’s show? Great stuff by the way. Did you notice how he showed the progressive agenda to hide that side of history and keep blacks on the progressive plantation? Back to slavery……Progress!

Jeez, a renowned pathological liar talking about “THE EVILS OF THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA”, I wonder how much truth he had to it? Glenn Beck knows about history and ideology like I know about calculus, and considering I avoid calculus every waking hour, that says a lot.

King, you are not liberal or progressive. You are an extreme far left ideologue who hates and mocks anyone who disagrees with you.

writer said:
Blacks can’t go to the same schools as whites? Snip, what century are you living in? You lefties just throw anything out there and expect people to believe it. That’s why you all hate Fox News so badly. They’re the only outlet that points out your crap whenever you spew it.

Read it again.

Status quo at the time meant preserving that. “Meant” is past tense.

Rev. Wright does indeed have white friends….like Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger. Self-loathing, extreme far left white friends who feel they deserve to be kicked in the teeth when Wright goes into his racist rants.

So King, since segregated schools haven’t existed for half a century, why are you still whining about it?

writer said:
So King, since segregated schools haven’t existed for half a century, why are you still whining about it?

Writer, it was an example. Ever hear of the word “context”? When the discussion turns to history, it’s not about present day. Twat.

So again, snip, why are you bringing up things that no longer exist? The topic is Beck, and Beck has more black people on his shows than all of MSNBC combined. But because he points out extremists like Van Jones or Rev. Wright, you label him as the racist. But when it comes to black racists like the panthers, Wright, Farrakhan, et al, you lefties go mute and pretend they don’t exist. You prefer to attack the messenger.

Snipzor said:
Jeez, a renowned pathological liar talking about “THE EVILS OF THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA”, I wonder how much truth he had to it?

Prove him wrong, on any of it. Check with Journolist. Someone has to be working on it!

Snipzor said:
Yea, conservatism is a global ideology of protecting the status quo, you can pretend that it means conserving the constitution, but that doesn’t mean much when the constitution is an interpretive document. If conservatism meant truly what you meant, then any interpretation of said constitution would be conservative, even the ones you disagree with. Segregationists and anti-segregationists were both conservative because they both argued it was in the constitution.

If American conservatism were about protecting the status quo no matter what it was, then it would change every time the status quo did. You’ll notice I consistently used the word ‘spirit’ and applied to both the constitution and Christianity. Why? Because a document or organization can easily contradict itself to suit the purposes of various interests at any time. But the spirit it was founded in is incorruptible. To simplify, the idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights is completed at odds with slavery. Over time, this obvious hypocrisy was addressed and the constitution was amended to bring it more into keeping with with its own spirit. Your argument can only work if you ignore what I said.

Snipzor said:
Now that this has been said, I shall repeat my first statement. Conservatism is an ideology of protecting the status quo against social/economic progress (Progress being any step forward into new ideology/territory, and since we’re talking about civil rights here, moving away from the slave era was definitely new territory). As for the addition of Christian mythology into this, it would be foolish to bother, because many Christians (Also the majority of the southern Christians along with the dixiecrats, a far-right wing segregationist party) also used the bible to argue against integration.

Clearly, your mythological Jesus would have stood against these practices. Since his teachings are the basis for the New Testament of the bible, and they are obviously in conflict with the practices of slavery and segregation, anyone claiming that source as inspiration or justification of those practices is either lying or confused. And if the bible did ok those things, then I would say that it’s corrupted and needs to be changed, just like the constitution did.

atreyue said:
If American conservatism were about protecting the status quo no matter what it was, then it would change every time the status quo did. You’ll notice I consistently used the word ’spirit’ and applied to both the constitution and Christianity. Why? Because a document or organization can easily contradict itself to suit the purposes of various interests at any time. But the spirit it was founded in is incorruptible. To simplify, the idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights is completed at odds with slavery. Over time, this obvious hypocrisy was addressed and the constitution was amended to bring it more into keeping with with its own spirit. Your argument can only work if you ignore what I said.

Clearly, your mythological Jesus would have stood against these practices. Since his teachings are the basis for the New Testament of the bible, and they are obviously in conflict with the practices of slavery and segregation, anyone claiming that source as inspiration or justification of those practices is either lying or confused. And if the bible did ok those things, then I would say that it’s corrupted and needs to be changed, just like the constitution did.

