Video: Beck interviews Limbaugh on the threat to free speech
posted at 8:36 pm on August 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
Another day, another harrowing clip of one of our new “czars” extolling the virtues of radical leftism. And yet, Limbaugh’s right: If bringing back Fairness was ever seriously part of The One’s agenda, the moment to do it has safely passed. To pull off something like that would require a complacent right and a broad independent middle energized with Hopenchange fever. Thanks to ObamaCare, we now have the opposite. Lefty Dan Gerstein surveys the landscape:
Step back for a second, listen to what the non-screaming skeptics are saying, and it’s clear the party severely overestimated its mandate and underestimated the public’s growing unease with the government’s massive growth over the last year. What would have been a hard sell in any environment has turned into an epic challenge. Yet the Democrats have been charging ahead as if it’s still November 2008, oblivious to the dramatic change in the electorate’s mood…
The president chose not to lead with his own [health-care] plan, and Congress filled the vacuum with a multitude of partisan bills. This only heightened the public’s confusion and wariness. The Democrats went back and forth for weeks on how to pay for their bills and then settled on Medicare cuts as the prime cost-saver, fueling doubts about whether it would be deficit neutral as the president promised. Worst of all, the House bills, which have been the locus of public attention, were found by CBO to actually raise costs instead of lowering them. That undermined the president’s credibility and the public’s confidence in Congress’ competence…
If Democrats are going get out of this hole and pass a meaningful health care bill, Kohut argues, they are going to have to address this broad distrust of government, which is becoming more acute among independents and even some Democrats.
Obama’s polling (now down to 51/44 at Gallup) will bounce back and he’ll almost certainly get something passed on health care but that “broad distrust of government” ain’t going away, especially with things like cap-and-trade on the horizon. So long as distrust is high, the odds of Democrats instituting stealth Fairness are even lower than the odds of them holding onto Congress long-term. The One will have to content himself with creepy idiocy like this, which I expect will be about as effective as the alleged plan to replace memories of 9/11 with a commitment to flower power or whatever.
Exit question: Is Beck serious here when he talks about the White House using some sort of disaster as a pretext to impose emergency rule? We’re only seven months into The One’s term and already he’s right at the brink of Reichstag Fire scenarios? I don’t think the left dropped those on Bush until his second year in office, at least. How’s GB going to hold it together for another three years if he’s already this close to the edge?
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 … 5 6 7 8 Next »
That paragraph is so contradictory that I wonder if the author was drunk when he wrote it. He will “bounce back” and then he states that there is a “broad distrust of government”?
Where is the substantiation for the “bounce back”? Was this just pulled out of a hat?
atheling on August 27, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Not off topic. Ridicule (the fattest-fat-ever pic of Rush) is a favorite tactic for those whose arguments (AP) are weak.
See above re: “Ridicule.”
labwriter on August 27, 2009 at 12:35 PM
GOD FORBID SOMEONE HAS A FRIGGIN’ PERSONALITY THAT DEVIATES FROM YOUR NORMAL STICK IN THE MUD/STICK UP THE ASS TYPE.
Ghoul aid on August 27, 2009 at 12:40 PM
I’m not talking about “panic”. I’m talking about the people that are unsure and will follow orders when they see others doing it. It has nothing to do with “panic”.
I’m glad you know where my head is. I’m one of the few in my family that hasn’t continued in some form of public service. I’m in a family of cops, firefighters, EMTs and military. I know very well the dedication and attitudes of these people. You say I have my head in the fantasy land of journalists and movies but I see a lot of people here with their heads firmly in the fantasy land where the military will unquestionably support their side in a fight against the government.
You are never going to convince me that the cops didn’t know it was unconstitutional to confiscate firearms in New Orleans yet they did it anyway. Where was the support for the people against illegal orders? How about the ones that raided a home to kidnap and send a child to Cuba, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Kent State.
Unless BO does something so very blatant the state, local and federal authorities will support him because that is their job.
To think that the military and law enforcement would stand down if there were an internal attack and martial law declare is absurd. To think that if there were riots and other disruptions that the military and law enforcement would refuse to quell them, even with deadly force is absurd. They are protecting their country and unless there is a blatant disregard for the law by the president they will follow orders.
