Is Glenn Beck too right wing even for Fox News?

DBWriter wrote:

...I noted that you and your regressive cult that calls themselves "progressives" continually invent terms to avoid admitting....
forgive the typo.

It gets worse, for what capitalism has always had is money with which to try to buy influence. Today’s version of U.S. capitalism has died and gone to heaven on this issue. A company is now free to spend money to influence political outcomes and need tell no one, least of all its own shareholders, the technical owners. So, rich industries can exert so much political influence that they now have a dangerous degree of influence over Congress. And the issues they most influence are precisely the ones that matter most, the ones that are most important to society’s long-term well-being, indeed its very existence. Thus, taking huge benefits from Nature and damaging it in return is completely free and all attempts at government control are fought with costly lobbying and advertising. And one of the first victims in this campaign has been the truth. If scientific evidence suggests costs and limits be imposed on industry to protect the long-term environment, then science will be opposed by clever disinformation. It’s now getting to be an old and obvious story, but because their propaganda is good and despite the solidness of the data, half of the people believe the problem is a government run wild, mad to control everything. So the “industrial complex”(or parts of it) fights to increase the inherent weaknesses of capitalism. They deliberately make it ever harder to reach the very long-term decisions that will serve us all. The influence of the Tobacco companies in deliberately obscuring the science to protect profits at a huge cost to society in health costs and lives is a perfect analogy to the energy industries that work hard to confuse the public on scientific measures of damage to health and the environment. Yet it is one that is surprisingly forgotten.
Of all the technical weaknesses in capitalism, though, probably the most immediately dangerous is its absolute

Liberal4Life wrote:

<quoted text>Are you still spewing those Glenn Beck Far Right lie's about Marxism and Communism that he has been teaching you and all of his other clueless sheep?? You know Indy has you beat and understands the truth like me that your idea of Communism and Marxism in America does not exsist it's a story book fable invented by the Far Right and Fox New's to confuse the masses of people to make the President and the Democrats look bad!
Here is where you get your garbage from the Old Glenn Beck Show on FIX News which thankfully is gone forever!!!!! JaJaJaJaJaJa!@!!!!
Glenn Beck On GBTV Exposes Communism & Marxism for What it Truly is w/ 5 Books, Black Book
Uploaded by GlennBeckBookList on Oct 14, 2011
http://www.GlennBecksBookList.com -- On Glenn Beck's GBTV show last week, he schools his listeners on the ways of communism by stating that "When I say they are going to drag you out into the streets and kill you, I mean it." Beck exposes the real truth of communism in five must-read books
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

your right, Glenn Beck is an Idiot, I put him right up there with the likes of David Curtis Stephenson.

Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:58 PM PDT.

Moderate Republicans eaten by the Far Right - Or rather, looking in the mirror?

I think we've all read the articles where a moderate Republican or a principled conservative complains about the far right. From Michelle Malkin to Rush Limbaugh, the far right spews forth uncompromising hate and anti-intellectual vitriol, much to the chagrin of moderate Republicans. I recently read an article by Michael Fumento, bemoaning the far right and longing for the days of real conservatism. I always smirk sarcastically when reading these articles. Frankenstein's monster has finally been given life, and now you want to complain? But I digress. The thing is, instead of focusing on the obvious hate fest that is the far right and only focusing on that, the entire article is laced with "And I hate liberals too!" in case we would ever forget what side the man is on. What is missing from the article is a level of self reflection one would expect when analyzing how the far right came to flourish. The far right is not a political movement in isolation; it is the culmination of right wing ideology. It is the end point of much of right wing thought. Too bad Fumento seems to be completely and utterly in the dark about his part in creating this monster and spends so much time trying to affirm the solidity of his beliefs that he never sees the cracks or contradictions. No wonder he was surprised when the far right snuck up from behind.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/26/1094...

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>your right, Glenn Beck is an Idiot, I put him right up there with the likes of David Curtis Stephenson.

Absolutely, it cracks me up how these guys like Db Writer and Rigid and a cast of others buy into this stuff they only read into one soure or version of the story and ignore the rest it's almost like beck is some type of god or evangelist to the Far Right? Hey Indy did you have an opportunity to read the article by Al Lewis regarding was Carl Marx rigth about Capitalism? Check it out!