How very well argued. Thank you.

yweston said:
@Mr. B.

Sure he’s showing it NOW. What about all his race Baiting B.S. And….Now since “white folks” said Glenn is OK we’re suppose to “Forgive and Forget” that Bigots B.S.

BTW does Mr. B. stand for Mr. Bigot??

What race baiting? When he said he thinks Obama is a racist? Isn’t that what you said? Something about “THE PRESIDENT LOVES MEEEEEEE!!!!!! And he doesn’t love you! WHEEEEE!!!!!”

Tell us about the race baiting, Bigot.

“Snip, what century are you living in?…why are you bringing up things that no longer exist?” writer

“They have learned nothing, and they have forgotten nothing” Talleyrand

@Pablo…

I said that in response to a comment directed at me. I was speaking specifically to the person who said ‘THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T LOVE YOU”.

And…..I repeat. The President Loves ME!!!

yweston said:
yweston said:
Glenn Beck cares about Blacks as much as Reverend Wright cares about Whites.

Try again, Bigot.

And…..I repeat. The President Loves ME!!!

And he cares about whites as much as Reverend Wright, his spiritual mentor, cares about whites.

The Real Royal King said:
How very well argued. Thank you.

I don’t know what’s wrong with me today. I’ve already agreed with you once and now I’m making cogent points. Maybe I should call my doctor.

writer said:
So again, snip, why are you bringing up things that no longer exist? The topic is Beck, and Beck has more black people on his shows than all of MSNBC combined. But because he points out extremists like Van Jones or Rev. Wright, you label him as the racist. But when it comes to black racists like the panthers, Wright, Farrakhan, et al, you lefties go mute and pretend they don’t exist. You prefer to attack the messenger.

No, the topic with Mr B was historical status quo, I was giving something called an example. I recall I gave multiple examples. Something to back up discussion. So just admit you are wrong, and we’ll call it a day. Also, if you want a discussion on racism, it’s fine to say Farrakhan is a racist dumbass and the 3 people in the NBP are racist idiots. But I’ve yet seen any right-winger prove that social theory on racism is racist, so when you, every right-winger in America, and the media spew this crap about how Wright is the biggest racist in the world despite how all he states is how America is wrong for its warmongering and racism… lost my train of thought. Something along the lines of right-wing America erasing history and even current events, and how any discussion of racism is racist in and of itself according to people like you.

Pablo said:
Prove him wrong, on any of it. Check with Journolist. Someone has to be working on it!

Well for one, I don’t listen to Beck because I’m not an idiot. Also not a Mormon, but the rumors that they all stick together just seem like rumors to me. So I don’t know what he says, it’s likely crap smeared on a billboard with a bunch of arrows pointing to Hitler and Mao and Stalin, as if arrows immediately indicate truth.

“Well for one, I don’t listen to Beck because I’m not an idiot.”

Do you mind if we do a poll on that last point?

Azarkhan said:
“Well for one, I don’t listen to Beck because I’m not an idiot.”

Do you mind if we do a poll on that last point?

Use Rasmussen. It’s the most accurate since he only polls Likely Crackers.

Snip, were you aware that Rev. Wright owns a magazine called Trumpet, and that Trumpet magazine gave Louis Farrakhan an award for being such a great guy. An article features Wright praising his friend Farrakhan. And you are aware that Farrakhan hates Jews and refers to whites as ‘blue eyed devils’? And yet you bend over backwards to defend Wright, but say Beck is a racist. Like any good far leftie, when racism comes from blacks, you’re going to deny it exists.

atreyue said:
If American conservatism were about protecting the status quo no matter what it was, then it would change every time the status quo did. You’ll notice I consistently used the word ’spirit’ and applied to both the constitution and Christianity. Why? Because a document or organization can easily contradict itself to suit the purposes of various interests at any time. But the spirit it was founded in is incorruptible. To simplify, the idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights is completed at odds with slavery. Over time, this obvious hypocrisy was addressed and the constitution was amended to bring it more into keeping with with its own spirit. Your argument can only work if you ignore what I said.