Yes I know not all would and I know that most of my family wouldn’t but I do have a cousin in the State Police that would be at my door in a second to confiscate my firearms and or arrest me as an extremist. He has nothing against me or other family but he has stated again and again that he must follow orders even if he doesn’t agree with them.
RagTag on August 27, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Glenn Beck’s “personality” is an act. Insanity is his schtick.
He’s an entertainer, much like Stephen Colbert, except he gets paid to scare and rile up his audience instead of making them laugh. When he’s not on set, he probably doesn’t give a flying fox about politics.
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 12:57 PM
No, it is not! In fact it is a typical Leftist play right out of the Leftist playbook. A play that the Left “telegraphed” their intent to use when they accused Bush of plotting to use to void elections in 2008.
You Lefties are hard wired to give yourselves away. All the things the Left accused the Right of doing, or plotting to do are coming to fruition from the Left. And we are going to have use violence against you to make it stop. I am convinced of that now. And I didn’t even have to watch a single episode of Glenn Beck to reach that conclusion.
We’ll see you on the line, or across the line. Your choice.
mrpeabody on August 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM
And Mark Steyn, who’s as ‘A’ team as it gets, for my money.
Scott P on August 27, 2009 at 12:59 PM
This administration miscalculated how much Americans distrust their government when they see things going on that no one can explain. When the MSM is mum on major issues involved in passage of huge bills and in the structure of the ONE’s administration, Americans are suspicious. Fundamental reform of our government without our consent will not stand. MM’s book and GB’s show are the only sources of information on this. Why?
d1carter on August 27, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 12:57 PM
color me scared.
Ghoul aid on August 27, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I continue to disagree with your pov that the military will mow down the mobs if given the order (that’s not a quote, but that’s what you’re saying–
However, reasonable people can disagree, and I respect your opinion. I may be wrong, but I think a significant portion of the military would refuse an order from what they perceive to be an outlaw government–a conclusion that I base on conversations with a group of National Guardsmen living in the midwest.
Regardless of whether I am right or you are right, I repeat: I think the real threat will come from Obama’s goon force that he pledged to put together if elected:
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” He said that in Colorado on July 2, 2008.
labwriter on August 27, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Sorry, AP, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. This administration is riddled with hard leftists and radicals. This president is a proven, unabashed liar. I don’t think he has the power to do what Beck seems to imply at times, but I don’t think it’s beyond him to use it if it were ever given him.
If the situation presented itself, this man would prove himself a despot in the vein of Chavez or Castro. The key is never letting him, or any of those that advise him, have the power to do that. Destabilize the administration however we can. Keep them off-balance. Never let them consolidate power anywhere. Take back the Congress. Have them constantly on the defensive and backtracking.
spmat on August 27, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Well at least you have BO on your side. I guess he also believes that the military will not follow orders to suppress riots.
I really hope you are right and I am wrong. I would like nothing better then to see the military and law enforcement to side with the anti-BO forces.
RagTag on August 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM
AKA the democratically elected president of the United States and his administration.
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 1:31 PM
I’m just curious, Spenol. As a European, what do you gain by coming onto a American Conservative Blog and insulting Conservatives?
kingsjester on August 27, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Start here, and work you way backwards. Unless, of course, honest questioning equates to “fear mongering” if you can’t answer any of them.
I’m anxious to hear all your answers. And, fear not, there’s another 2 days of questions to answer, if you’re up for it.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29631/
CatsGodot on August 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Well, that’s been my point all along.
We do not have a coup.
We do not have an illegal government.
Nothing they have done is blatantly illegal.
Everything they are doing is being done according to law.
We may not like it but it is what it is.
I see absolutely no reason ethically or legally why local, state and federal authorities would or could refuse orders to deploy or suppress riots.
During a national emergency I see no reason why the authorities would refuse to confiscate firearms. I sure we can have a great old time after the crisis dealing with it in court.
I see no reason why authorities would not use deadly force if authorized to do so.
During such a time the “outlaws” will not be the government but in fact the ones fighting the government.
RagTag on August 27, 2009 at 1:47 PM
thats right, just like waco, ruby ridge, etc….all perfectly legal….just like cutting the hole in the back of a babie’s head and sucking out the brains…
and people think we won’t end up with tyranny…
right4life on August 27, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Respectfully, this has become quite the meme this summer, and I’m tiring of it.
Yes, the teacher unions are Democrat. But look–there’s a LOT of conservative teachers out there in public schools–me being one. I teach my students patriotism (one of the core democratic values). We learn our National Anthem by heart. We say the Pledge including “Under God” every day. Our third and fourth graders learn the three branches of government, and economic, free market principles.
Are there leftist teachers? Sure. Do educational “organizations” try to force us to teach liberal ideals? Yes. But some of us stay for the express reason that, if we don’t, we leave the school systems with nothing but liberalism.
Thanks for listening. I do hear what you’re saying about our unions. But please realize that there are conservative teachers “fighting the good fight” for our nation out there.
Grace_is_sufficient on August 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM
There are other explanations for all of these actions than that Obama is part of some Marxist conspiracy.
Obama hung out with the aforementioned cretins because a) hanging out with them was the shortcut to power in Chicago politics, and b) he lacks the integrity and the discernment to know better. Immoral, but not a conspiracy.
Obama took the side of the “president” of Honduras not because he supports Honduran communism, but because, being a traditional American Progressive, he holds the puerile notion, reminiscent of the “Everything I Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten” poster, that sitting down and talking about things will solve all the world’s problems. Exiling him from the country was an “ugly” action that could have been prevented had all parties concerned talked about things, was his thinking. Stupid, but not a conspiracy.
Obama wants to increase the size of government because he honestly believes that doing so is the way to make people better off. Once again, this is not Marxism; it is merely traditional American Liberalism. Wrong, but not a conspiracy.
Calling Obama a Marxist because he shares certain ends with Marxists is like calling your typical Republican from Middle America (e.g. Sarah Palin) a tool of the ruthless capitalist exploiters—a “sycophant for the bourgeoisie” to use Marx’s terminology—because they support smaller government. Sarah Palin has her reasons for wanting smaller government, but her being a pawn of the super-rich is not among them.
hicsuget on August 27, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Irrelevant. The litmus test is NOT if he “agrees” with the order, but whether or not the order is CONSTITUTIONAL.
atheling on August 27, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Oh good grief.
America liberalism is progressivism is Marxism.
Progressives stole “liberal” when it became unpopular to be called a progressive.
Good try, but I think every time you try to defend Obama you dig yourself … and him … and deeper hole.
darwin on August 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM
American Liberalism is progressivism, this is true. It is also true that the progressives stole the term “liberal” from those of my own ilk.
However, when you say that progressivism is Marxism, you are either telling a bald-faced lie or demonstrating your ignorance of both progressivism and Marxism. I’m feeling charitable today, so I’ll let you plead guilty to the second of those two options.
My goal is not to defend Obama. My goal is to defend Obama from insane charges so that he may be attacked and defeated on rational grounds.
hicsuget on August 27, 2009 at 2:25 PM
I’m talking to walls here aren’t I?
I’ve said time and again that it has to be something blatant. Something that every rube will see as a violation of the law and Constitution.
Right now everything being done or that has been done is open to argument as to how constitutional it is.
99.9% of law enforcement are not constitutional scholars and are in no position to question orders on constitutional grounds.
What is blatant? Well having the congress pass health care is not blatant. It may very well be anti-constitutional but the average person can not say for sure. It would have to go to court.
Blatant would be BO declaring himself emperor and ordering the capital police to arrest all republicans.
Ordering authorities to quell riots is not blatant. Unless said riots are a result of the previous example.
RagTag on August 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM
I get paid by the European Communist Institute (Europe’s version of AEI) to post here.
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Funny, I thought it was because you were a masochist and liked the abuse.
kingsjester on August 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Nah, you won’t convince me that you are actually employed.
viking01 on August 27, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Use basic geometry.
From the earliest days of his career Obama has mingled with self proclaimed socialists/communists/Leninists. Time has passed by and much could have changed since then. Sure, he may not hold to those views. But where do those initial encounters point?->socialism. What is the ultimate goal of communism? To run everything. I’m not saying this is enough information to make a final verdict. Let’s just remember that.