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
More terms invented by the so-called "progressives" to deny the fact that Marxism is an impossibility among humans because Marxism is diametrically opposite of genetically programmed human instinct to stratify its societies.
Lenin realized that Marxism was an impossibility and began to allow exemptions, allowing humans to do what humans naturally do and stratify their social structure, thus allowing capitalism to re-emerge.
Stalin did what humans would naturally do when given the totalitarian authority required to implement Marxism among humans.
You can invent all the terms you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the imposition of Marxism is always accompanied by mass murder. The reason for this is, Marxism is diametrically opposed to the genetically programmed human instinct to stratify its societies, and human populations must be subjected to trauma to condition them to accept a Marxist existence.
Marxism is dedicated to the elimination of capitalism. There is no such thing as a combination of Marxism and capitalism. That is like combining cancer and life. One will eventually win over the other.
The fact remains that the imposition of Marxism killed more people than all the wars of the previous century around the world combined. Hitler is merely 4th on the list of the worst mass murderers in history. The 3 ahead of Hitler imposed Marxist communism on their populations.
So, why aren't the mass murderers worse than Hitler referred to as such in the fraudulent history that the so-called "progressives" have written?

So what's the purpose of the Terrorist Organizations such as the Militias, Minute Men, Neo-Nazis', Out Law Biker Gangs and Tea Party guy's wearing their Milittary Fatigues and Camaflauged trucks I suppose they aren't intending to carry out violence and mass murders just in order to get their Far Right Coporate Fascist agenda way? Just some food for thought their partner?? JaJaJaJaJa!!!

Lost Founder
Harvey Kaye, American Prospect July 2005, p34

Reagan ... had constructed a new Republican alliance-a New Right-of corporate elites, Christian evangelicals, conservative and neoconservative intellectuals, and a host of right-wing interest groups in hopes of undoing the liberal politics and programs of the past 40 years, reversing the cultural changes and developments of the 1960s, and establishing a new national governing consensus.

-----

Still in AMerican Politics!

Liberal4Life wrote:

<quoted text>Absolutely, it cracks me up how these guys like Db Writer and Rigid and a cast of others buy into this stuff they only read into one soure or version of the story and ignore the rest it's almost like beck is some type of god or evangelist to the Far Right? Hey Indy did you have an opportunity to read the article by Al Lewis regarding was Carl Marx rigth about Capitalism? Check it out!

Once again you show your ignorance, If I ignored the liberals,the far left and the center right,the far right and the center left, I would not have been able to show you where you are wrong in just about everything that you post.

Just to show you what I mean, who got the TARP Money?

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again you show your ignorance, If I ignored the liberals,the far left and the center right,the far right and the center left, I would not have been able to show you where you are wrong in just about everything that you post.
Just to show you what I mean, who got the TARP Money?

"In one sentence he's got the essence of contemporary liberalism. That is something preposterous and something sinister," said Will, before quoting Bloomberg saying 'we're not taking away anyone's right to do things. We're simply forcing you to understand."'

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again you show your ignorance, If I ignored the liberals,the far left and the center right,the far right and the center left, I would not have been able to show you where you are wrong in just about everything that you post.
Just to show you what I mean, who got the TARP Money?

In one sentence he's got the essence of contemporary liberalism. That is something preposterous and something sinister," said Will, before quoting Bloomberg saying 'we're not taking away anyone's right to do things. We're simply forcing you to understand."'

Of course it's just another fraud to force people to live under their criminal will.

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again you show your ignorance, If I ignored the liberals,the far left and the center right,the far right and the center left, I would not have been able to show you where you are wrong in just about everything that you post.
Just to show you what I mean, who got the TARP Money?

Your truly confused and off topic today old man =)!!!

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>you must be insane!!!, your post seem to lean that way.
Karl Marx, the first historian of capitalism, wrote primarily about English capitalism as the model of its kind. Try as you may, it is not possible to extract from his three-volume Capital a picture of the development of American capitalism. Marx did not deal centrally with the United States. While Marx identified free labor with capitalism, in the U.S. free, semi-free, and unfree labor was important; capitalism in England evolved out of feudalism but only some of the latter's remnants could be glimpsed in the U.S.; in England, the agricultural economy first became capitalist while in the U.S. it lagged behind manufacture. The U.S. was the first modern capitalist country to develop from a colonial status, from a slave base, and with an enormous natural-resource endowment. Above all, American capitalists utilized more violence in the class struggle than their confrères in any other capitalist country.
http://www.newhistory.org/CH01.htm

Again, you appear to be ignorant of Malthus.
Additionally, Wealth of Nations gives a description of capitalism as well.
Don't let your indoctrinated exhaltation of Karl Marx blind you to the very good and pertinent work of economists before him that he obviously built upon.
Karl Marx may have written the best description of capitalism to this very day. I know of no better description of the capitalist economy in existence. He was in no way the first historian of capitalist economy. I can think of two off the top of my head that preceeded Marx, and if I did an in-depth study I could probably come up with a few more.

By the way, all labor has a cost. There is no escaping that. Read Malthus for a description.

"American capitalism" is capitalism. If you desire to put capitalist entities into sub-categories, I suggest you reference them to the regulations applied. All governments regulate. Be more specific. You may reference deviations from what Marx described as evidenced by specific regulations of the US government with possible spillover effects.

What "remnants" of feudalism are evident in the US?
"Feudalism" is a condition where the person belongs to the land. When nobles were awarded land, or acquired land, the population living on that land belonged to the land, thus were in the servitude of the land's owner. In the US, for its entire history, no person has ever belonged to the land. This smacks of some indoctrinated party line invented to promote some ludicrous notion such as communism is an evolutionary step beyond capitalism.

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you appear to be ignorant of Malthus.
Additionally, Wealth of Nations gives a description of capitalism as well.
Don't let your indoctrinated exhaltation of Karl Marx blind you to the very good and pertinent work of economists before him that he obviously built upon.
Karl Marx may have written the best description of capitalism to this very day. I know of no better description of the capitalist economy in existence. He was in no way the first historian of capitalist economy. I can think of two off the top of my head that preceeded Marx, and if I did an in-depth study I could probably come up with a few more.
By the way, all labor has a cost. There is no escaping that. Read Malthus for a description.
"American capitalism" is capitalism. If you desire to put capitalist entities into sub-categories, I suggest you reference them to the regulations applied. All governments regulate. Be more specific. You may reference deviations from what Marx described as evidenced by specific regulations of the US government with possible spillover effects.
What "remnants" of feudalism are evident in the US?
"Feudalism" is a condition where the person belongs to the land. When nobles were awarded land, or acquired land, the population living on that land belonged to the land, thus were in the servitude of the land's owner. In the US, for its entire history, no person has ever belonged to the land. This smacks of some indoctrinated party line invented to promote some ludicrous notion such as communism is an evolutionary step beyond capitalism.

Again, you appear to be ignorant of Malthus.

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you appear to be ignorant of Malthus.
Additionally, Wealth of Nations gives a description of capitalism as well.
Don't let your indoctrinated exhaltation of Karl Marx blind you to the very good and pertinent work of economists before him that he obviously built upon.
Karl Marx may have written the best description of capitalism to this very day. I know of no better description of the capitalist economy in existence. He was in no way the first historian of capitalist economy. I can think of two off the top of my head that preceeded Marx, and if I did an in-depth study I could probably come up with a few more.
By the way, all labor has a cost. There is no escaping that. Read Malthus for a description.
"American capitalism" is capitalism. If you desire to put capitalist entities into sub-categories, I suggest you reference them to the regulations applied. All governments regulate. Be more specific. You may reference deviations from what Marx described as evidenced by specific regulations of the US government with possible spillover effects.
What "remnants" of feudalism are evident in the US?
"Feudalism" is a condition where the person belongs to the land. When nobles were awarded land, or acquired land, the population living on that land belonged to the land, thus were in the servitude of the land's owner. In the US, for its entire history, no person has ever belonged to the land. This smacks of some indoctrinated party line invented to promote some ludicrous notion such as communism is an evolutionary step beyond capitalism.

if the government gets involved in moderate economical activity, its Socialism. Capitalism has failed everywhere it has been tried because government had to get involved economically just like here in the US. you can call it American Capitalism or whatever you want but its nothing more than a form of Socialism with government involvement in moderate economical activity. Civil War was the cause over ture Capitalism and is the reason the southern states broke away from the union because they prefered capitalsim and Northern Union States mostly Republicans and Lincoln were for Socialism and we know who won the Civil War, the Socialist.

Malthus has become widely known for his theories about population and its increase or decrease in response to various factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Ma...

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>if the government gets involved in moderate economical activity, its Socialism. Capitalism has failed everywhere it has been tried because government had to get involved economically just like here in the US. you can call it American Capitalism or whatever you want but its nothing more than a form of Socialism with government involvement in moderate economical activity. Civil War was the cause over ture Capitalism and is the reason the southern states broke away from the union because they prefered capitalsim and Northern Union States mostly Republicans and Lincoln were for Socialism and we know who won the Civil War, the Socialist.

Forced acceptance of government involvement.

Forced acceptance of Government intrusion into states rights.

Forced taxation based on government spending.

Forced would be the word you were looking for but left out of your description.

Capitolism works fine if left unfettered by regulation and oversight by a profit hungry repressive government.

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
Forced acceptance of government involvement.
Forced acceptance of Government intrusion into states rights.
Forced taxation based on government spending.
Forced would be the word you were looking for but left out of your description.
Capitolism works fine if left unfettered by regulation and oversight by a profit hungry repressive government.

the US Constitution rejects Capitalism which will never all allow Capitalism to work in the US without Government Intrusion & Involvement because of the US Constitution & our Constitutional form government because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, the Taxing Powers of Congress under the US Constitution and Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3, Commerece Clause of the US Constitution and the keyword there is regulate.

Article 1 Section 8

Clause 1

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 3

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Const...

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>the US Constitution rejects Capitalism which will never all allow Capitalism to work in the US without Government Intrusion & Involvement because of the US Constitution & our Constitutional form government because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, the Taxing Powers of Congress under the US Constitution and Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3, Commerece Clause of the US Constitution and the keyword there is regulate.
Article 1 Section 8
Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 3
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Const...

I know you and our government don't see the limitations that are very straight forward in the Constitution.

Provide for what? common defense "Military Defense", not military "offense" general welfare of where ? "the United States"

How much do we spend in foreign aid? How much do we spend on the individual in the form of entitlements and how does individual entitlement support the welfare of the whole?

and how much do we pay for a bloated and over proportionate government and how does that relate to "common good"? especially when we as a nation are pressing on 20 trillion dollars in debt?

I guess you missed that part, cause and affect? The government is not providing for our common good as specified in the Constitution, it is not providing for a civil defense while running around the globe interjecting itself into other countries affairs and paying top dollar at the UN so that they can tell us what to do,make decisions that affect the people of this country and weaken out defense.

I suggest to you that your argument is proof positive that you are over your head in this conversation and do not understand the limiting qualities of the Constitution you just posted a portion of.

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
I know you and our government don't see the limitations that are very straight forward in the Constitution.
Provide for what? common defense "Military Defense", not military "offense" general welfare of where ? "the United States"
How much do we spend in foreign aid? How much do we spend on the individual in the form of entitlements and how does individual entitlement support the welfare of the whole?
and how much do we pay for a bloated and over proportionate government and how does that relate to "common good"? especially when we as a nation are pressing on 20 trillion dollars in debt?
I guess you missed that part, cause and affect? The government is not providing for our common good as specified in the Constitution, it is not providing for a civil defense while running around the globe interjecting itself into other countries affairs and paying top dollar at the UN so that they can tell us what to do,make decisions that affect the people of this country and weaken out defense.
I suggest to you that your argument is proof positive that you are over your head in this conversation and do not understand the limiting qualities of the Constitution you just posted a portion of.

Speaking of, According to James Madison, the Article 1 Section 8 clause 1 authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years until United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936)

SCOTUS Case of United States Vs Butler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
Forced acceptance of government involvement.
Forced acceptance of Government intrusion into states rights.
Forced taxation based on government spending.
Forced would be the word you were looking for but left out of your description.
Capitolism works fine if left unfettered by regulation and oversight by a profit hungry repressive government.

Capitalism works even better when the Capitalists Don't engage in Abusive Greed and Pawsee Schemes at the expense of the American People and Capitalism works well when Government Regulates and Enforces laws to keep the so called Capitalist Coporations in line and following the rules.

When it's abused and broken like now we get bail outs and a financial melt down all because the Capitalist think they know what they're doing but actually they don't they just know how to become even more greedier and abuse the system at our peril!

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>Speaking of, According to James Madison, the Article 1 Section 8 clause 1 authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years until United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936)
SCOTUS Case of United States Vs Butler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers Government.

it is a limiting Document, that is why see such a concerted effort on the part of Government to evade,twist,or otherwise avoid living up to the limitation which it places on them and stepping aside and letting the people have the power they are entitled to.

The Constitution says who it is for and it's purpose.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.