MSNBC is now completely unhinged. This over the top commentary is absurd.

Olbermann race baiting again….the all white prime time line up of MSNBC does the nation proud again. It’s a good thing so few people these loons.

Meant to say:

It’s a good thing so few people watch these loons.

Glenn Beck’s appearance at the Lincoln Memorial in the setting proposed is a propaganda parallel to placing jews in Thereisenstadt and portraying it as benevolent treatment of those poor human beings. If anyone believes Glenn Beck holds American values as anything but a way for him to manipulate the gullible, they are among those gullible.

Yet another reason why 99.9% of the public is not watching Olbermann and have probably never even heard of Bill Press. Obviously Press has never even listened to Beck’s show or he’s just trying to be outrageous to pump up his lefty cred.

Glenn Beck is mentally insane. Not sure why people proudly follow this lunatic, but to each his own.

If you can’t make fun of a bigoted racist like Beck holding a rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream speech and calling the coincidence a “God thing” I don’t know what you can make fun of.

That shit is just ripe for satire.

TFT, Kenm,
Sure, a few more people watch FOX than MSNBC, but still, 98% of the people do not watch either.

You should watch Beck once and a while, he spends an awful lot of time praising Dr King and his principles. He also devotes a lot of air time to black patriots which I have NEVER seen anyone else do. You can call him a buffoon and a showman or a clown but you’ll have a really hard time getting the racist label to stick…

The racist meme is preposterous, but completely expected.

Bill Adkins said:
Glenn Beck’s appearance at the Lincoln Memorial in the setting proposed is a propaganda parallel to placing jews in Thereisenstadt and portraying it as benevolent treatment of those poor human beings. If anyone believes Glenn Beck holds American values as anything but a way for him to manipulate the gullible, they are among those gullible.

That didn’t take long. Such comparison do nothing but trivialize the horrible acts done onto Jews. You should be ashamed.

timzank said:
You should watch Beck once and a while, he spends an awful lot of time praising Dr King and his principles. He also devotes a lot of air time to black patriots which I have NEVER seen anyone else do.

It’s all part of his “show”.

Sometimes he slips and reveals his true feelings…

“Hey, Hispanic chick lady! You’re empathetic … you’re in!”

Liberty Banned said:
That didn’t take long. Such comparison do nothing but trivialize the horrible acts done onto Jews. You should be ashamed.

Yeah, Beck would NEVER make comparisons TO THE HOLOCAUST!!!LOLOL

Hey Frances..did you just refer to Lincoln as a “founding Father”? You’re dumber than your nemesis Sarah Palin..HA! And someone needs to inform olberdork that Dr. King, a great Republican as was Lincoln, doesn’t own the memorial..we all do. Stupid race-baiting libs..

Seriously BFD, you should watch sometime, the racist thing doesn’t fit. You should have watched last fridays show devoted to black founding fathers…..honestly, you’ve got a case on some stuff. but not this one

Bill Press…

,,,needs to take Larry Kings lead and leave.

me1ranger said:
And someone needs to inform olberdork that Dr. King, a great Republican as was Lincoln, doesn’t own the memorial.

And someone needs to inform the Tea-liban that White Christians don’t own a 4 block radius around Ground Zero.

I agree BFD..but it’s kinda weird that you decided to bring that up. Don’t fret..you’ll get your little mosque at the scene of the crime.

timzank said:
Seriously BFD, you should watch sometime, the racist thing doesn’t fit. You should have watched last fridays show devoted to black founding fathers…..honestly, you’ve got a case on some stuff. but not this one

I watch about one show a week. That’s all I can stomach. If not a racist than definitely a race baiter, which is almost as bad.

And someone who calls Sotomayor and Obama a racist damn well better expect the same treatment in return. This goes for you and his followers as well.

OK — I’m the liberal who doesn’t particularly care for Keith Olbermann. I did kind of like the light-sided show that Bill Press did with Tucker Carlson; I’ve had no major problems with him in the past and I’ve never watched an entire episode of Glenn Beck…

But, Steve first wrote about Beck’s plan to have a rally on Aug 28th, back when Glenn first revealed it in November of last year. So if Bill Press (or Keith Olbermann) didn’t know, it was likely because they weren’t paying attention because Steve wasn’t the only one to give the rally press.

Secondly, the August date is also the anniversary of Barack Obama’s acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination in Denver. Back then, we were told that the acceptance speech was the culmination of the week’s activities and the fact that it coincided with Dr. King’s speech was pure happenstance. The event coordinators hadn’t even realized it, when they wrote up the schedule.

I assume that Mr. Beck chose that particular date because of the Obama connection and he possibly hadn’t realized the MLK connection until he started re-reading President Obama’s speech and I also assume that his delusions about preventing tyranny and slavery are the images he’ll be using, so the Lincoln Memorial/MLK thing became an obvious backdrop to drive his point home.

And inally, I haven’t really seen Mr. Beck using overt racism. Yes, you could say that some is implied because of his targets and perhaps the mindset of his followers, but it’d be a long stretch with a lot of other factors ignored to try and connect his chosen date and setting to some kind of racial statement.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Yeah, Beck would NEVER make comparisons TO THE HOLOCAUST!!!LOLOL

And I think it’s wrong when he does it. I’m not some partisan hack dude. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but in the world of corrutocrats and Repugnantcans I guess they do.

Then you must really hate the dems. Their deck is loaded with nothing but race cards! It’s the “cry wolf” syndrome..they’ve wore it out, it has lost all it’s effectiveness.

PS) It’s also worth noting that in Steve’s post about Beck’s announcement and all of the comments, my Ctrl-F can’t find any mention of Martin Luther King, so none of us caught it at the time, either.

me1ranger said:
Hey Frances..did you just refer to Lincoln as a “founding Father”? You’re dumber than your nemesis Sarah Palin..HA! And someone needs to inform olberdork that Dr. King, a great Republican as was Lincoln, doesn’t own the memorial..we all do. Stupid race-baiting libs..

Good point. it is completely ignorant when people make this claim. Lincoln was an important figure in our history, but he was not a founding father. He made mistakes like everyone else. Just look to his unconstitutional act of suspending habeas corpus, which was quickly overturned by the Supreme Court, see Ex Parte Merryman. He even ignored the Supreme Courts decision. Lincoln, like many politicians to follow him, trampled all over our Constitution. Technically, because he ignore the Supreme Court, he should have been impeached.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
And someone needs to inform the Tea-liban that White Christians don’t own a 4 block radius around Ground Zero.

Hey, we didn’t realize you were a radical Mosque supporter too! wowsers, you’re the full blown progressive “real deal” alright.

‘Splains alot….

Liberty..I wouldn’t go quite that far, they got him in the end. His nation was torn in half, brother v brother, it remains a unique time in our nations history..to say the least. I understand you didn’t say he should have been impeached..hell, if he had been for what he did, what would we have done to Roosevelt..?

BFD, So can I assume when your namesake recently said the GOP was planning a blitzkreig, you were completely outraged that he would use a nazi reference. I mean this is the VP of the US, and not a private citizen.

What I am saying, and it is fact not fiction, is that he suspended habeas corpus. Then when the courts over turned his unconstitutional decision he ignored the courts, and ordered the Army to ignore the courts as well.

The Roosevelt issue with the Japanese, and Americans of Japanese ancestry, being interned was wrong as well. Over 60% of those people were American citizens. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled in-favor of FDR. Horrible decision by the court. The difference is, Lincoln ignored the court, and ordered the Army to ignore the ruling.

A wrong was done to the Americans with Japanese ancestry, and congress in ’88, signed by Reagan, offered an official apology to the Americans that were thrown into camps based on their race. Acknowledging the illegal/ wrong act, Reagan and congress gave the survivors reparations.

There is never an excuse to suspend habeas corpus for Americans on American soil.

MichelleF said:
BFD, So can I assume when your namesake recently said the GOP was planning a blitzkreig, you were completely outraged that he would use a nazi reference. I mean this is the VP of the US, and not a private citizen.

Blitzkrieg- an anglicized word describing all-mechanized force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery and air power, concentrating overwhelming force and rapid speed to break through enemy lines, and once the latter is broken, proceeding without regard to its flank.

Sorry to disappoint, but no nazi, honey, it’s just a word.

Nice try, RL. Anyone with a brain knows it’s a reference to Nazi forces.

Liberty Banned said:
What I am saying, and it is fact not fiction, is that he suspended habeas corpus. Then when the courts over turned his unconstitutional decision he ignored the courts, and ordered the Army to ignore the courts as well.

The Roosevelt issue with the Japanese, and Americans of Japanese ancestry, being interned was wrong as well. Over 60% of those people were American citizens. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled in-favor of FDR. Horrible decision by the court. The difference is, Lincoln ignored the court, and ordered the Army to ignore the ruling.

A wrong was done to the Americans with Japanese ancestry, and congress in ‘88, signed by Reagan, offered an official apology to the Americans that were thrown into camps based on their race. Acknowledging the illegal/ wrong act, Reagan and congress gave the survivors reparations.

There is never an excuse to suspend habeas corpus for Americans on American soil.

What if it is to preserve that very union which you’re fighting for? What if a number of citizens are not even given their rights as citizens and those who claim to be their rulers ignore their own governing laws and secede from the union so that they may keep their human property? Is it still wrong then? What if one group of people terrorizes that same group after they have gained their freedom? Is it still wrong then? Does not government exist to protect the individual liberties of a group when they are threatened by another group? Is not the terrorizing of one group by another an unjust act in our country? Never say never my libertarian friend. You are afforded rights by God that are protected by the Constitution, but as I’m sure you know all bets are off when you encroach on the rights of another.

What a sickening way to start the day: Olbermann and Press!

MichelleF said:
Nice try, RL. Anyone with a brain knows it’s a reference to Nazi forces.

Nice try, Michelle, but I gave you the definition. Anybody with a brain knows that a definition is the meaning of a word. Or maybe you’re too busy sharing Glenn Beck’s brain?

Liberty..I agreed with you, why are we arguing again? The office of the Presidecy poses multiple challenges, history shows in hindsight, that we could find fault in the actions of many, if not all, of them. It’s a tough job, that’s why we should elect only those who have proven themselves in a leadership position..not rabble-rousing community organizers. Chief executives, corporate execs., and Generals fit the mold for me.

I’m sorry LB but Lincoln suspend HB for many northern and mid-western states. He was not just targeting confederate soldiers, he was targeting civilians. Additionally, it is never right to ignore the law of the land, and Lincoln specifically ignored a legal ruling by one of the equal branches of the government – the Supreme Court. He ignored the ruling, and order the military to ignore the ruling. The ends do not justify the means my friend.

me1ranger said:
Liberty..I agreed with you, why are we arguing again? The office of the Presidecy poses multiple challenges, history shows in hindsight, that we could find fault in the actions of many, if not all, of them. It’s a tough job, that’s why we should elect only those who have proven themselves in a leadership position..not rabble-rousing community organizers. Chief executives, corporate execs., and Generals fit the mold for me.

So you want to put the same people who screwed the economy by betting against the economy in charge of the economy? Or do you want to put the same people who failed to capture Osama Bin Laden in charge of protecting us from Osama Bin Laden? Take your pick because I can honestly dismantle either one. It’s about intelligence. I seem to remember an inexperienced man by the name of John F Kennedy being one of the best presidents in recent history because he was intelligent.

Not arguing me1ranger, just having a discussion. it beats the repetitive “Libs are nazis, Republicans are racist” arguments I read here day after day.

Nice try, Michelle, but I gave you the definition. Anybody with a brain knows that a definition is the meaning of a word. Or maybe you’re too busy sharing Glenn Beck’s brain?

Yes, you gave the definition and I pointed out the historical reference. I think we both know which one Biden was going for. It’s nothing new for this whitehouse, Pelosi called tea-partiers brown shirts, so Obiden is just sticking with their theme.

TRL,
How can you really say that JFK was one of the best Presidents in recent history? He was only in office for what 3 years. Vietnam? Cuban missile crisis where he secretly agreed to remove the nukes from Turkey, the sole reason the USSR sent missiles to Cuba. The Bay of Pigs fiasco where he left the Cuban exiles high and dry on the beaches. Some of his policies I liked but others I didn’t. He was far from one of the best in recent history, although he was not the worst.

Liberty Banned said:
I’m sorry LB but Lincoln suspend HB for many northern and mid-western states. He was not just targeting confederate soldiers, he was targeting civilians. Additionally, it is never right to ignore the law of the land, and Lincoln specifically ignored a legal ruling by one of the equal branches of the government – the Supreme Court. He ignored the ruling, and order the military to ignore the ruling. The ends do not justify the means my friend.

I believe you may be wrong on the northern states part, but it was actually in midwestern and Maryland. The reason for Maryland being that were they to secede from the union D.C. would be surrounded by hostile territory and the union would have fallen. There would be no America today. Lincoln did it in response to riots and local militias in the area. In this case, yes, the end did justify the means. If the leader is weak then the country falls. Had he allowed these groups to go unchecked that would send a message to the confederacy that he was weak, and they would have undoubtedly won the war. The end does justify the means. Why? Because these people are in violation of the law by encroaching on the rights of others. This is why the law is there, something I’m sre you agree about.

Liberty Banned says:
July 1, 2010 at 8:28 am

That didn’t take long. Such comparison do nothing but trivialize the horrible acts done onto Jews. You should be ashamed.

He should be… but won’t.

Big_F-ing_Deal says:
July 1, 2010 at 8:51 am

This goes for you and his followers as well.

Just goes to show Same2U’s (aka BigF’s) philosophy. He’ll denigrate the real suffers of racism, and use their struggle for his political gain… even when he knows it’s simply not true.

Standing on the backs of the victims, only so you can try to hold your head higher.

A truly disgusting person.

The_Reasonable_Lib says:
July 1, 2010 at 10:00 am

I seem to remember an inexperienced man by the name of John F Kennedy being one of the best presidents in recent history because he was intelligent.

No… it was because he was charismatic. Who was in charge for the Bay of Pigs? Who started the Vietnam War?

Kennedy was well liked in hindsight… but was less popular during his time than some “historians” would have you believe.

Furthermore, if you don’t understand or believe that the Democrats were equally responsible for the failure of the economy, then you’re simply “hacking” it up again. They (Barney Frank, Dodd, etc) had their hands in this just as much as any Republican. Left/Right doesn’t matter in this failure… they all sucked.

Liberty Banned said:
TRL,
How can you really say that JFK was one of the best Presidents in recent history? He was only in office for what 3 years. Vietnam? Cuban missile crisis where he secretly agreed to remove the nukes from Turkey, the sole reason the USSR sent missiles to Cuba. The Bay of Pigs fiasco where he left the Cuban exiles high and dry on the beaches. Some of his policies I liked but others I didn’t. He was far from one of the best in recent history, although he was not the worst.

Kennedy won the cuban missile crisis for starters. I will admit Vietnam and the bay of pigs were failures. But still you ask why. Because Kennedy had the longest straight economic growth period extending even beyond his own presidency. It is attributed to Kennedy because the policies which started it began under his administration and continued. The economy had been through 2 recessions in 3 years before his presidency and was in one when he started, but still gdp expanded an average 5.5% from 61-63 with inflation at 1%. Industrial production also increased by 15%. This trend lasted up until 66. Kennedy was a staunch supporter of civil rights and liberties, and kept J. Edgar Hoover from derailing the civil rights movement via his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Kennedy also prevented US Steel from raising prices during the recession so that the country would not go deeper into recession. The starting of the Apollo project was also under Kennedy. Please give me a president that lasted longer with a better track record. And I beg of you to say Reagan.

The economy under Bush broke all records for growth in the nations history. Even with the Clinton recession, the dot.com burst, the attacks, the storms, and two wars..the tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury every year, FACT. As we all know, the economy tanked because of liberal feel-good policies of giving loans to poor people for mansions. Couple that with the dems. taking control of the reigns in ’07, and we had the makings of the shit storm we find ourselves in today. FACT.
And has barry captured osama..I missed that?
And you are truly delusional if you can say Kennedy was one of our greatest..who’s second, Clinton. You’re living proof that the libs. running our schools should be eliminated.

LOL….TRL. You just pretty much cut and paste from Weikepedia. Busted.

Listen, I’m not saying that there was some benefit to suspending HB. What I’m saying is that Lincoln ignored the courts decision. That is a constitution crisis, and was illegal. The ends never justify the means when ignoring the Constitution. I’m sorry TRL, but we can just agree to disagree. He had a right to go after the south for violating the right of individuals, but it does not justly ignoring the constitution. He was not a king.

Reasonablelib sez: ” I seem to remember an inexperienced man by the name of John F Kennedy being one of the MOST OVER-RATED presidents in recent history because he was THOUGHT TO BE intelligent.

FIFY

me1ranger said:
Hey Frances..did you just refer to Lincoln as a “founding Father”? You’re dumber than your nemesis Sarah Palin..HA

Oops, got me there, guys. Not dumber than Palin, just sleepier (though I do think at some point she made the same mistake!). Post has been updated accordingly.

Frances Martel said:
Oops, got me there, guys. Not dumber than Palin, just sleepier (though I do think at some point she made the same mistake!). Post has been updated accordingly.

No Frances, Palin didn’t didn’t make that mistake. Mika did.

TRL:
“Kennedy won the cuban missile crisis for starters. I will admit Vietnam and the bay of pigs were failures.”

He didn’t win the Cuban missile crisis. He placated Kruschev by agreeing to remove the missiles in Turkey, and agreeing not to invade Cuba. Kruschev and Castro got what they wanted. If anything the outcome was equal in terms. I think the Vietnam war was just a little more than a mistake or failure.

His little 3 years, besides Vietnam, in the scheme of things was insignificant. I did like that fact that JFK passed the largest tax cut in US history up to that time in 1961. That was a win for the individual.

ImNotBlue said:
Liberty Banned says:
July 1, 2010 at 8:28 am

That didn’t take long. Such comparison do nothing but trivialize the horrible acts done onto Jews. You should be ashamed.

He should be… but won’t.

Big_F-ing_Deal says:
July 1, 2010 at 8:51 am

This goes for you and his followers as well.

Just goes to show Same2U’s (aka BigF’s) philosophy. He’ll denigrate the real suffers of racism, and use their struggle for his political gain… even when he knows it’s simply not true.

Standing on the backs of the victims, only so you can try to hold your head higher.

A truly disgusting person.

The_Reasonable_Lib says:
July 1, 2010 at 10:00 am

I seem to remember an inexperienced man by the name of John F Kennedy being one of the best presidents in recent history because he was intelligent.

No… it was because he was charismatic. Who was in charge for the Bay of Pigs? Who started the Vietnam War?

Kennedy was well liked in hindsight… but was less popular during his time than some “historians” would have you believe.

Furthermore, if you don’t understand or believe that the Democrats were equally responsible for the failure of the economy, then you’re simply “hacking” it up again. They (Barney Frank, Dodd, etc) had their hands in this just as much as any Republican. Left/Right doesn’t matter in this failure… they all sucked.

No, it was because he was intelligent. As you said yourself, charisma didn’t win him the bay of pigs or Vietnam. I like your little “historians” part in there. Especially considering that President obama had the highest initial approval rating since JFK who started off at 72% and ended with an average of 65% only 7 points below his initial mark. So the numbers do say differently than you claim.
Did I say they weren’t? Nooooooooope. I agree with you here, everybody f*cked up. However, where you and I SEEM to differ is that you are offering a onestop shop for the solution, and saying that this president does not have it. I am saying that there is no one thing which will contribute to it. Or rather no one way to bring about the result which will do it. I for one believe we need to bring back our manufacturing sector because we’ve shown that transferring to an information based economy does not work at this time. Doing that will undoubtedly mean tax cuts for companies that do setup factories in areas in the US, but if the government is going to function, then the citizens will have to pickup some of the slack or risk losing some of the government features which they enjoy as we have now because there are no jobs and nobody is paying taxes.

Frances Martel said:
Oops, got me there, guys. Not dumber than Palin, just sleepier (though I do think at some point she made the same mistake!). Post has been updated accordingly.

Wow…at least you corrected the mistake.

Yeah ok Frances..but I think that was Mika Brezinski, another liberal twit, that said it. Deranged much?

Kennedy and Obama both won by lying to the people and promising them unicorns and candy. Empty suits with the ability to enthrall an audience. Nothing more.

Bush had higher pole numbers after 9/11 than anyone since polls were created..you’re an idiot.

me1ranger said:
The economy under Bush broke all records for growth in the nations history. Even with the Clinton recession, the dot.com burst, the attacks, the storms, and two wars..the tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury every year, FACT. As we all know, the economy tanked because of liberal feel-good policies of giving loans to poor people for mansions. Couple that with the dems. taking control of the reigns in ‘07, and we had the makings of the shit storm we find ourselves in today. FACT.
And has barry captured osama..I missed that?
And you are truly delusional if you can say Kennedy was one of our greatest..who’s second, Clinton. You’re living proof that the libs. running our schools should be eliminated.

FALSE!!!!!! Not even a good lie. The 90s were the lobgest period of economic growth in the US. Clinton had the second longest period of straight growth since the depression, second only to JFK. The median household income did not rise until 2007, the year after the democrats took control of congress. Bush was actually the one who started the process of providing loans to low income families for houses. This dated back well before 2006, well before democrats were in power.
No, he hasn’t, but it is these people’s JOB to catch him, they had 7 years and failed, they;ve had another 3 and haven’t, 10 years and nothing, and YOU want them in charge.
The numbers speak for themselves. Perhaps you shouldn’t prescribe to the Glenn Beck self-education program anymore.

me1ranger said:
Bush had higher pole numbers after 9/11 than anyone since polls were created..you’re an idiot.

Yes, Bush had over 90% approval after 9/11, but that quickly went down. I said “initial” entering office. Bush was president 9 months by 9/11. You’re the idiot here.

How are the polls now? Yeah that’s what i thought. Oh and please someone quote the DailyKos/2000 polls. Those were total scams. People here even quoted them.

Liberty Banned said:
LOL….TRL. You just pretty much cut and paste from Weikepedia. Busted.

Listen, I’m not saying that there was some benefit to suspending HB. What I’m saying is that Lincoln ignored the courts decision. That is a constitution crisis, and was illegal. The ends never justify the means when ignoring the Constitution. I’m sorry TRL, but we can just agree to disagree. He had a right to go after the south for violating the right of individuals, but it does not justly ignoring the constitution. He was not a king.

Yes, we will. Because if one group is blatantly defying the Constitution and threatening the destruction of the very country that it governs I think that is cause.
For blitzkrieg i did, for everything else no.

And we don’t produce anything in this country because the unions have destroyed our manufacturing base. They own the local municipalities..and we all feel the effects of that disaster. Your boy barry just gifted them two of our major car companies to pay them back for their political support..how heroic was that?

TRL,

Come on man, polls go up and down. Be careful about quoting polls because by December of ’09 Obama had an approval rating of 47%, the lowest number of a President in that point in office.

TRL:
“Yes, we will. Because if one group is blatantly defying the Constitution and threatening the destruction of the very country that it governs I think that is cause.”

So you are saying that the state, as in the country, is more important than the individual. That is counter to the very fundamental reasons of why this country was formed. A collective of states is not more important than individual freedom, maybe in the USSR it was though.

So when one group defies the Constitution, it is ok for the other group to defy the constitution? Wow….

Liberty Banned said:
TRL:
“Kennedy won the cuban missile crisis for starters. I will admit Vietnam and the bay of pigs were failures.”

He didn’t win the Cuban missile crisis. He placated Kruschev by agreeing to remove the missiles in Turkey, and agreeing not to invade Cuba. Kruschev and Castro got what they wanted. If anything the outcome was equal in terms. I think the Vietnam war was just a little more than a mistake or failure.

His little 3 years, besides Vietnam, in the scheme of things was insignificant. I did like that fact that JFK passed the largest tax cut in US history up to that time in 1961. That was a win for the individual.

Actually they didn’t. We agreed not to invade Cuba, but we’re still going after Castro in every way we can. Kennedy succeeded because he prevented the creation of any other nuclear powers in the western hemisphere which was part of the objective.

Insignificant? That is purely false. 3 years that advanced civil rights and set the stage for the largest civil rights movement in US history, expanded civil liberties, increased industrialization, and established industries that are still pivotal in our present economy. It’s not how long you’re there, it’s what you do. And Kennedy did a lot.

me1ranger said:
And we don’t produce anything in this country because the unions have destroyed our manufacturing base. They own the local municipalities..and we all feel the effects of that disaster. Your boy barry just gifted them two of our major car companies to pay them back for their political support..how heroic was that?

Are you just going to continue to post errant baselss things or are you going to actually debate?

Hey lib..the Clinton prosperity was brought about by the Republican congress. Only they can spend the money, dipshit. And the housing scandal I referred to was a result of your friends Barney and Bubbas policy set into law in Clintons last year. Look at Fannie/Freddy now..a trillion to save them..good job! Everything I said was true..You need to shut up and get a clue. Are you a teacher?

Hey lib..why are you bringing up civil rights? Don’t tell me you forgot that your friends were the ones who filibustered it? That brings us back full circle..Lincoln, the Republican President, fought to free the slaves. Thank you, I’ll debate you all day long, but I do tire of winning..kinda boring.

Oops, got me there, guys. Not dumber than Palin, just sleepier

Says who, Frances? I know you think that’s scores you points with your leftist followers, but aren’t you “supposed” to be a journalist. Not that I’ve seen any evidence of that.

This thumbs up / thumbs down thing is great. Glad it was implemented.

Liberty Banned said:
TRL:
“Yes, we will. Because if one group is blatantly defying the Constitution and threatening the destruction of the very country that it governs I think that is cause.”

So you are saying that the state, as in the country, is more important than the individual. That is counter to the very fundamental reasons of why this country was formed. A collective of states is not more important than individual freedom, maybe in the USSR it was though.

So when one group defies the Constitution, it is ok for the other group to defy the constitution? Wow….

No, I’m saying that the collective and the rights of all is more important than the individual. Those who impose upon the constitution and their sympathizers versus those who believe in the rights of all human beings. We rebelled against the British for denying our rights, then turned around and denied another group their rights, going against our own cause. I would gladly give up my own rights if it meant that those of my countrymen would remain. That is what it means to be an American. In the military they gave up some of their rights, elected officials give up their right to privacy. Why? Because they recognize that the entirety is more important than themselves.

me1ranger says:
July 1, 2010 at 10:41 am me1ranger(Quote)
0 1
Bush had higher pole numbers after 9/11 than anyone since polls were created..you’re an idiot.”

And when he left office he left with the lowest numbers ever .. you’re an idiot.

I see FOX News ratings still puts them behind the USA Network and just ahead of TNT, getting about 1% or less of the overall population as viewers. And still Glenn is at the top of his perch making 50 plus million this year. To understand Glenn you must understand that he is a radio man, and strange promotions to inspire ratings is part of the game. However, this Lincoln Memorial stunt could go bad very easily.

Thats why liberals always vote for whoever will give them something, they can’t understand when conservatives vote seemingly against their own self interest. You are totally backwards in you assessment, yet again. “Obama gonna pay my rent”, remember that?

me1ranger said:
Hey lib..the Clinton prosperity was brought about by the Republican congress. Only they can spend the money, dipshit. And the housing scandal I referred to was a result of your friends Barney and Bubbas policy set into law in Clintons last year. Look at Fannie/Freddy now..a trillion to save them..good job! Everything I said was true..You need to shut up and get a clue. Are you a teacher?

No, I’m not a teacher, but I’m guessing you are?
Sorry, but the plan which Clinton worked with the Republicans through is actually the same one that he proposed when he first entered office which was designed to cut the deficit by 550 billion by reducing spending by 255 billion. That’s the way it works. The president submits the budget, Congress approves. Clinton and Republicans didn’t even reach a full compromise until 97. The budget passed in 96 actually contained more Clinton policies than Republican tax cuts.

me1ranger said:
Hey lib..why are you bringing up civil rights? Don’t tell me you forgot that your friends were the ones who filibustered it? That brings us back full circle..Lincoln, the Republican President, fought to free the slaves. Thank you, I’ll debate you all day long, but I do tire of winning..kinda boring.

Democrats? Yes. Liberals? No. Lincoln was a social liberal. Democrats were social conservatives up until the 60s when Presidents Kennedy and Johnson voiced open support of civil rights. It was at this point that the southern democrats, the dixiecrats, began to switch towards voting Republican. Robert Byrd would remain democrat and renounce his views, but Strom Thurmond would switch to the Republican party and never renounced them. Once again, you’re misinformed.

Bill Adkins said:
me1ranger says:
July 1, 2010 at 10:41 am me1ranger(Quote)
0 1
Bush had higher pole numbers after 9/11 than anyone since polls were created..you’re an idiot.”

And when he left office he left with the lowest numbers ever .. you’re an idiot.

Nice personal attack. Did you even read the complete string of conversation? I was urging TRL to not use polls because they go up and down. Can we have a discussion without personal attacks. Damn.

Lincoln was known as a northern liberal, and that is why the south hated him.

ImNotBlue said:
No… it was because he was charismatic. Who was in charge for the Bay of Pigs? Who started the Vietnam War?

Kennedy was well liked in hindsight… but was less popular during his time than some “historians” would have you believe.

How true!

In fact his trip to Dallas was to soothe over a lot of rumblings and discontent with him.

I remember at the time my Dad, who worked for the DoD, was horrified b/c in a conservation with a /friendcounterpart in Dallas that morning in a little chit chat about JFK’s trip my Dad ended with something along the lines of “sure hope one of those cowboys don’t greet him with blazing guns”.

There never was a Camelot. It was created out of whole cloth b/c he was so charming and charismatic with a beautiful wife and young children who was tragically murdered in his wife’s arms.

Hey, I like him b/c of his tax cuts, space program and anti communist stance. But Camelot?

Screw you Bill..my comment was to refute the lib that said, incorrectly, that Kennedy had the highest numbers. Your boy barry hasn’t left yet, give him time, he’s heading that way now. At least GW kept his dick in his pants and didn’t get himself impeached. Barry is talking right now about how he is refusing to enforce our federal immigration laws, he’ll be lucky to last an entire term. See you in November..dumbass. The Liberty tree is going to get watered..

TRL:
“No, I’m saying that the collective and the rights of all is more important than the individual.”

We do not have collective rights, we have individual rights. The US Constitution was written to create a limited government and protect individual freedom. It was not written to protect the state or the collective.

me1ranger said:
Screw you Bill..my comment was to refute the lib that said, incorrectly, that Kennedy had the highest numbers. Your boy barry hasn’t left yet, give him time, he’s heading that way now. At least GW kept his dick in his pants and didn’t get himself impeached. Barry is talking right now about how he is refusing to enforce our federal immigration laws, he’ll be lucky to last an entire term. See you in November..dumbass. The Liberty tree is going to get watered..

No, you didn’t read, you never read. i wrote “Initial”, that means entering office. Bush’s approval was only high after 9/11, 8 months AFTER he entered.

Even with the spoiled children who only know name calling and playground taunts I enjoyed the conversation today.

I wish I could stick around but I have lunch plans.

Good job LB! I gave you some thumbs up today.

Look at these libs, right before our eyes, attempting to rewrite history! It’s unbelievable..Lincoln was a liberal? You guys can’t argue the facts, so you just try to change them..pathetic. Everything I’ve said here is true, you can’t refute any of it, so please, please..choke on it.

Liberty Banned said:
TRL:
“No, I’m saying that the collective and the rights of all is more important than the individual.”

We do not have collective rights, we have individual rights. The US Constitution was written to create a limited government and protect individual freedom. It was not written to protect the state or the collective.

Didn’t say collective rights, the rights of ALL. The INALIENABLE rights which the Constitution is set up to protect. The Articles of Confederation were set up to create a limited government, but the founding fathers realized that said government was far too weak, hence the Constitution was formed. It was designed to be strong. It was written to protect all people from the tyranny of those who would wish to oppress them by guaranteeing them a group which would protect their interests at a national stage and protect them from other powers. This came at the cost of some of their own individual liberties.

Grammie said:
Even with the spoiled children who only know name calling and playground taunts I enjoyed the conversation today.

I wish I could stick around but I have lunch plans.

Good job LB! I gave you some thumbs up today.

Thanks. It would be nice if we could all just be more civil, avoid some of these personal attacks. We can disagree but it would be nice to have some educated and healthy discussions, such as like the one TRL and I have had.

me1ranger said:
Look at these libs, right before our eyes, attempting to rewrite history! It’s unbelievable..Lincoln was a liberal? You guys can’t argue the facts, so you just try to change them..pathetic. Everything I’ve said here is true, you can’t refute any of it, so please, please..choke on it.

But we have, you haven’t provided any proof or supported anything. This must be notsofast/barney/TylerDurden/johnsimpson.

TRL:
“It was written to protect all people from the tyranny of those who would wish to oppress them by guaranteeing them a group which would protect their interests at a national stage and protect them from other powers. This came at the cost of some of their own individual liberties.”

The US Constitution spells out what the government can and can’t do. It does not say what the individual can and can’t do. The Constitution was not written so a strong government could be created. It was written to limit government. It was written to protect the people from the tyranny of the government.

Lib..the oweness is on you to dispute the facts I’ve presented here, not me. You call me a liar, you back it up. And I’ll grow up and dispense with the name calling, unless in self defense..promise

Sorry, MSNBC losers, get over your obsession with FOX people.

t was at this point that the southern democrats, the dixiecrats, began to switch towards voting Republican. Robert Byrd would remain democrat and renounce his views, but Strom Thurmond would switch to the Republican party and never renounced them. Once again, you’re misinformed”

Nice lie.

Thurmond switched parties to support Barry Goldwater, troll. You can change your party at any time. Look at Specter and Crist. The racists Dixiecrat Dems stayed Dems.

Notable members
Senators
*(D)VA Harry F. Byrd, 1933-1965
*(D)VA A. Willis Robertson, 1946-1966
*(D)WV Robert C. Byrd, 1959-Present
*(D)MS John C. Stennis, 1947-1989
*(D)MS James O. Eastland, 1941-1941,1943-1978
*(D)LA Allen J. Ellender, 1937-1972
*(D)LA Russell B. Long, 1948-1987
*(D)NC Sam Ervin, 1954-1974
*(D)NC Everett Jordan, 1958-1973
*(R)NC Jesse Helms, 1973-2003
*(D)OK Thomas Pryor Gore, 1906-1921,1931-1937
*(D)AL J. Lister Hill, 1938-1969
*(D)AL John J. Sparkman, 1946-1979
*(D)FL Spessard Holland, 1946-1971
*(D)FL George Smathers, 1951-1969
*(D)SC Olin D. Johnston, 1945-1965
*(D,R)SC Strom Thurmond, 1954-1956,1956-2003
*(D)AR John McClellan, 1943-1977
*(D)GA Richard B. Russell, Jr., 1933-1971
*(D)GA Herman E. Talmadge, 1957-1981
*(D)TN Herbert S. Walters, 1963-1964

Libs are lucky to have someone like you lie for them, but you are so misinformed with your lib talking points, it’s so easy to catch you in your lies!

BFD, you hate white people, so who are you to be yelling racism all the time? All this whining and hand wringing the left is doing shows Beck is pushing their buttons, and that’s what Beck wants. They fall right into it every time. LOL

writer said:
BFD, you hate white people, so who are you to be yelling racism all the time? All this whining and hand wringing the left is doing shows Beck is pushing their buttons, and that’s what Beck wants. They fall right into it every time. LOL

The liberal pundits gladly use Glen Beck and company to distinguish themselves from the conservatives. Glenn does have 1% of the population wrapped around his finger, but far more people than that are aghast. Glenn is a walking advertisement for progressive thought.

So what’s your point, valk? Beck wants to push their buttons and he does. Ever notice how often Olbermann gets in a lather over him? It’s like Pavlov ringing the bell and the dog salivating.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
And someone needs to inform the Tea-liban that White Christians don’t own a 4 block radius around Ground Zero.

Of course they don’t. The Jews own that.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
And someone who calls Sotomayor and Obama a racist damn well better expect the same treatment in return. This goes for you and his followers as well.

Expecting a progg to call people racist is like expecting water to be wet.

Being a black Muslim, BFD is of course sympathetic with the Muslim cause.

Its official BECKs brain will be preserved and studied and he wants to know who A.B.Normal is, so he can plan the plaque for his display jar in the A.B.Normal exhibit.

writer said:
So what’s your point, valk? Beck wants to push their buttons and he does. Ever notice how often Olbermann gets in a lather over him? It’s like Pavlov ringing the bell and the dog salivating.

Yep, exactly.

Thomas G Williams said:
Its official BECKs brain will be preserved and studied and he wants to know who A.B.Normal is, so he can plan the plaque for his display jar in the A.B.Normal exhibit.

A poorly played Young Frankenstein joke is not a substitute for an argument, Thomas.

me1ranger said:
Look at these libs, right before our eyes, attempting to rewrite history! It’s unbelievable..Lincoln was a liberal? You guys can’t argue the facts, so you just try to change them..pathetic. Everything I’ve said here is true, you can’t refute any of it, so please, please..choke on it.

So, are you saying that emancipation was a conservative move on part of Lincoln? Really? And here I was thinking that conservativism promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society.

And here I was thinking that conservatism promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society.”

I love it! A lib how thinks that “slavery ” is a traditional institution!

Oh, my!

notsofast, conservatism is as old as civilization. It, together with liberalism, engage in a dynamic, a dance, and the result is change and what we call “progress”. That is how it has always been. The conservative colonialists supported the British. They could not, conceptually, make the change from Kingship to democracy. The colonialists who supported the revolution were radically liberal. Likewise was their stand against control by church influences.

notsofast said:
And here I was thinking that conservatism promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society.”

I love it! A lib how thinks that “slavery ” is a traditional institution!

Oh, my!

Well, notsofast, slavery was a traditional institution before Lincoln ended it. Anybody that would argue otherwise would need to double check their understanding of what a traditional institution is, because slavery falls right into the definition.

Well, notsofast, slavery was a traditional institution before Lincoln ended it. Anybody that would argue otherwise would need to double check their understanding of what a traditional institution is, because slavery falls right into the definition.

A poorly played Young Frankenstein joke is not a substitute for an argument, Thomas.

hehe, funny Pablo.

Well, notsofast, slavery was a traditional institution before Lincoln ended it. Anybody that would argue otherwise would need to double check their understanding of what a traditional institution is, because slavery falls right into the definition.”

I know the libs loved slavery! that’s what they have done to the AAs of America- made them slaves to their white Dems and the government!

Some things never change!

If memory serves me correctly, Glenn said on his radio show that he has to get the permit 48 hours before the actual event or something. I think I also remember him talking about how the rally being on the anniversary of MLK Jr.’s speech was a total coincidence.

Also, Bill Press thinks that calling the President a socialist is hate speech. That’s what he said when he was on Lars Larson’s show a while back, promoting his book, “Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America’s Airwaves” How’s his book doing? #2,010 in Books at Amazon. It was released on May 25th of this year. Beck’s Arguing With Idiots is #1,795 in Books at Amazon, and it was released September of last year. And I think people know how his curent book is selling. Don’t forget the books he’s reccommended that have sold quite well.

So you WACKOs are arguing the TRADITIONAL role of supporting slavery in relation to conservative values of a defective mentality?

And so many of you are playing the devils advocate in all this letting the escapees from reality dictate the OFF TOPIC twists that conservaligious phux always use to drag argument and commentary into BIZZARO WORLD based conservative ideology fantasy s which can not with stand real world exposure.

BECK is a traitorous TOAD, who has ZERO validity in any context.

Speaking of ZERO validity, have you ever tried constructing AN actual argument as opposed to just CALLING people names, ThoMAS?

Is Olby trying to become the new Alex Jones of the left?