Yes, the status quo would change, but end of the day there is still institutionalized bigotry in some form. The only people who happen to defend the current status quo are politically measured conservatives (And not self-identified conservatives, two different things, those who identify themselves as conservatives might be wrong or right, human error is very important). And until the end of ideology and we have reached this idea of a perfect society (something impossible to reach I might add), it shall always be conservatives defending institutionalized bigotry.

Also, the spirit of a document is irrelevant if one thinks about hegemony. The hegemonic ideology at the time was that only white men are considered people (Why does it say “all men” instead of “all peoples”?), if they truly wanted the document to be truly applicable to all peoples, then it would have been written so. What we are left with is a very slow process of social progress, which sucks. Quick question, what was the purpose of that entire paragraph you just wrote? If it was there to add strength to your concept of conservatism, it did not do that. Rather it just evolved into social theory, something you might have wanted.

atreyue said:
Clearly, your mythological Jesus would have stood against these practices. Since his teachings are the basis for the New Testament of the bible, and they are obviously in conflict with the practices of slavery and segregation, anyone claiming that source as inspiration or justification of those practices is either lying or confused. And if the bible did ok those things, then I would say that it’s corrupted and needs to be changed, just like the constitution did.

Well ask yourself, how many “Christians” are socially progressive? How many have been socially progressive? Not that many, they’ve been subject to the social hegemony and have actually dominated and dictated what the hegemony is. What Christ did is irrelevant if nobody actually follows his words at all. Jesus was a pretty cool guy, eh supported free love for all and doesn’t afraid of anything, but after he died the second time (Wait… what happened the second time?) nobody really listened to his words but rather focussed on how he saved us (you guys) from your sins and then moved on to create the WBC. Christians seem to be pretty lax on the spirit of Jesus.

Snipzor said:
Yes, the status quo would change, but end of the day there is still institutionalized bigotry in some form. The only people who happen to defend the current status quo are politically measured conservatives (And not self-identified conservatives, two different things, those who identify themselves as conservatives might be wrong or right, human error is very important). And until the end of ideology and we have reached this idea of a perfect society (something impossible to reach I might add), it shall always be conservatives defending institutionalized bigotry.

Also, the spirit of a document is irrelevant if one thinks about hegemony. The hegemonic ideology at the time was that only white men are considered people (Why does it say “all men” instead of “all peoples”?), if they truly wanted the document to be truly applicable to all peoples, then it would have been written so. What we are left with is a very slow process of social progress, which sucks. Quick question, what was the purpose of that entire paragraph you just wrote? If it was there to add strength to your concept of conservatism, it did not do that. Rather it just evolved into social theory, something you might have wanted.

Conservatism cannot exist without defining what exactly is being conserved. That is true for each separate (as in country and time period) instance of conservatism. I believe that American conservatism is rooted in the same founding principles of Christianity that are present in the constitution. I believe it is that same conservatism of the spirit of the constitution that brought about the defeat of the same hegemonic ideology you reference. This happened specifically because the spirit of using the word “men” is people, so their attempt to narrowly define it to suit their own ends ultimately failed. That’s why the fact that the nation was founded with such a document is so important. And I’m not such what you mean by your invocation of ‘social theory’, but political groups and the other things we have been discussing would certainly seem to fall under it’s intentionally broad umbrella.

Snipzor said:
Well ask yourself, how many “Christians” are socially progressive?

Please define ‘socially progressive’.

Pretty clear that pidgeonholing every person with black skin onto the GOVERNMENT DEPENDENCY PLANTATION aint’ a-gonna be working anymore!!!!

- the ash-heap of history, that’s where “progressive theory” always winds up!!

L – O – L!!!!

atreyue said:
Conservatism cannot exist without defining what exactly is being conserved. That is true for each separate (as in country and time period) instance of conservatism. I believe that American conservatism is rooted in the same founding principles of Christianity that are present in the constitution. I believe it is that same conservatism of the spirit of the constitution that brought about the defeat of the same hegemonic ideology you reference. This happened specifically because the spirit of using the word “men” is people, so their attempt to narrowly define it to suit their own ends ultimately failed. That’s why the fact that the nation was founded with such a document is so important. And I’m not such what you mean by your invocation of ’social theory’, but political groups and the other things we have been discussing would certainly seem to fall under it’s intentionally broad umbrella.

Well the topic is social conservatism, so pretty much any hegemonic belief of the current day, which is definitely institutionally bigoted. That’s the shortest way I can put it, or anyone can put it.

Also, the Christian belief, or any Abrahamic belief has nothing to do with the constitution. The founding fathers were deists, one was atheist, and one might have been a Christian but non-practicing. They all believed in separation of church and state, which was historically a sign that Christianity had little to do with the founding of the nation. They separated religion and state because they knew that hegemony would pretty much dictate the state, and nothing would change or expand in terms of what you would call “The spirit of the document”. And the reason why Christianity is what is being discussed right now is because the origins of all the peoples who had come to the 13 colonies (Or is it 12 colonies, I can’t remember) were all of Christian dominance (The Germans, the English, the French, all of them were under Christian rule, and all of them as in all the colonies not the three nations I mentioned just now). The belief of all peoples being free has existed for the longest of time, even without Abrahamic institutions.

Also I would like to add that other nations with a less strict document have actually surpassed America in the field of “The rights of man”. Actually, the country I live in surpassed you guys years ago. And then some. Anyways, you may believe that conservatism is the spirit of the constitution, but that is not the case in reality. I’m sorry, but conservatism cannot be so very defined in one sentence, especially considering the many interpretative sections of the document, it would be impossible to actually narrow the definition like that.

atreyue said:
Please define ’socially progressive’.

Socially progressive as in an extension of the rights of man. The topical example would be Obama’s aversion to actually pushing for the advancement of LGBTQ America, well no, the example is the rights of LGBTQ America, but the social conservatism is the aversion. Would you like a less topical but more historical example?

Snipzor said:
Socially progressive as in an extension of the rights of man. The topical example would be Obama’s aversion to actually pushing for the advancement of LGBTQ America, well no, the example is the rights of LGBTQ America, but the social conservatism is the aversion. Would you like a less topical but more historical example?

I think a definition with no example would actually provide the most help. Then I wouldn’t have to ask what the rights of man are.

A “white Organization” telling a white Man he’s Black enough…..What a “joke”

Tell the new Black man to have Shirley Sherrod on his crazy show and don’t talk ALL OVER her trying to be a Big Man!! Then maybe the hateful SOB will get some respect from the people he victimized.

atreyue said:
I think a definition with no example would actually provide the most help. Then I wouldn’t have to ask what the rights of man are.

Will a Wikipedia page do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

I know it’s Wikipedia, but they do quite a good job on a lot of things.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Pretty clear that pidgeonholing every person with black skin onto the GOVERNMENT DEPENDENCY PLANTATION aint’ a-gonna be working anymore!!!!

- the ash-heap of history, that’s where “progressive theory” always winds up!!

L – O – L!!!!

You mean like public libraries and schools? Fire departments? Universal suffrage (that’s voting, not pain, although voting can be very painful)? Child labor laws? All progressive ideas on the ash-heap of history?

Snipzor said:
Well the topic is social conservatism, so pretty much any hegemonic belief of the current day, which is definitely institutionally bigoted. That’s the shortest way I can put it, or anyone can put it.

Also, the Christian belief, or any Abrahamic belief has nothing to do with the constitution. The founding fathers were deists, one was atheist, and one might have been a Christian but non-practicing. They all believed in separation of church and state, which was historically a sign that Christianity had little to do with the founding of the nation. They separated religion and state because they knew that hegemony would pretty much dictate the state, and nothing would change or expand in terms of what you would call “The spirit of the document”. And the reason why Christianity is what is being discussed right now is because the origins of all the peoples who had come to the 13 colonies (Or is it 12 colonies, I can’t remember) were all of Christian dominance (The Germans, the English, the French, all of them were under Christian rule, and all of them as in all the colonies not the three nations I mentioned just now). The belief of all peoples being free has existed for the longest of time, even without Abrahamic institutions.

Also I would like to add that other nations with a less strict document have actually surpassed America in the field of “The rights of man”. Actually, the country I live in surpassed you guys years ago. And then some. Anyways, you may believe that conservatism is the spirit of the constitution, but that is not the case in reality. I’m sorry, but conservatism cannot be so very defined in one sentence, especially considering the many interpretative sections of the document, it would be impossible to actually narrow the definition like that.

“social conservatism” is far too broad, in that it can be made to mean whatever you want. Determining whether you’re trying to protect the beliefs of the current day or those of 2 years ago or 20 years ago would obviously be of importance. When you force things to be so vague, it becomes difficult to have any meaningful discourse.

Whether the founding fathers were Christian or not doesn’t make any difference to me. I only care about whether they held the same core spiritual beliefs. It’s highly probable that they were all raised Christian and chose deism, agnosticism or atheism for their own personal reasons. It also can’t be denied that they purposely built the idea of God into the constitution. I assume that wasn’t for no reason, and there’s no reason to assume that was just done for the benefit of the ‘uneducated masses’. The decision to separate church and state definitely doesn’t aid your theory. The argument can easily and logically be made that the church shouldn’t be running the state just as Jesus didn’t actually seek to become the King of the Jews in actual title. I am well aware that the “belief of all peoples being free has existed for the longest of time, even without Abrahamic institutions.” I highly doubt that this belief predates spirituality, however.

What country do you live in and are you from there or American, if you don’t mind my asking? Whether that country has surpassed the US in that area is probably up for debate.

Snipzor said:
Will a Wikipedia page do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

I know it’s Wikipedia, but they do quite a good job on a lot of things.

I’m not a wikipedia fan, but it’s your definition of the phrase that I’m interested in, so it’ll work fine for me since I assume you wouldn’t link to something you disagree with :)

@Snipzor: Should I assume that your definition of “social progressive” is the same as a social liberal?

atreyue said:
@Snipzor: Should I assume that your definition of “social progressive” is the same as a social liberal?

Well now that I look back, I do wish I used “social liberal” instead of progressive. Progressive is pretty much middle of the road, pretty much the most socially liberal you would get in America.

Ok, now that we’re on the same page…

Snipzor said:
Well ask yourself, how many “Christians” are socially progressive? How many have been socially progressive? Not that many, they’ve been subject to the social hegemony and have actually dominated and dictated what the hegemony is. What Christ did is irrelevant if nobody actually follows his words at all. Jesus was a pretty cool guy, eh supported free love for all and doesn’t afraid of anything, but after he died the second time (Wait… what happened the second time?) nobody really listened to his words but rather focussed on how he saved us (you guys) from your sins and then moved on to create the WBC. Christians seem to be pretty lax on the spirit of Jesus.

As many Christians are socially liberal as realize that they can use this as a means of becoming “relevant” and getting back on track to reestablishing the same social hegemony they used to enjoy at the height of Catholic power. Social Justice is becoming a very powerful buzzword in Christian circles again.

And I completely agree with your Jesus assessment. Reason #1 why I’m not a Christian. When a religion can’t even get on the same page as its holy document and the person it was named after, not really worth my time.

I agree with Ms. Weston for the first time.
Glenn Beck should invite Shirley onto his show. They could spend a half hour together, just the two of them, and I’ll bet we’d all learn a lot more than that stupid Beer Summit fiasco.

It would be a ratings bonanza (again) for Glenn. Both liberals & conservatives would watch by the millions.

Yet we suspect we’ll have to revoke it after his upcoming rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the “I Have a Dream” speech anniversary.”

yes, because your racists friends will make you.

yweston said:
Then maybe the hateful SOB will get some respect from the people he victimized.

You must be talking about America’s favorite racist, Shirley Sherrod.

I heard she just joined the NBPP.

The Real Royal King said:
Republicans have not always been extreme rightists, however. That really did not begin until Raygun’s Southern Strategy resulted in an influx of Crackers.

You are truly the biggest ahole on this site.

There could be good news if Beck goes blind he could end up being Gov. of New York.

Sorry to tell ya, The Root, only a white lib can tell ya who is really ” black.”

There is good reason to think Mr. Obama is not the son of a black man, but the son of a white man and a predominantly Polynesian woman. All these years he has pretended to be black with kith & kin in Africa. Would that make him the blackest white man we know?

notsofast said:
You are truly the biggest ahole on this site.

That’s very kind of you to say.

eingriff said:
There is good reason to think Mr. Obama is not the son of a black man, but the son of a white man and a predominantly Polynesian woman. All these years he has pretended to be black with kith & kin in Africa. Would that make him the blackest white man we know?

Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

“It’s all about CHARACTER on 8/28.” Uhhh, Beck had better use the next 39 days and 39 nights to improve upon his character. What do you call someone who deceives routinely and someone who documented exhibiting hypocrisy 6 times in the month of May.

There is honor that needs to be restored: Glenn Beck’s. Only his minions disagree with this.

ChickaBOOMer: Black Like Me
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2010/07/black-and-blue.html

GlennBeckReview said:
What do you call someone who deceives routinely and someone who documented exhibiting hypocrisy 6 times in the month of May.

GlennBeckeview!!!! Or, The Biggest Loser on the Internet. Whichever you prefer.

Pablo said:
Pablo says:
July 20, 2010 at 6:16 pm Pablo(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

GlennBeckReview said:
What do you call someone who deceives routinely and someone who documented exhibiting hypocrisy 6 times in the month of May.

GlennBeckeview!!!! Or, The Biggest Loser on the Internet. Whichever you prefer.

Lets ask him for sources on the:”exhibiting hypocrisy 6 x’s” BS
He’s only here to peddle his Web Site

Pablo says: “GlennBeckeview!!!! Or, The Biggest Loser on the Internet.”

Pablo, I’m sure you’re impressing all of the independent and objective readers here with your “mature” name calling.
Pablo, it’s The Glenn Beck Review: what everyone needs to know about Glenn Beck’s honesty, political orientation and method of communication. Today’s show highlighted Beck’s hypocrisy. The man, who quotes out of context, conspired with his buddy, who quoted the Federal employee sounding racist, to make Beck gloat about how bad it is to take people out of context. Over and over he talked about how bad is it to take people out of context — what Brietbart did to her and the NAACP and Fox jumped on taking even further out of context — when Beck himself quotes people and authors out of context to deceive, the change meaning or completely misinterpret on purpose! A lot! Beck has no moral standing because he is such an obvious hypocrite! He is a God-awful “Christian.” This is most true w/r/t social justice.
Pablo, Beck is a tool maker and u b the tool.

Glenn Beck walks the walk! His Black Founder Fridays should win an Emmy for the best coverage on Black Americans who have contributed to the founding of our country but have been obliterated from history by PROGRESSIVES and LIBERALS. All Blacks should be outraged at how history has treated them. Until Glenn Beck started doing his series on this subject, hardly anyone knew. I don’t understand why Blacks are mostly DemocRATS. It doesn’t make sense.

Glenn Beck is pulling the scales off the eyes of the American people and making them SEE history in its true form. He is a PATRIOT and a HERO to millions of Americans across the country. His detractors are small minded TWITS and PROGRESSIVE PUKES who want to try and diminish his influence. Good freakin’ luck! You are all LOSERS!

The Root should update their views now since Beck and his buddy Barton twist the facts of the past to suit their agenda. Sunnyr, it’s not “history in its true form,” it’s historical revisionism of the bad sort. Revising history to make it better understood as it really was is the good sort, but that’s not what Barton does. Barton has made claims on Founders Fridays that even DAVID BARTON DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE! See: http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/07/david-bartons-revisionist-claim-on.html for details.

Who are the most gullible people in the United States? Go the glennbeck.com, click on any story and see the comments. Sunnyr is a perfect example. Even though Libertarians and conservatives have also criticized Beck, some harshly, Sunnyr and her ilk are emotionally involved with Beck in a way that makes all of “his detractors … small minded TWITS and PROGRESSIVE LOSERS….”

This is exactly what Beck has programmed his supporters to believe. And we’re the “small minded TWITS?”

See “A call to corporate scrutiny “to see Libertarian Alex Jones rip Beck a new one.
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/07/call-to-action-for-corporate-scrutiny.html

gordonbloyershow says: “There could be good news if Beck goes blind he could end up being Gov. of New York.”

Another tool who can’t be bothered looking into the facts: macular dystrophy rarely causes blindness. Beck claimed his mother committed suicide when the police report did not even suggest this. Beck will say anything to earn sympathy from his gullible viewers.

Beck has severe ADD and macular dystrophy we are to believe. If true, someone religious might believe that God is punishing this false prophet.