He is now even appointing these people into positions of significant power or influence.
Some of these people have recently supported the Cloven/Cloward?-Piven strategy. Where does the C-P strategy point?->Communism by creating a manufactered crisis.
Now look at our economy. Our deficit is enormous. Is Washington making an effort to bring it down. No! The stimulus, cap-trade, Obamacare and C4C are all doing the exact opposite by the most wasteful methods possible.
It’s like a horrible but real version of Brewster’s
mtrillions.All indicators are pointing in the same direction. Communism by creating a manufactured crisis.
shick on August 27, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Loxo and myself (fellow Norwegians on HotAir) ran into this character on another thread. He promised to stop trolling, but apprearantly that was lie (A liberal lying? Shocker!)
Just ignore him. And please don’t think all Europeans are this dense.
Norwegian on August 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM
You don’t read my stuff do you?
All afternoon I have used Waco, Ruby Ridge and Kent State as examples as to why I think the military will follow orders and now you use it to discredit my opinion.
You know what I think? Abortion is wrong. In fact like Sarah Palin we chose, against all advice, NOT to abort our daughter. Yeah it’s tragic and bad that casual abortion is legal and the method doesn’t matter. Dead is dead no matter how it is accomplished.
I also think that not only is that off topic but that it was a typical tactic of calling “Nazi” to shut me up.
Sorry but it will not work.
RagTag on August 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Another indicator pointing that direction is in which forms of governments this administration/congress is supporting. We know where those point as well.
shick on August 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Given the right circumstances American progressivism can morph into any of the “isms” … Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Fascism. All four are nothing more than variants of a single beast and to suggest that today’s progressives have nothing in common with Marxism is ridiculous.
You’ve played your best hand and lost. You’ve tried to defend Obama by claiming that “technically”, he’s not a Marxist. He is.
The funny thing is you could have shown me examples of his actions that run counter to Marxism … but there aren’t any.
darwin on August 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM
I was actually agreeing with you…
right4life on August 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Norwegian on August 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Not at all. He’s a Liberal and dense. It’s stupid enough for American Liberals to come on this site. I had the priviledge of singing over in The Netherlands, Belgium, Scotland, and the UK in July of ’78. There are fine people all over the globe, like yourself, Lox, Canopfor (Canadian), etc. Unfortunately, after Open Registration, we have to deal with all sorts of posters.
kingsjester on August 27, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Hey, AP, how about let’s score HA threads on the curve by the number of trolls it attracts? The more trolls, the more sensitive the lefty nerve being struck. A weekly talley might be instructive (and fun) to see.
This one would probably rank among the tops. :)
petefrt on August 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM
You have the burden of proof backwards–it is your task to prove that he is a Marxist using something more than mere circumstantial evidence. It just so happens that there aren’t any examples of his actions that run in accordance with Marxism.
hicsuget on August 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM
I may be liberal and I may be dense, but atleast I’m not batsheet insane.
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM
If insanity means loving God, family, and country, and making a differencei in people’s lives, count me in. By the way, having 3.5 million people watching you at 4 Central in the afternoon isn’t too shabby, either.
kingsjester on August 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM
You wont fool me.
viking01 on August 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM
so taking over the banks and the car companies isn’t marxist?? what would you call it?
right4life on August 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM
right4life on August 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM
I call it UNAMERICAN.
bridgetown on August 27, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Are you…. to pull something out of a hat…say… umm…are you a communist? I conceed your first two points about being liberal and dense. I am not certain you are correct about the third point. If you answer that you are a communist then I will know for certain.
kanda on August 27, 2009 at 2:56 PM
The Marcist Van Jones he appointed as a czar isn’t an example?
The socialist terrorist William Ayers that took him some time to distance himself from isn’t an example?
The fact that Marxism requires complete control and that the C-P strategy outlines the route to Marxist control is through a manufactured a crisis and that instead of reducing our deficit he has increased it incredibly.
The fact that even the CBO has announced that Obama’s administration incorrectly miscalculated where the deficit and job losses will be in a year isn’t an example?
shick on August 27, 2009 at 2:56 PM
If what we all are concerned about is happening then Beck is far out on a limb. I consider him a patriot and a true American. This is a man we should listen to.
The left is doing everything it can to shut him up and silence his voice. Let’s show our support by watching his shows on TV and listening on the radio. Conteact his sopoonsors and his netwoeks in a show of support.
kanda on August 27, 2009 at 3:03 PM
If the lunatic fringe of the republican party loved their country, they wouldn’t be calling for an armed revolution. They dream about a new civil war, and they don’t even know why. All they know is that they’re angry and Glenn Beck is right.
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM
It would be socialist if it were part of a takeover of the rest of the economy as well. The Labour Party in Britain nationalized railroad industry in 1948, but the government takeover was limited only to so-called “public services,” and was not part of a scheme to abolish private ownership of the means of production generally. Such a scheme can go by many names, none of which are definitive.
Remember, the banks were nationalized under Bush, not under Obama (TARP was Paulson’s baby, not Geithner’s). Further, think to yourself how the Detroit bailout would have differed had McCain won the election (hint: it would not have in any material way).
Partial nationalization is seen by some socialists as a path to full socialization in much the same way that tax cuts are seen by libertarians as a path to abolishing the IRS entirely. Not everyone who advocates tax cuts is a libertarian, and not everyone who advocates partial nationalization is a socialist.
Further, not every socialist is a Marxist. Marxism is a very distinct thing, predicated as it is on dialectic atomism and a teleological view of political history. There are many non-Marxist schemes for abolishing the private ownership of the means of production.
Thus, to prove Obama is a Marxist, you would need to prove:
1) The nationalizations we have witnessed are merely first steps towards Obama’s goal of completely abolishing all private ownership, and
2) Obama holds the goal of completely abolishing all private ownership to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat to reach the end of history as the synthesis of the struggle between exploiter and exploited after capitalism has reached its full height and all property is concentrated in the hands of one individual.
Point 1 is arguable, but not provable. That Obama holds point 2 to be true is absurd on its face.
hicsuget on August 27, 2009 at 3:05 PM
A similar line of “reasoning” would “prove” that 9/11 was an inside job. If you’re presently unemployed, you may wish to check if Lyndon LaRouche’s organization has any openings.
hicsuget on August 27, 2009 at 3:06 PM
What would a Marxist have done differently than Obama?
faraway on August 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Stop insulting Thomas Jefferson.
viking01 on August 27, 2009 at 3:09 PM
No, I’m not a communist. I’m a moderate (atleast by norwegian standards).
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 3:09 PM
You’re a troll and a jerk, but on this point I have to agree with you.
hicsuget on August 27, 2009 at 3:09 PM
What would John McCain or Mike Huckabee have done differently than Obama?
hicsuget on August 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM
hicsuget, what do you call nationalizing one sixth of the nation’s economy?
faraway on August 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM
What court? A “Truth and Reconcilliation” comittie?
A kangaroo court staffed with ACORN thugs as Judge, Jury, and Executioner?
What “authorities”?
A new “civilian national security force”
Deputized ACORN/New Black Panther thugs?
pseudonominus on August 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Ah, a “moderate” Communist. Rare breed, those.
viking01 on August 27, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Let’s see… he would ban private ownership?
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Obama took over the automotive and banking industries. Trying to take over the healthcare industry.
The bright side is, the other 50% of American industries are still free!
faraway on August 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Yes, a moderate communist who favors a free market.
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Hey Spenol how’s that Islamification going for you over there so far?
Are you bowing down and braying to mecca five times a day yet?
pseudonominus on August 27, 2009 at 3:15 PM
yeah there is a name…its call SOCIALISM…how hard is this?? how much of the economy has to be controlled by the government before its socialism??? 10%…50%…we’re much close to 50%…
true, but has obama returned them to the private sector?? no…and even if the government doesn’t control them outright…when they regulate every little thing they do..whats the difference???
yeah they are…by definition.
really??
a rose by any other name…
so are the chinese communist???
right4life on August 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I’d prefer immigrants from Mexico, to put it that way.
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 3:19 PM
A bad idea, for starters. It’s not quite a nationalization, though–hospitals would remain in private hands, doctors would continue to be self-employed, etc. The role of entrepreneurs in health care would be greatly diminished, so the effects of such a policy would not be terribly different from a full-blown nationalization. However, we’re still talking about “only” (I cringe) de facto nationalization of 1/6th of the economy. The other 5/6 would remain in mostly private control.
There is no question that Obama is increasing the scope of government activity faster than McCain would have, but McCain’s agenda did not differ in principle from Obama’s. McCain too would have created new forms of interventionism for government to “fix” that which was wrong with what remained of the free market. (For example, dig up a transcript of his RNC acceptance speech and see what he had to say about Wall Street.) If Obama is a socialist, then so too is about 95% of the Republican Party.
hicsuget on August 27, 2009 at 3:19 PM
hicsuget, have you been mugged lately? You are starting to sound slightly more conservative. Be careful hanging around those academics, they will be on to you.
faraway on August 27, 2009 at 3:22 PM
So what you’re saying is you have no examples.
Obama’s childhood, his later association with communists, and his appointment of communists to his administration is not “circumstantial evidence”. He has appointed a communist shadow government, answerable to no one but him with the intent of imposing their will and ideals on the American people.
At the very least you have to agree that Obama has sought to impress on people that there is some kind of class system and that the “lower” class is being taken advantage of by the other class. He has gone out of his way to denounce capitalism, and believes that we should redistribute wealth, and that as a community organizer … he preached thuggery, chaos and revolution.
For all intents and purposes Obama is a Marxist.
You’re in a no win situation.
darwin on August 27, 2009 at 3:22 PM
No, I’m not a communist. I’m a moderate (atleast by norwegian standards).
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Would your political views resemble the US Libertarian Party views? If not how do your views differ.
kanda on August 27, 2009 at 3:25 PM
But only for the Politburo, of course. Been there seen that. Lots of Brezhnev’s free market types had their dachas outside of Moscow and their chateux in France. The Order of Lenin medals were only worn for the photo-ops. Some free market.
viking01 on August 27, 2009 at 3:25 PM
chateux = chateaux
viking01 on August 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Sorry, my bad.
RagTag on August 27, 2009 at 3:31 PM
you’re right…they’re both part of the ‘progressive’ movement….going back to TR and Wilson…Sanger…whether you call them socialists..national socialists…fascists…marxists…progressives…they’re all part of a hive that has the same goal….power over people’s lives…
right4life on August 27, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Not necessarily. Why such bravura regarding The One’s manifest destiny as the most popular president evah?
If indeed Beck interviewed Rush and neither addressed the Michael Savage ban from Britain, they are as pathetic self serving weenies as Allahpundit who’d rather faint than lift a finger regarding the threat to free speech.
maverick muse on August 27, 2009 at 3:35 PM
No. I’m way to the left of the libertarian party. But the US and Norway are entirely different countries, so I’m not sure how to make a valid comparison. I usually vote for this party: http://www.venstre.no/print.php?article=981
(excerpt in english).
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Similar reasoning would not point to what you suggest. Where have truthers used similar direction indicators that I have used? Did Bush hire any terrorists or bomb experts or anyone else with a history of a desire to take down government buildings? You can’t find them. Bad analogy.
And I was not trying to prove anything. I’m merely showing where direction indicators were pointing towards.
I don’t appreciate the insult. I’ve dealt with LaRouche nut jobs and shown them their errors. I used to meet them on my walk back from work.
I notice what you do. Instead of dealing with my indicators you simply group them together and call them silly rather than dealing with them.
Please explain a counter reason why Obama appointed the “Green Czar” position to a man who recently was a member of an open marxist organization that believed in the C-P strategy? Please don’t use Obama’s ignorance as an excuse. Van Jones has an open history.
shick on August 27, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Lie. Bush took over the banking industry.
100%.
There is no difference in terms of economic outcome. As a political matter, though, it is the difference between Leninist/Maoist socialism and German socialism—i.e. the difference between Left and Right. In any event, without 100% government regulation or 100% government ownership, it is not socialism of any sort.
Your definition is flawed. Was George W Bush a socialist for nationalizing airport security?
You obviously have never read The Communist Manifesto (unlike Das Kapital, it’s short, and intended for a broad audience). The words in the definition you provided have specific meaning–meaning that would be obvious to you were you better versed on what Marxism is.
No, they are not. I would argue that they haven’t been since Mao died. The Soviet Union, too, ceased to be communist when perestroika began. Communism, which is specifically Marxist socialism, is 100% government ownership of the means of production. Even small-scale entrepreneurialism, such as that of landed yeoman farmers or a class of craftsmen plying their trade on their own, is verboten under socialism.
hicsuget on August 27, 2009 at 3:52 PM
I agree they would do somethings similar but I don’t think they would appoint Marxist and socialist leaning Czars? I don’t think they would be spending like crazy.
shick on August 27, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Recent marxists have been consistant in one thing. Gradual takeover. I personally don’t think Obama’s working on a straight Marxist structure. He will remake this nation into a pseudo-libertarian one. It will have all the right labels but the can will still hold socialism.
shick on August 27, 2009 at 3:57 PM
As I wrote earlier…Now’s not the time to go all wobbly on Glen…despite his numerous and endearing conservative foibles.
Rush managed to push back just enough without appearing to disagree; by not actually commenting on some of Glen’s kookiest remarks just before and during the interview.
Geezer on August 27, 2009 at 3:58 PM
I would love to see a video montage of the Hypocrite-in-Chief as he slammed Pres. Bush for the deficit during the campaign. Let’s edit properly to feature front and center Obama’s sanctimonius/gayrod lip-pursing as he promises over and over to lower a deficit that he has quadrupled instead.
Unintentionally of course, because poor Barry inherited such a mess, and the only way to “fix” it is to crash the economy, destroy the dollar, institute marshall law and with nose in the stratosphere, triumphantly bring the USA to heel as a member of the one world government in which his Royal Useful Idiocy will be crowned king.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Soros & Co. will renege on installing the useful idiot in their new world order, but they will “crown” him, if you take my meaning.
tigerlily on August 27, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Turds don’t bounce. They stick when they hit the ground.
Geochelone on August 27, 2009 at 4:01 PM
there is no such thing as pure marxism as portrayed by the communist manifesto…we have variations of it…call it communism, national socialism, fascism…
yeah he was a socialist…that is rather obvious.
again you are talking a pure marxism which has never happened in the world..and won’t.
this is silly…sorry, but national socialism IS socialism…just as international socialims (communism) IS socialism…and to think the national socialists were ‘right’ in any way shape or form is to twist history.
that has always happened under communism….this ‘pure’ stuff is just a fantasy.
right4life on August 27, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Obama is fundamentally remaking America and Marxism in His image.
faraway on August 27, 2009 at 4:02 PM
I concede you’ve got many good points. You are quick to point out Bush’s socialist leanings. I don’t disagree with them. In fact I’ve pointed them out many times myself. There is an obvious difference between Bush and Obama however. Obama was brought up with this stuff and has never demonstrated pulling away.
You are however reluctant to go the same direction with Obama. Isn’t that moral equivelancy?
shick on August 27, 2009 at 4:03 PM
I’ve been a Classical Liberal all my adult life. As a staunch supporter and defender of laissez-faire capitalism, by modern definitions I am more “conservative” than the Republican Party on economic issues.
Funny story from my days in academia that relates to the discussion at hand… Sophomore year of college I was in a 300-level econ course in a packed (240 students) lecture hall. The professor was talking about how the income tax creates distortions and deadweight losses and is really a bad way of raising revenue. The professor then asked the hall why it is that politicians prefer the income tax over alternative means of raising revenue. I shot my hand up, was called on, and stood up at the back of the room and shouted “because they’re all Marxists!” (I was, of course, being slightly facetious.) After the class stopped tittering, he said, “That wasn’t the answer I was looking for,” and called on someone who gave some b.s. answer about social justice and redistribution of wealth.
hicsuget on August 27, 2009 at 4:04 PM
You started out so good. What made you turn to the dark side?
faraway on August 27, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Probably education.
Spenol on August 27, 2009 at 4:08 PM
then what is your excuse?
right4life on August 27, 2009 at 4:12 PM
I still disagree with your definition, but least you’re willing to be consistent in applying it.
The economic outcome of socialism in the Russian vs in the German style is the same, true, but each is achieved in a very different fashion–one is arrived at by outright expropriation, the other by red tape. Under the Nazis, shopowners were allowed to retain physical, if not economic, control of their shops so long as they toed the Party diktats. I think it is an important distinction to make.
Attempts were made to abolish yeoman farming under both the Soviet Union and Maoist China. I do not hold, as most modern-day apologists for Marxism do, to some Platonic ideal, that unless a society is run fully 100% in accordance with Das Kapital it is not Marxist. I make my distinction based, not on whether a society succeeds at running itself 100% according to Marxism (this is impossible anyhow), but on whether it tries to run itself 100% according to Marxism. Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China, by my definitions, were Marxist.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. If you rephrase your question, I’ll try to answer it in good faith.
Let me say the following; it may answer your question. When Bush’s interventionist schemes failed, people blamed capitalism, and we ended up with Democratic control of Congress and Obama in the White House. When Obama’s interventionist fail (as they must), people will blame interventionism, and we will end up with Republican control of Congress.
hicsuget on August 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM
I seriously think that what we’re seeing is not so much socialism as a form of fascism in it’s original definition. Mussolini was extremely popular when he came to power in Italy, and there are parallels with Obama. Am I misguided here?
jimmy2shoes on August 27, 2009 at 4:19 PM
The jerk in the White House is so dangerous and so capable of anything……..when Glenn mentioned to Rush that Obama may “plan a disaster” so that his “army” could sweep in and take over………..I thought………….holy S___ this does NOT sound impossible! It sounds not only possible but probable! Now I’m hiding under my bed again………….
Cinday Blackburn on August 27, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I was concerned along with the Libtards about stuff like the Patriot Act…not that I mistrusted Bush, but all those faceless bureaucrats who could easily use it for their own devices/gains.
Also, I never really saw or heard anything to justify the “Bush is Hitler” stuff. If I had, I would have been extremely concerned regardless of his political party.
Dr. ZhivBlago on August 27, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I love Classical liberals. I might call myself one if it didn’t cause confusion with the modern definition. I agree that most Classical liberals are more conservative than the Republican Party.
You are right in saying that my question could be better worded. I appreciate you putting up with my incoherance. I don’t think I need to to bother rephrasing becuase I am pleasantly surprised to agree with your summary.
Two last points:
1) Both parties have significantly changed and most constituents are unaware of those changes and their politician’s current positions. The best we can go by is where the policians came from, who they have associated with, what they have said and what they have done.
2) Times change and so do definitions unfortunately. This has frustrated me to no end. Like I might call myself a Classical liberal, I, once upon a time, could have called myself a Fundamentalist Christian but that definition has changed as well. If I call myself a Classical Fundamentalist few will have a clue what I’m talking about.
shick on August 27, 2009 at 5:02 PM
The day ObamaCare died
Apologies if it has been posted already.
FireBlogger on August 27, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Beck is off to another great start yet again. He’s right, why has this question about the civilian security force never been asked to the President? What did he mean. Maybe he really did mean against us? Those who are opposing him.
This is getting worse and worse
bucsox79 on August 27, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Ha Ha! More pathetic keyboard courage from the 101st Keyboard Commandos. No one is scared of you, loser.
What are you going to do? Assault me with your empty Mountain Dew bottles and empty Cheetos bags?
cornfedbubba on August 27, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Yeah, they’re like a pack of squirrels running around looking for nuts.
Del Dolemonte on August 27, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Glenn Beck is what would happen if Alex Jones had a mainstream TV show. They are both from the same nut house.
Decider on August 27, 2009 at 5:40 PM
For the posters who think the military will mow us down if ordered go here and ckeck this out
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html
mixplix on August 27, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Not troops.
How about ACORN/New Black Panther “National Security Force” thugs?
pseudonominus on August 27, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Projection bubba … projection.
darwin on August 27, 2009 at 5:43 PM
For the posters who think the military will mow us down if ordered go here and ckeck this out
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html
mixplix on August 27, 2009 at 5:41 PM
I think this is precisely why the gov’t wants to set up the Civilian Security Force, or whatever the heck it’s called.
joejm65 on August 27, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »