Red meat: Angry guy dressed as Founding Father calls for march on D.C. or something
posted at 8:40 pm on March 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
Jokes Karl, “How soon ’till he turns up on Glenn Beck?” Pretty soon, I figure: His last video drew more than 2.5 million hits and this one’s bound to do big business as well, although it leaves me ice cold. So ambitious is his agenda, in fact, that I half-suspect it’s a parody of enraged populist demagoguery. Indifferent politicians, taxation without representation, jobs being outsourced, national suicide, “wake up, America!”, more money for troops’ salaries, universal service — all of it sprinkled with rhetoric about “the almighty wrath of we the people” and marching on Washington and a second American revolution and buying a gun if things don’t work out. As if there aren’t enough destabilizing threats to worry about, now there’s this guy and his contingent to fret over if Congress doesn’t snap to attention when they get those tea bags in the mail. Exit question: Is this Thomas Paine or Robespierre?
Update: Commenters tell me that Beck actually already played this on today’s radio show. Perfect.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Just what I’ve been saying all along. Barrack needs a good teabaggin’
whiskeytango on March 19, 2009 at 8:44 AM
Greatest work I’ve had the pleasure to view in a long time. Thank you very much Hot Air.
Now it is Hot Air readers/viewers responsibility to wake up and send this to 10 or your friends (especially those on the fence).
Let’s do it and take back our country.
MSGTAS on March 19, 2009 at 9:38 AM
…he’s on the team!!!! Goodness.
Mommypundit on March 19, 2009 at 8:05 AM
A: Some of us wonder which team he’s on.
B: We are all subject to having our opinions savaged. He doesn’t get a pass and I don’t recall he ever asked for one. I don’t think he ever banned anyone for questioning his intelligence, sincerity or manhood. I could be wrong.
SKYFOX on March 19, 2009 at 9:40 AM
I am with Labwrs – stop infighting. We each have our own role in this. That should not be a source of disagreement.
I am not even a Christian but I stand with the patriotic among them. Otherwise we have no place else to live.
“In God we trust”. That’s good enough for me. The American idea is a spiritual one. Let’s sing in harmony but together. And Tom Paine is right – it’s a great time to be a patriot!
rishika on March 19, 2009 at 9:47 AM
I agree with all of this guys points except his wanting to do away with the electoral collage. The Founding Fathers themselves put the electoral collage into the Constitution, its found in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1 thru 4. If not for the electoral collage we would have gotten Al Gore as president instead of the first term of George W. Bush. The electoral collage “paid” for itself right there.
The electoral collage gives a voice to the small states because whoever wins a states get ALL of that state’s electoral votes. I use to be against the electoral collage too until I fully understood it. I haven’t described it very well in this comment, it takes a little study to understand it and I don’t have the words. But the Founding Fathers produced a master stroke for justice with the electoral collage and I fully support it. The old guy was right about everything else though.
Maxx on March 19, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Keep the Electoral College (although I would argue for proportional representation of EC votes within each state – end this ‘winner takes all’ nonsense).
No universal service. We’re not cattle or slaves to be channeled into service. If you don’t want to serve, I don’t want you to be handed a gun.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Glenn Beck rocks, and so does this guy, so go ahead and
bancensor me the great and mighty Allah…Everything is true, our country’s laws are becoming a lump of licentious, elitist, perverted, socialist crapola.
kirkill on March 19, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Once again, it is up to each state to decide how it assigns its electoral votes. There is no reuirement that a state use a ‘winner takes all’ stance for its electoral votes. Maine doesn’t.
progressoverpeace on March 19, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Say, does this guy look a little like an angry Rush Limbaugh? Be just like him to go under cover and start another op chaos.
Kissmygrits on March 19, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Indeed so. There should be a nationwide effort to get all states to allocate their EC votes proportionately. Perhaps a nationwide effort to pass a uniform state-constitution amendment to that effect.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Of course, a US Constitution amendment would be just as good.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM
It’s amazing to see how Allah’s posts get so misinterpreted by folks on both sides of an argument sometimes. I have to think this is another of AP’s attempts to throw a story out sort of “tongue-in-cheek” as though the subject of his post is the object of self-ridicule and no further critique is necessary. Maybe I’m wrong?
Anyhow, on the merits of the “March on Washington,” I do shudder to think of what destruction and madness were wrought by the French Revolution’s explosion of populism. The problem in our nation is that we have lost a truly republican form of governance. Frankly, when the masses gain the power they seek, they are quickly fooled in times of crises into surrendering this power to a tyrannical leader.
From a pure democracy (in a troubled world such as our own), there is always a vicious cycle of crises leading to greater concentrations of power, until at last one man controls all. The real model set forth by FDR, which the current president wishes to emulate, is one of harnessing popular panic to increase the size and scope of government.
Whereas the French Revolution descended into a military dictatorship which cast Europe under the shadow of war, the American Revolution resulted in a structure of government which tended to frustrate those who sought power. Unfortunately, the anti-States rights sentiment and populist fervor of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries resulted in a such a significant corruption in the structure of our federalist republican system that we have ever since been descending into the depths of tyranny by the majority. A tryanny of the majority, of course, feeds the tyranny of those who can delight the masses with panem et circenses and teach them that 2+2=5.
Alas, the federal constitution cannot rise up to defend itself, and the parties to this contract (i.e., the States) have grown so accustomed to the rape of their sovereignty that there is little fight left within them. The masses can hold tea parties all they want, but given an opportunity to exert their influence directly, the masses have never been very good at safeguarding their own liberty. Were it not for the fact of the thirteen colonies, which gave structure to the American Revolution and tempered its patriotic fervor, our fragile nation would not have prospered even this long.
Long live the Republic!
cackcon on March 19, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Why? There is no such thing as a perfectly fair voting system. That’s a fact.
The electoral college is not a deal breaker to me, but there aren’t any changes that are going to measurably improve what it does, so I don’t see the reason to change it.
progressoverpeace on March 19, 2009 at 10:46 AM
The reason the Pols went to Arizona is because it could possibly “flip”. It was a close state.
The ONLY states they go to are close states. Conservative votes in California are currently wasted. Just like Conservative votes in New York…
Its like the silly system we have for the primaries, where a few states always have a HUGE impact on the primaries… because they are first… they need to rotate it, or do a lottery or somthing, as to the order.
The Electoral College can be made fair… but right now it is not. I’ve advocated for years to split electoral votes and get rid of the winner take all rule…
But in the current system? A voters vote in Florida in 2004 was MUCH more important than a Californians vote… which shows the flaw in the system.
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 10:47 AM
AP, why is it that you are always hating on GB? I hope it is all sarcasm. There might be a reason why his rating are so high.
jzzr83 on March 19, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Allah, I hate to be a knucklehead, but why do you feel that way?
saiga on March 19, 2009 at 10:50 AM
As to my shared sacrifice idea for the Armed Forces?
Most missed my point.
I know exactly how profesional the all volunteer military is… I WAS ONE! Joined the Navy when I got old enough, but missed Viet Nam. I saw the transition to an all volunteer force first hand.
However, its a historical FACT that Rulers are more apt to use a Profesional Volunteer Army in foreign adventures… because the people back home won’t squawk as much as its sending people who VOLUNTEERED…
As to the all volunteer meme… right now its NOT. With the stop loss program, where they can, and do, keep you past your origional term of enlistment, without reenlisting, its NOT ALL VOLUNTEER by definition.
Now, even in times of Peace, most of our combat power is stationed overseas… and constantly deployed. We have troops stationed all over the world, protecting everyones borders BUT OURS.
I don’t think the non thinking Sheeple that are the American Electorate would allow that to be done with a drafted army.
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 10:58 AM
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am12.html
Here is everything you need to know about the Electoral College, the how, the why, the what…
For the fifth time – split Electoral votes per state, not winner takes all – the Neb / Maine models would work just fine.
Also – does anyone remember Hillary Clinton’s comments after Gore lost in 2000? here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/10/politics/main248645.shtml
When it didn’t fancy her junta – she wanted it gone…
I am amazed at the level of ignorance concerning these matters, namely the resident “content cut and paste host”
Odie1941 on March 19, 2009 at 10:59 AM
I wouldn’t put anything past the sheeple. The electorate is deteriorating more every day thanks to all the diversity.
saiga on March 19, 2009 at 11:01 AM
I’m not sure what you mean by “fair” with respect to voting. We get one vote each, and it should be accurately counted – if by “fair” you mean “incorruptible”, I guess you’re right….someone will always try to cheat.
My argument for allocating EC votes proportionately is simply out of a desire to see the EC reflect a representative view of the body politic. If candidate A gets 51% and wins in State X, why should the EC award all votes to him and effectively say that “State X is 100% behind candidate A”? Why shouldn’t the EC award its votes in accordance with the proportional split of the electorate? This would more accurately say that “State X supports candidate A slightly more than candidate B”. The integrity of the EC as defined in the US Constitution is preserved.
Think about it. Why should California get to routinely say that it is 100% behind the Democrat candidate, when that is never the case? Why do the 30-40% of Californians that vote Republican never have their influence felt within the EC?
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 11:02 AM
At risk of getting the ban stick….
AP you’re exactly what’s wrong with the “roll over and die” Republican Party. What else are we supposed to do? Congress won’t stop until China owns the U.S. Obama won’t stop the spending spree and backward policies that are destroying the country.
If you’re in favor of using force against a terrorist that posed a threat to American lives and democracy, why then are you opposed to using force against domestic terrorists that pose a threat against American democracy and wellbeing.
Methinks you’re mighty two-faced…
leetpriest on March 19, 2009 at 11:04 AM
I liked the video.
Fish on March 19, 2009 at 11:08 AM
I don’t mean ‘fair’ in terms of honesty in the system, but ‘fair’ in terms that each person has the same effective power in their vote as everyone else.
I understand your point. You are arguing, essentially, for a straight, democratic process for electing the President. Having proportional splits in every state for their electoral votes is pretty close to having a single, nationwide election based on popular vote, since the number of electoral votes are based on state population (+2 for the ‘Senators’). I’m not a supporter of that at all, though, like I said, it isn’t a deal-breaker for me.
progressoverpeace on March 19, 2009 at 11:09 AM
All I know is that apparently 58% of the country thinks it’s the Fed Government’s (read mine as a taxpayer) job to give housing to everyone. A large percentage of the electorate has grown addicted to Fed (read my) give-aways. The kleptocracy on the Hill and in the WH are more than willing to take more of my money and give it to the non-producers. So, as another once said:
What is to be done?
quikstrike98 on March 19, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Ah, a becker.
getalife on March 19, 2009 at 11:13 AM
i sent off a tea bag to DiFi and Boxer along with my idiotic congressass . with the tea bags i sent them all a pair of reading glasses , so they have no more excuses as to why they cant read a bill before they vote on it .
and when i called my congressass’s office , one of his aids actually had the balls to tell me he read the stimulus bill .{ this was the morning after it came back from committee} . I said “BS there is no way he read 1000+ pages in 8 hours.”
Mojack420 on March 19, 2009 at 11:13 AM
AP, why don’t you write a column about what you do believe in? I know it is not God, Palin, Beck or any other patriot. I for one am tired of your constant demeaning attitude toward anyone who has a strong belief in the very things that once made our country great. You malign one citizen’s efforts to rally fellow patriots to take note of and consider action to stop losing more of our freedoms. I miss Captain’s Quarters since Ed’s efforts here are interspersed by your senseless negativity. If all citizens who speak of taking our country back are to be so maligned on Hot Air, I will no longer read any of your tripe.
Pat in NC on March 19, 2009 at 11:33 AM
It’s very obvious they are holding the economy hostage and government can’t do anything about it.
The bailouts will continue, the outrages will continue until government finishes paying them off.
Now, if you want to protest that outrage, many American will join you.
getalife on March 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM
That’s Allah in a nutshell- style over substance.
ExTex on March 19, 2009 at 11:47 AM
No. This is mathematically incorrect. I loathe democracy and would never advocate strengthening its hold on the political process.
There is nothing about the division of EC votes within each state that affects the integrity of the EC system as designed by the Founding Fathers. All that is important to keep mindless democracy in check is to maintain the allocated number of EC votes for each of the several states, in accordance with the Constitution.
How those EC votes are allocated within each state is open to debate without fear of undermining the Founding Fathers’ intent for the EC system.
We could roll dice for them.
I argue that, on a state-by-state basis, each state should return its results to the EC in a manner that accurately represents the people. The amount of people don’t matter…this isn’t mob rule…only the proportions matter.
I also argue that if this protocol were to be established nationwide, we would be highly unlikely to ever see a leftist president ever again.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 11:48 AM
If you apportion electoral votes to represent the popular vote, what exactly is the point of the electoral college?
vitocorleone99 on March 19, 2009 at 11:50 AM
This vid is really well put together. Just like ‘Zo’s stuff, it speaks to me. Why some vids go viral while other’s fade into obscurity is a mystery to me.
RepubChica on March 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Glenn Beck is the shiznit…
RepubChica on March 19, 2009 at 12:04 PM
It’s hard to explain but I’ll take a shot at it. If you go strictly by the popular vote (remember, this is ONLY for the presidential election) then the candidates are going to ignore the small states, simply because they are small and not that many votes. But the electoral college system gives them more clout because all of the electoral votes for a given state go to whoever wins the popular vote in that state. So presidential candidates have to win states by a majority not simply any large group of people on the east or west coast, the candidate has to be concerned about what are now known as the fly over states too.
Another advantage of the electoral college is that if its a super close race like Gore/Bush was, then the votes DON’T have to be recounted in every state. The votes only have to be recounted in the states where the dispute is.
Can you imagine during Gore/Bush if every state would have had to recount their votes…. two, three, four times? It would have literally made the problem 50 times worse.
Maxx on March 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM
The same as it always was – to smoothe out the influence of populous states over sparsely populated ones.
Remember, there is no Constitutional requirement for the EC to allocate its votes in any particular way. The EC delegates could just decide among themselves and screw the people of their state! They might get lynched however… ;)
The EC chooses the president. Each state has a number of EC votes that are allocated in a way that diminishes the overbearing influence of heavily populated states. How each of those EC votes is placed is entirely up to us.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Just to be extra-clear:
I am NOT suggesting that if, on election night, Candidate A wins 54% and Candidate B wins 46%, that the EC votes be divided that way – that would indeed be a democratic subversion of the EC. Yuk.
I specifically stated “within each state”.
For each state’s election results, the EC votes of that state are divided in proportion to its results.
So if CA votes A – 64%, B – 36%, than 36% of CA’s EC votes go to Candidate B….Candidate A cannot walk away with all the EC votes because 2/3 of the state does not endorse him for president!
Doesn’t that sound more representative?
This approach would destroy the stranglehold that ‘blue’ states have on this country. The EC is currently being gamed to the max. We need to make people fight harder for our support.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Errr….I meant 1/3, of course ;)
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Did anyone notice what Congress passed yesterday? With the help of a bunch of Republicans. It’s the H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act. Check out section 6104 subsection B6. It states, and I quote from the document:
“(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
This is the beginning of the civilian defense force that Obama and Rahm Emmanuel promised. Wake Up!
This, combined with The Patriot Act that gives the executive branch terrible powers, is a toxic combination for anyone that supports freedom.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388
True_King on March 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Oh, but now I see that I missed your original point. There would be NO point to the electoral college if you apportion the electoral votes to the popular vote. Doing that would defeat the purpose of the electoral college.
Maxx on March 19, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Exactly correct. That is why I felt the need to clarify what my proposal actually is. I am not advocating apportioning all EC votes in accordance with the national popular vote.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Maxx, I’m well aware of the function of the electoral college. This is why I ask what would be the point if the EC votes were going to be apportioned to reflect the popular vote. It just seems to me that making it more like the popular vote would be nothing more than a fancy way of letting the popular vote determine the election.
Electoral college votes are allocated to the states according to population following each census – one vote per representative and one vote per senator. Aside from tossing in electors for the two senators in each state, the votes are essentially a function of the population.
It’s all well and good to note that the Republican could take a chunk of New York’s and California’s electoral votes, but the reverse would apply in the red states. Since virtually no state will ever go more than 2/3 for a given candidate, you would be reduced more or less to the direct election of the president, with the winner in the handful of three-vote states losing a toss-in vote just for kicks.
vitocorleone99 on March 19, 2009 at 12:29 PM
While many are answering the reasoning behind the EC over pure popular vote – I believe you are looking towards how that rationale was determined.
There needs to be a basis for an Electoral delegate count, per state, based upon population, not just voting population, which is determined by the census. Hence the outrage over Brown Shirt ACORN running/outsourcing the census show.
You need to go back to the “Great Compromise”, also known as the Connecticut Compromise – which was a mixture of the New Jersey plan (small state representation – led to Senate for equal 2, regardless of population) and the Virginia Plan (large state representation – led to House, which its members are based on a states population). This goes to the representational thinking of our founding fathers and key figures, like Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth (sadly lost in the annals of history)- in forming a republic. Bi cameralism – House and Senate Legislative branch.
This basis led to the Electoral College system of voting, whereas the total population + fixed delegates determines the Electoral Delegate totals per state.
A split Electoral State – like Neb and Maine is the best solution, as provided through The Constitution, Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment; because it inherently sides with the spirit of small state/large state representation and not just “1 or the other” as the current system provides. The rules have changed through the census, gerrymandering, redistricting and apportionment.
As an upstate New Yorker – trust me, they would love some representation over the dominant NYC…
Odie1941 on March 19, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Mathematically this is incorrect.
Dividing the EC votes of each individual state in accordance with their individual returns IS NOT EQUAL OR EVEN APPROX EQUAL to dividing the total EC votes in accordance with the national popular vote.
Yes, red states would lose EC votes to blue candidates – but the relative influence would be far less overall.
It would be very interesting to see if there was a calculator that could take historical election results and apply this protocol to the states and see who the winner might have been. I may even write one myself for shits’n'giggles.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 12:38 PM
You are right, I acknowledged that I missed your point at 12:25.
Maxx on March 19, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Additionally, the popular vote wasn’t instituted until the Election of 1824 – our 6th President – and great American – John Quincy Adams.
Odie1941 on March 19, 2009 at 12:41 PM
http://spot.colorado.edu/~mcguire/electcollproportional.html
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 12:42 PM
actually, i don’t look at who posted the thing at HA. I can tell by the slant if it’s AP or not.
There’s a liberty train leavin’ the station AP. You can jump on it or be run over by it. whatever.
This guy speaks for me and many more Americans as time moves forward. And heck, for that matter – he’s speaking for many Americans that came before us.
People like AP will call us “alarmists”….but historically, in America at least – we are in good company.
But, there will always be the Tory, and pots full of frogs slowly boiling to death and laughing at those of us that have already jumped out of the pot.
OwlorNothing on March 19, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Limey –
Nice find. Now imagine if the split system was in play before the 1996 Election and not just a post analysis.
Odie1941 on March 19, 2009 at 12:48 PM
The problem with your proposal, whether you phrase it in the Founding Fathers’ intent or otherwise, is that you’re advocating a one-size-fits-all national solution to how individual States allocate electoral college votes. In this sense, your proportional allocation proposal is no different from any other nationalized solution because it deprives the States of their sovereignty over how to allocate these votes.
Sure, the States could get together, sans federal government, and uniformly adopt something along these lines. And that is a respectable position to take, but it simply by-passes the system that was uniformly adopted in the constitution in the first place, which was to leave it to each State’s discretion.
Wherever you reside, I encourage you to start a petition process to get your State to adopt the proportional allocation system. But don’t press the views of your State on everyone else. One size does not fit all, which is why the constitution was written so as to preserve State sovereignty (even if this document has since been shredded and burned by the feds).
cackcon on March 19, 2009 at 12:50 PM
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/423846.html
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Here is another benefit to the Split System:
It maintains a better checks and balance over both state and federal legislative branch’s.
Odie1941 on March 19, 2009 at 12:51 PM
I would favor each state amending its own constitution, rather than a national amendment.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM
The origional House of Reps consisted of only 65 members. With 13 origional states, this meant that the smaller states had a much LARGER statistical impact on elections, than now…
They’d have their 2 Senate seats, plus at least 1 House seat vote… thus having 3 of 91 votes, or about 3%.
Now however, with 538 electoral votes, that same state would only have 3 of 538, or only .0056… about 1/2 of 1% impact on the vote… statisticly insignificant with states like Calif, Florida, and Ohio, having such larger vote totals.
US grew in size until the impact of the electoral system has any real meaning…. so as smart as the Founders were, its time to take a hard look at the system.
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Yes. It’s a farce. The whole notion that the EC is effective at equalizing the influence of populous states is laughable.
The winning strategy is always – rank states from largest EC votes to smallest….start at the top and eat your way down until you win.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 1:05 PM
I don’t know how day after day after day you chronicle the missteps the govt is taking, that will, in the end destroy our country, and then mock a guy who’s calling you to act. It comes down to a simple choice, either shut down the blog and don’t actually do anything about it, or take some action.
What if all it takes is mailing to a tea bag to your representative? If that’s all it took to recapture our country, would you do it?
The smug tone of Allahpundit was probably shared by the majority of hand wringers back when it mattered too.
Fish on March 19, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Good thing you guys hijacked the thread to discuss your electoral college theories.
Sugarbuzz on March 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Yeah, there was going to be a real riveting debate about whether or not the congress should follow the same laws as everyone else.
vitocorleone99 on March 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM
The guy in the vid mentioned the popular vote….hence the discussion.
Pay attention.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I paid attention, I saw the video. Doesn’t change the fact that this last page is mostly you and others arguing about the EC in dry and theoretical terms, and completely buzzkilling the appropriate emotional response the video should be generating.
Aren’t you the one that was yelling in some other recent thread something along the lines of “YOUR ALL FOOLS!! FOOLS I TELL YOU!! WAKE UP!”
Sugarbuzz on March 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
The impact of the senators’ votes is more prevalent in smaller states, to be sure. The catch is that you have to do some rounding if you want to go to proportional allocation. Some of those odd votes get lost in the wash.
I took the 2008 results from here. I don’t have nearly the ambition to go down to the district level or to account for third parties or any of that. Also, because I was making my own rules, I decided that each state would have a winner (no 50/50 splits) and rounded as best I could.
In light of the mention of the Bush/Gore results above, I had no idea what to expect. I came up with 284 EC votes for Obama (52.8%). Rounding differently or allowing 50/50 splits and such may have had an impact, but it seemed to me that the breaks cut both ways pretty evenly.
The point about the census reflecting the whole population and not just the voters is a good one, but seems to be more of an argument in favor of direct election. If 10% tunrout in California can allocate 55 electoral votes (either take-all or proportionate), an argument could be made that the EC may not be the greatest thing in the world.
vitocorleone99 on March 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Great video! Although I might disagree with some smaller issues; I think this was great. More please!
Norwegian on March 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Yeah, that’s me….except I speak english and use the word “you’re”.
And it wasn’t “fools”, it was “cowardly scum”.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
I like Joseph Farrah’s website. He should have joined his friend Chuck Norris and put WND.COM’s support behind Huckabee last election though. Same with pathetic so-called conservative talk radio. Then we wouldn’t be in this mess. They had the chance to avoid this disaster last election and they blew it. That said, maybe some of these conservatives are waking up. Joseph Farrah could win me over again if he starts talking with his feet and puts togther some marches. See, talking to millions of people on the radio each day or on TV is great, but in reality, pretty much useless on its own if you want real change in America. We need to build a mass movement. We need lot’s of people to join us. And if we don’t do this now we will never ever take back the Republican party. We will never have a conservative movement that is truly conservative. We will never have control over our borders. We will never stop foreign aid handouts to all of America’s enemies. We will never be able to deal with the cultural and political issues that will decide the future destiny of America. America is finished if there isn’t a real conservative movement. There will be no more conservatives to talk to.
apacalyps on March 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Po-tae-to, Po-tah-to
Signed with love and respect,
Cowardly Scum
Sugarbuzz on March 19, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Using anger to change a system, without forethought of what you will put in place after…
Gives you folks like Stalin, or Hitler, or Napoleon.
Using anger to change the system, WITH forethought of what you will put in place… and debate about it (like the Federalist Papers), gives you the US Constitution…
Gee… wonder which direction I want.
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 2:05 PM
It sounded great until we go to the Universal Compulsory Service idea. That’s what the Messiah wanted to require
flytier on March 19, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Good observation :)
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Correct english, incorrect english ;)
Hey, I really wasn’t shotgunning everyone here with that comment…the cowardly scum know who they are…and I know of many here that are very far from being cowardly.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM
I’d like some sincere help here on why AP or others tend to minimize the efforts of Beck and folks like this “Paine” guy. Assuming most of us here hate the socialism and non-representation that is ongoing here, what do you propose? How do we respond? Do we take action beyond writing, calling, e-mailing Congress and the President? (Seems to me that they have learned how to turn off their fax machines.) Also seems to me the Tea Parties have real potential. Or do we just sit and argue on the blog? What would AP or other mockers suggest?
Christian Conservative on March 19, 2009 at 2:35 PM
SDN,
If you’re not quick enough to get humor, that’s okay. You’ve established the fact that you’re slow and bitter. Attacking me to distract from your ignorance smacks of the new administration. Not original, but what the hell? You’re in good company.
I’ll cut you a break. We’ll assume your teleprompter was screwing with you.
Shep on March 19, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Sweet, the keybored Rambos rise, rise!!!1
Who cares if you look like idiotic sore losers. Crying about the revolution that wasn’t is about all any of you are good for.
When are ya’ll going to start reaming Gen Petraeus?
barkolounger on March 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Heinlein… Starship Troopers… been debated since 1959 when he published the book.
I think for the next “change” two things need to be in place…
1. To vote? you serve two years in either the military, or a civilian equivalent… you don’t have to serve, and have full civil rights, but no vote. Your choice.
2. To vote you have to be a Net Tax PAYER. You should not have a say in the public largeses unless you are contributing to it.
These two requirments will ensure that the worst possibilities of Democracies Mob Rule will not happen… at least IMO.
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 2:44 PM
And the Sons of Liberty met in a Tavern… so your point?
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Umm because they are snake oil sales men that are looking to sell faux populist bromides to ignorant malcontents.
Taking idiots like Beck seriously ensures your fringe status.
barkolounger on March 19, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Yeah….FNC is such a ‘fringe’ channel.
LimeyGeek on March 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Further mocking is no answer. What would you propose? Or do you relish the socialist junk that’s being foisted off on us?
Christian Conservative on March 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Again, turning to Lincoln’s Lyceum Address of 1838:
Barry the Great Big O and Johnny Mac debated in the general election if a scalpel or a hatchet was the more appropriate tool to reform the ills of our government. By much of the anger across the nation, I think most of us have come to the conclusion that government remains, and has long been, a monster; a hydra-like beast that sprouts new tentacles as they are pared back. What is required is not a scalpel, nor even a hatchet; what is required is a Sawzall. Entire branches of the executive need to be fired – not laid off, but fired for incompetence – and the sizes of the staffs in the legislative branch and judicial must also be pared back.
Some will say that this will require legislators to do their own scutwork; that the judiciary will be spending too much time doing their own research; that the rentseekers in the executive will simply strike.
These are not bugs. These are features. The layer of sycophants and the insulating ease in power that the members of government have at all levels has risen in direct proportion to the arrogation and outright usurpation of power that we the people have individually, “Endowed by our Creator” to use the original phrase. The underlying unibody of our free republic and our free market remain valid and structurally sound – it is the superfluous bolt-on parts of the rentseekers in the executive; the grease from the lobbyists and staffers in the legislative; and the lack of judiciary humilty, shed as so much dust, that have gummed up the machine to the breaking point. Basic maintenance has not been done for years – and this is the fault of us, the owners. There is no reason to send the machine to the junkyard; simply doing the basic maintenance we should’ve been doing since the start will be plenty.
Blacksmith on March 19, 2009 at 3:18 PM
OH…. and Romeo13′s third point of change…
The Federal Government will be held to a spending limit of 25% of GDP, and a balanced budget, except in time of a Constitutional Declared War.
States, may increase there taxes as much as their citizens will take….
The Fed will be FORCED to spend only on its Constitutionaly mandated requirments (border, defense and such)… and the States will then be able to have the money to do what their Citizens wish them to do.
Bring the power of State Government back through the only real power in government, the power of the purse.
Romeo13 on March 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM
“This guy” for president!
CynicalOptimist on March 19, 2009 at 4:01 PM
We live in a time when our Congress is both corrupt and inept. They ignore the people entirely, do whatever keeps them in office, ignore the Constitution and are now actively stealing from some of us…If this is not the time for action beyond a talking head ‘tut tutting’ Congress, who could care less, when is?
JIMV on March 19, 2009 at 4:04 PM
So far, I’ve read books on John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams & George Washington. Can anyone recommend a good book about the constitution?
gmoonster on March 18, 2009 at 9:12 PM
What Would the Founders Do?
nottakingsides on March 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM
The very folk who are destroying the country have made it very hard indeed to remove them..Incumbents have at least a 5% advantage in elections and a vast money advantage….
Folk are stirring…as things get more and more outrageous and the inept Congress rolls over or pushes socialism and class envy while spending our national wealth on partisan scheme to keep themselves in power, the common man gets angry…
JIMV on March 19, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Now is the winter of our discontent…
I have reflected on many of the issues raised in this video. It is dramatic to be sure, maybe overly so. But the sentiments are not lost on me either. Our government has become mired in corrupted self-interest. It is nearly indisputable as a fact. The salient question remains, what will we do about it?
This video has an appeal. But it will mainly register with those who are already mad enough to act. The presentation is too “over the top” to appeal to the majority.
I applaud the attempt by “Thomas Paine” to once again appeal to our common sense. But this message needs to be delivered from a more palatable frame. We need a leader that can articulate these ideas in a way that will appeal to the mainstream. Because I believe that they indeed have mainstream appeal.
America is searching for a leader to guide us out of the wilderness. I only hope that one will emerge.
Hawthorne on March 19, 2009 at 4:46 PM
I good with everything except the electoral college change and universal service.
rivlax on March 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Agreed. But until we get one, we’d better DO something besides talk!
Christian Conservative on March 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Yea, it’s totally “nutroots” to care so much about the trajectory of America that you would dress up as an irrelevant crackpot from our early history and that sap, Glenn Beck…he actually believes in God, not only as the source of all Creation, he thinks that God is the font of Moral Law/Natural Law, which is the origin of the Rule of Law, without which we would have no freedom to spew nonsense, and, he’s, he’s, he’s, more popular than I am…Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
Christine on March 19, 2009 at 5:23 PM
^
ziinnggg!!
Fish on March 19, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Some of you people are saying..Glen is a crackpot?? From history? Glenn Beck a ‘sap?’–He ‘actually’ believes in God!’–
The thing that bugs me the most is that these “crackpots” fought, died, and debated for and about the crummy likes of YOU, the spillage, the leftover runoff, the crap of our society,the smelly stuff that runs down the sewers–YOU folks who pee on us and tell us it’s raining. Start your own country.Get your own military to defend you. Lotsa luck with that!
lizzee on March 19, 2009 at 7:37 PM
March on Washington, eh?
1. All of a sudden the IRS will audit you. There will suddenly be back taxes you never knew about.
2. Try to buy a gun and because of the background check you’ll be denied.
3. For reasons unbeknownst to the Passport Office your application is denied.
4. The police will kick down your door early one morning and ‘find’ hundreds of risque Shirley Temple pics on your computer…pervert.
5. You can’t figure out why you can’t get that job at the county/state/federal agency…gee, I submitted my fingerprints and have no prior felonies? Odd.
6. It comes down through the grapevine/old boy network to your boss that perhaps it is best you ‘move on’.
7. “Officer, I just know I registered my car…I just don’t understand it! Drugs? What drugs?”
Dr. ZhivBlago on March 19, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Curious. Ever serve in the military? No tricks or alterier motive.
AZ_Redneck on March 19, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Sending teabags to your congressman might get you a visit from the FBI…. They don’t know what’s in it.
CrazyFool on March 20, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Passionate, yes, concerned, yes, but “angry” seems like a bit of silly overheated rhetoric for someone you don’t like.
Allah, Maybe he just caught you at an “angry” time.
RJL on March 20, 2009 at 2:37 AM
.
Sometimes we have to take the risk. Hiding in the attic work out well for Anne Frank, didn’t it.
.
.
The electoral college isn’t perfect but it has served us well.
.
I have always been apposed to forced servitude.
darktood on March 20, 2009 at 3:06 AM
Inspiring, and he is right.
Too many people sitting on their rears ‘twittering’ their objections when we should be marching on the capitol and organizing a full on revolution.
Mr Purple on March 20, 2009 at 6:42 AM
So this is the meme, Allah?
Glenn Beck: Idiot.
Allah: Visionary.
Notsomuch…..
seejanemom on March 20, 2009 at 11:08 AM
I can never tell, is Allah really ragging on Beck?
Ludwig on March 21, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Bitch, bitch, bitch….yawn!
Joe Pyne on March 27, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Bitch, bitch, bitch…yawn!
Joe Pyne on March 27, 2009 at 7:37 PM
AP, what exactly is your problem? What is your major malfunction? What do you dislike about this video? Are you scared that people are getting pissed off, and you don’t want anyone to rock the boat? I’m serious… why does this video bother you so much?
cannonball on March 27, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »