Glenn Beck and the rise of Fox News' militia media

[Pam]

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200904070009?f=h_top

[oladub]

In response to the rhetorical question at the end, "Do you think there are other Jim Adkissons out there listening to hate speech?" I would answer yes, on both the left and the right and amongst a few religious people and ecological extemists too. So what's the anwer to the ecological arsonists, ecological, pro-life, and World Tower bombers, and the slew of right wing, immigrant misfit, and domestic distrubance guys with guns? Is it censorship? I think that might be what the columnist and some posters on this board are hinting.

[Pam]

Where was censorship mentioned? I missed that part. I think he just wants Fox and others to stop pandering to the lunatic fringe and take some responsibility for the crap they put out.



Of course, the right-wingers at Free Republic are way ahead of Erickson as they fantasize (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2009 %2F3%2F3%2F1615%2F97986%2F816%2F703959) about Obama's assassination: "And let's face it: all the speculation about Obama being the actual Antichrist will either be confirmed or denied if someone gets off a lucky shot at the SOB."


On the other hand, whoever wrote this will be visited by the Secret Service one day soon.

[rb336]

When an entire spectrum of media is monopolized by one side spewing more hate and exhortations to violence, it is clearly time to demonopolize the airwaves, which we, btw, own. There is no freedom to tell people to go kill or commit acts of violence against anyone, or commit arson, etc. the difference is, one group preaches hate and does, although not flagrantly, call its people to violence by calling anyone who disagrees with them "socialist" or "terrorist" or any of a number of things. the difference is, that one group (Beck and Savage being the worst of them) has a huge amount of access to the airwaves, where the idiots on the eco fringe have virtually none.

[ghettopalmetto]

Note to Glenn Beck and the other idiots:

It's not called "Marxism", "fascism", or even "socialism". It's called LOSING, as in, the guy you voted for LOST the election. Just because you don't agree with Obama, you'd think it was the End of Days.

Valid criticism and suggesting alternate ideas is one thing. Crying like a candy-ass spoiled brat on national television is quite another.

[oladub]

Pam, I didn't say that censorship was mentioned in your article beyond my guess that it might be hinted at. Being hinted at and mentioned are different. There must be three similar threads posted here now with posters trying to generalize about the shooters. This has been a difficult task because almost all of these recent shooting deaths have been at the hands of people with no apparent right wing radio exposure. So with sixteen deaths by four shooters, all the reaction here has been to one shooter who killed three with the other shootings being used to illogically support the thesis that it is the fault of right wing radio rather than whatever caused him to drop out of school and then get kicked out of the Marines.

Since some of these same posters have repeatedly mentioned that Obama has no gun control agenda what does that leave? Everyone here has been careful not to mention hate speech legislation and the 'fairness doctrine' but where is all the ranting about evil right wing talk show hosts supposed to lead except to censorship. Rb seems to be doing that in his last post but that was after I suggested that I think that is what was being hinted at. Maybe he wants government agents to attend churches and mosques too to insure that nothing is taught there that could be construed to promote violence while our drones are bombing Pakistani villagers.

[Bobl]

Have any of these frantic right wing extremists on Fox turned their fury on the people who ruined the financial system? Have they criticized Wendy and Phil Gramm, for making sure that the fox (unregulated financial institutions) was in charge of the henhouse (401ks, mortgages)?
Seems they are too busy with sour grapes and name calling to even give the appearance of a news organization.

[MoparDan]

http://mediamatters.org/discuss/200904070009
Scroll down a bit & you'll find phone numbers/email addresses of advertisers. If you are a client or purchase from any of them, write or call to let them know your disgust. Pass the word along; there's strength in numbers. The best way to get their attention is hit them in the wallet.
I've tried watching Glenn Beck...how anyone could take this B-actor seriously is beyond me. Then again, I live in a red state with people who do.

Jon Stewart put it best: "You're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like a shit taco! "
http://digg.com/d1oF3o

[ccbatson]

Look up the definitions of those words (Socialism, Fascism, and Communism)...they all fit liberals like Obama and company.

[Bobl]

C: The definitions are not the same. You are welcome to your opinion, though.

The fact is, the financial system was ruined by so called free market capitalists, not communists, fascists, or socialists, and we will be paying for their ridiculous deregulation of the financial giants for a generation.
My opinion is that it is unfortunate that Obama is getting the blame instead of the Phil Gramms out there who brought on the crisis.

[ccbatson]

How so? Regulation is not the responsibility of participants in the free market system. However, that premise is flawed anyway as the only deregulation that mattered in this crash is/was deregulation of Freddie and Fannie.

[alleydad]

That was a great bit on Stewart. It does suck when you don't care for the presidential choice, but just like Bush, Obama is president and his ideas shouldn't be dismissed just because they are his. Take a good look, then decide.

[ccbatson]

Correct, don't dismiss them....fear them and prepare to suffer as a result of them.

[Big Dog]

I believe O' Really? is going to retire before the 2010 elections. He has been have ing Beck on his show very often lately. This is a lovefest they have. It's to give Beck more exposure at that time slot, IMHO.

[jams]

Well, considering that two of them are direct opposites of the other, they couldn't possibly fit anyone. Then you introduce liberalism which is a fourth definition that does fit the other three. Don't they offer Political Science 101 at Wayne State anymore?
Welcome tto the fluidity of definitions of The Official, but unpublished,Glossary of Batsonia

[MoparDan]

Stephen Colbert rips up Glenn then launches the 10.31 Project.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/223279/march-31-2009/the-10-31-project

[ccbatson]

Socialism and fascism are not opposites. Hitler was a fascist (clearly) and behind the National Socialist movement.

Check out Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism"

[Bigb23]

Boy, the runs, just aren't the same anymore. - This message is hidden because ccbatson is on your ignore list (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/profile.php?do=ignorelist). :D

[ccbatson]

Apparently not so well hidden, ay BigB...wink, wink.

[oldredfordette]

Now I know why CC is so frightened of organic gardens and produce.

Jonah Goldberg is one of the country's leading .........s. Sweet sufferin' Jeeble. Thanks, I guess, for reminding me.

[ccbatson]

Easy...the living guy.

German national socialism was corporate socialism in the extreme...Goverment controlled the means of production (under penalty of death for those that thought or acted otherwise).

It stinks (for you guys) when history and the facts undermine liberal beliefs.

[ccbatson]

Study the concept (history) before laughing.

[d.mcc]

CC...have YOU ever looked up the definitions of Facism? Considering Facism is a right-wing socio-political slant:

John Weiss, a professor of history at Wayne State University, sought to give a definition of fascism in his book, The Fascist Tradition: Radical Right-Wing Extremism in Modern Europe. He arrived at a list of ideas that he believed to be shared by the majority of the people commonly referred to as fascists:[22]

Organicist conceptions of community;
Philosophical idealism;
Idealization of "manly" (usually peasant or village) virtues;
A resentment of mass democracy;
Elitist conceptions of political and social leadership;
Racism (and usually, though not necessarily, anti-Semitism);
Militarism;
Imperialism.

[ccbatson]

Sorry Dr. Weiss...those fortune cookie generalizations do not suffice as a definition.

Read Jonah Goldberg's book folks.

[mauser]

Look up the definitions of those words (Socialism, Fascism, and Communism)...they all fit liberals like Obama and company.

all those words that do not at all mean the same thing but are all considered bad in american popular culture - those ALL describe obama ?

Exactly how much do you get paid for this gig dude - its time ! Tell us what they pay you.

[rb336]

CC...have YOU ever looked up the definitions of Facism? Considering Facism is a right-wing socio-political slant:

I've linked and posted Il Duce's definition of fascism a few times. Bats, as has been shown ad nauseum, cares little for facts

[Detroitej72]

quote:Sorry Dr. Weiss...those fortune cookie generalizations do not suffice as a definition.

Read Jonah Goldberg's book folks.


Read Al Franken's book folks.

[Detroitej72]

Back to the topic.

Anyone on FauxNews who spews this Anti-American shit and encourages the killing of our president should be jailed immediately. Furthermore, spreading this vicious hate should be silenced. This is the best evidence why congress should reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to balance out the lies and silence the fanatics who wish to kill innocent people.

[ejames01]

The Glenn Beck show is CRAZY! Anyone that takes him seriously, definitely needs their head examined. I've watched 3 shows and I am shocked by all of the nonsense that he is spewing and the crazy stunts that they do is even more bizarre.

:eek:

[Detroitej72]

The man seems to be mentally ill, truth be told.
The fact that some folks take him seriously is a scary sign of the times.

[Bobl]

Somebody, quick, buy him a drink!
And while we're at it, let's be sure Rush has a good supply of oxy....
Might calm them down a bit, poor souls.

[ccbatson]

I agree that he is often way out there. However, when he is on target, he is brilliant and very compelling.

[ccbatson]

No..he is not as far out as the unabomber.

[ccbatson]

Innocent until proven guilty. Until then, your analogy is way off.

[oladub]

BREAKOUT MOMENT!!!

In post #38 above, Detroitej72 proposes censorship by advocating the reenstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. A few of you have been beating around the bush about this for days but now you have a leader. What next, book burnings?

[rb336]

BREAKOUT MOMENT!!!

In post #38 above, Detroitej72 proposes censorship by advocating the reenstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. A few of you have been beating around the bush about this for days but now you have a leader. What next, book burnings?

The fairness doctrine is NOT censorship. they are OUR airwaves, and they are currently being censored by the extreme right-wing ownership of those airwaves. In cities where progressive radio is allowed on decent sticks, they do quite well. In cities like Detroit, where nearly 1/3 of the stations are owned by one right-wing corporation, they are relegated to the weak signals of 1310.

[oladub]

The fairness doctrine is NOT censorship. they are OUR airwaves, and they are currently being censored by the extreme right-wing ownership of those airwaves. In cities where progressive radio is allowed on decent sticks, they do quite well. In cities like Detroit, where nearly 1/3 of the stations are owned by one right-wing corporation, they are relegated to the weak signals of 1310.

From the First Amendment, "Congress shall make NO law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...

The Fairness Doctrine is a law abridging the freedom of speech. It allows some people to determine what others are allowed to say and/or what also must be said to satisfy their sense of balance. Welcome to the bookburners' club Rb. You outed yourself.

If they are "OUR airwaves", then they are already regulated by the First Amendment and your personal preferences for censorship are not an option. If you want balance, then go out and buy your own radio station. Noone is forcing any one of us to listen to either Rush, Air America, religious broadcasts, or public broadcasting concertos and no censors should force any of those programs to have to spend a minute of their time broadcasting the censors preferences. That's what dials are for.

[Detroitej72]

Newsflash: the fairness doctrine is not about censorship at all, simply a means to get both view points known. I know its hard for you neo-cons to grasp that concept, since your gods of right-wing radio prech to you that its evil, but try using some simple logic of your own for once.

There is nothing wrong with giving listeners both sides to an argument and then letting them make up their own mind. Right-wing radio knows this would cause them to be expossed as the frauds they are, and that is why the Fairness Doctrine causes them to frauth at the mouth and have violent convoltions.

[ccbatson]

If you believe that it is about fairness, then you have been effectively brainwashed by the Statists (in this case, Democrat and Republican) into willingly allowing your freedom (constitutional freedom, via the bill of rights) to be taken away from you.

[rb336]

If you believe that it is about fairness, then you have been effectively brainwashed by the Statists (in this case, Democrat and Republican) into willingly allowing your freedom (constitutional freedom, via the bill of rights) to be taken away from you.

there goes bats talking about everyone else being brainwashed whilst using the language of his cult

[Detroitej72]

If you believe that it is about fairness, then you have been effectively brainwashed by the Statists (in this case, Democrat and Republican) into willingly allowing your freedom (constitutional freedom, via the bill of rights) to be taken away from you.


If you believe that it is not about fairness, then you have been effectively brainwashed by the Cultists, (in this case the Randian Cult) into buying the false notion of a free market.

There can never be a completly free market, since those who run it are not honest enough to police themselves, hense you need some form of regulation.

[oladub]

Newsflash: the fairness doctrine is not about censorship at all, simply a means to get both view points known. I know its hard for you neo-cons to grasp that concept, since your gods of right-wing radio prech to you that its evil, but try using some simple logic of your own for once.

There is nothing wrong with giving listeners both sides to an argument and then letting them make up their own mind. Right-wing radio knows this would cause them to be expossed as the frauds they are, and that is why the Fairness Doctrine causes them to frauth at the mouth and have violent convoltions.

"Both"? If you think there are only two points of view you have already disqualified yourself from deciding content. The rest of your first paragraph was also in error. My primary radio station is Public Radio. I have listened to about a half hour of Rush in the last year. I am not a neo-con because I disapprove of expanded wiretapping, broadening the war in Afghanistan, expanded government debt and spending, and the Fed among other things. I wouldn't even consider voting for anyone who supported those neo-con policies. You are now 0 for 3 and maybe 0 for 4 if you voted for someone who supported those neo-con policies.

Your desire to force feed your message reminds me of how China, in Maoist days, had loudspeakers blasting propaganda all over every city to make sue everyone got the Party's message. Is your message so crappy that you have to resort to the same techniques? I suspect it is. Do you intend to let the other side of 'both' get to choose who they want to occupy half of the Maddox, Olberman, Colbert show? I mean how does this work. Do Maddox and Limbaugh alternate days on each others' shows or does each do half of each other's program? In either case, how do you prevent people from turning off their radio or TV when the interloper comes on? Help me understand how your post 1st Amendment world is supposed to operate.

[Detroitej72]

"Both"? If you think there are only two points of view you have already disqualified yourself from deciding content. The rest of your first paragraph was also in error. My primary radio station is Public Radio. I have listened to about a half hour of Rush in the last year. I am not a neo-con because I disapprove of expanded wiretapping, broadening the war in Afghanistan, expanded government debt and spending, and the Fed among other things. I wouldn't even consider voting for anyone who supported those neo-con policies. You are now 0 for 3 and maybe 0 for 4 if you voted for someone who supported those neo-con policies.

Your desire to force feed your message reminds me of how China, in Maoist days, had loudspeakers blasting propaganda all over every city to make sue everyone got the Party's message. Is your message so crappy that you have to resort to the same techniques? I suspect it is. Do you intend to let the other side of 'both' get to choose who they want to occupy half of the Maddox, Olberman, Colbert show? I mean how does this work. Do Maddox and Limbaugh alternate days on each others' shows or does each do half of each other's program? In either case, how do you prevent people from turning off their radio or TV when the interloper comes on? Help me understand how your post 1st Amendment world is supposed to operate.

Let me try to clear up a few things. First, thank you for pointing out my error in saying "both". I should have said "all points of view". Keeping things simple was what I was trying to do.

Second, when I said neo-cons, I wasn't singling you out, just all that naysayers in general. I'm glad you listen to NPR, but if thats your main source, you would know that the Fairness Doctrine is not about censorship. The only place I've heard that term thrown around is on right-wing radio and Fox News.

Third, how am I force-feeding my message? Because you may not agree with it, you think its force feed? I simply speak my stated point of view after gaining all the facts from multiple sources, including NPR, pogressive radio, CNN, MSNBC, and even right-wing radio. How you equate that to Marxist China is unclear to me. One could take your argument on "blaring propaganda" to mean AM right wing talk radio, that, as we both know has a monopoly of the airwaves.

As for TV news, we have a pretty good balance of right vs. left with Fox and MSNBC, so that really isn't an issue now is it. If you want straight news with no bias, you can watch CNN, C-Span and the like.

The main problem I see is on AM radio, where the right-leaning media conglomerates pretty much control the air waves. Pogressive talk, for the most part is limited to weaker signals in the few areas where you can actually hear it, with some exceptions, like in Chicago.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

[ejames01]

Have you even seen the Glenn Beck show? It is a riot.

[ghettopalmetto]

Judging by the title of this thread it is clear as heaven that Mr. Beck is causing quite a stir to the left.
So much so that it has set them into a feeding frenzy to try to discredit him.

To discredit Glenn Beck requires that he has credibility in the first place. Remind me what his credentials are again?

[ejames01]

Are you serious?

:rolleyes:

[ghettopalmetto]

Well for starters, he has a nationally syndicated radio and television show. I think thats creditionals enough.

next?

And Britney Spears has an international recording contract, which allows her to be seen and heard more than Glenn Beck. Does that make her a political genius (or even a good musician)?

[ghettopalmetto]

He is a commentator Ghetto palm tree, not a reporter, nor a political anything and he just like the propagation zoo over on msnbc is allowed to speak. Albeit he does it with a fair amount of truth whereas the other white meat do it whilst lying through their hideous holes with every waking moment of every smelly breath.

So Glenn Beck is a commentator, which means he gets on the radio and the television, and spouts his opinion. Having the ability to spew one's opinion does not lend credibility. I can rant and rave forever about particle physics, but it would be hard to take seriously, since I would just be providing my opinions the entire time. Would you agree?

What is your basis for deciding that Glenn Beck speaks the truth? Against which objective bases have you compared his commentary?

Sorry to hear that your Smellevision isn't working out so well for you when you decide to watch "the other white meat" (my, how clever you are!). There is such a thing as technology going too far, you know.

[ghettopalmetto]

I didnt say his opinions were truth. His opinions are based on the truth wheras Piss(oh I get a tingle down my leg when that black hunk speaks) Matthews ,Keith (pussface)ogreman ,Rachael Cow and crew outright lie about anything and everything.

To know that Glenn Beck's opinions are based on the truth, one needs to know what the truth is in the first place. So, I'll raise my question again: how do you know what the objective truth is? Surely, you have some way of deciding what constitutes truth in order to reach such a conclusion.

[Detroitej72]

I didnt say his opinions were truth. His opinions are based on the truth wheras Piss(oh I get a tingle down my leg when that black hunk speaks) Matthews ,Keith (pussface)ogreman ,Rachael Cow and crew outright lie about anything and everything.


Its funny that you lable MSNBC as a propaganda machine, while completely ignoring that Fox is the same thing, except with the oposite view point.

Then, to show your bias, you proceed to call their comentators names. This causes others to dismiss your rants as purly partisian weeping.

Finally, one could argue that any of MSNBC's personalities views are based on facts as well as you claim Beck's views are.

If you want "fair and balanced" news, tune into CNN, C-Span or even NPR. Otherwise you can watch the left and right put their spins on Fox and MSNBC.

[ccbatson]

The public is getting wise to the liberal media....hence the descent of viewership there, and the rise of Fox, conservative talk radio, and conservative internet outlets.

[Detroitej72]

Its time to drop this "liberal media" lie. That tag applys to MSNBC, but certainly not the mainstream media. That is yet another lie promoted by the right.

[ghettopalmetto]

simple addition versus being force fed propaganda that is rampant throughout liberal media.
Also the blatant way the liberal media refuses to report on numerous things.

Okay, got it. Glenn Beck's opinions are based on the "truth", which you have verified by determining that the "truth" is merely the opposite of what you think is wrong.

In other words, you're making shit up.

[ghettopalmetto]

Making things up? No, I know how to detrmine facts and fiction something zombies don't.

By the way, could u start using that ignore function please. Im starting to tire of your wimping liberal twisted logic.

I would be happy if you could just write in complete sentences that use diction from the English language. Aim low before you reach for some of that higher-hanging fruit.

[Detroitej72]

Yea ok. What a joke. Now u want to throw msnbc under the bus when they start getting the bad rap eh? Where will Rachael (spittle all over Hillary ) Cow show up next? ABC? CBS? CNN>? print? God knows when Air America flapped she just got sent over toi their affiliate.

Oops,,,,,,,,oh my bad! I wasn't supposed to let anyone know that most of the media is owned by liberals .

MSNBC is primarily designed to be the left's version of Fox News.

And there you go again, with your needless name calling. Not sure why you have so much bile towards Rachel Maddow, she is one of the nicest political commentators.. Maybe you wish you could be be like her?

[Detroitej72]

Eh? Nicest you say? Oh you must have some of that special super duper okie dokie strantagulous kool-aid they are handing out over there.

Can I have some ? Maybe I can hallucinate with u guys.

This from the right, who continuiously drink the kool-aid their gods at Fox and AM radio serve.

Roch, you should take a page from Bats, he is always civil and never resorts to name calling when engaged in a debate.

I'm guessing you will be banned from the forum soon, as you seem to be a loose cannon, who cannot resist mean-spirited attacks on those with whom you disagree.

[ccbatson]

Quick test...take a liberal, sit him/her in front of Fox for 30 minutes, and then measure the mood and BP (depressed and elevated). Now, do the same for any of the liberal media outlets (take your pick)...mood stable and BP unchanged? The liberal agrees/is not upset at all by the latter, and therefore it is liberal biased.

[ghettopalmetto]

Roch, you should take a page from Bats, he is always civil and never resorts to name calling when engaged in a debate.

I'm guessing you will be banned from the forum soon, as you seem to be a loose cannon, who cannot resist mean-spirited attacks on those with whom you disagree.

I'm not even sure you can say that Roch disagrees with anyone. For all of his insistence on the truth, he hasn't posted a single fact in 36 attempts.

[ccbatson]

A discussion forum...discussion, not a courtroom. Lame attempt at dissing Roch.

[ccbatson]

Where is it that you say Roch is name calling?

Only of public figures and libs do that all the time here (GWB is their favorite target).

[ccbatson]

If you haven't read Mark Levin's new book Roch...you must do yourself a huge favor and do so.

[ejames01]

DetroitRoch is trolling.

;)

[rb336]

Quick test...take a liberal, sit him/her in front of Fox for 30 minutes, and then measure the mood and BP (depressed and elevated). Now, do the same for any of the liberal media outlets (take your pick)...mood stable and BP unchanged? The liberal agrees/is not upset at all by the latter, and therefore it is liberal biased.

there is only one "liberal" media outlet - msnbc. the rest are as right-wing and corporatist as Fox only more subtle, using neo-con terminology, phrasing the debate in right-wing terms

[ccbatson]

SM...the prohibition is intended for calling posters on this forum names, not groups of people.

Speaking of rules, best to watch the personal attacks and identifications off of here, a clear violation, both in practice and intent.

Notice you are the only one trying to "sneak" that stuff in...for good reason...maturity and discretion.

[ccbatson]

Who? Mark Levin? His book is the best seller for 8 weeks running now. California turning down socialist taxation, and polls are encouraging for a conservative revival and a return to liberty in upcoming elections. Hopefully we can survive until then.

[Lorax]

What is happening here is the fascist take over of the airwaves, as has been the custom since Reagan's shredding of the Fairness Doctrine on his way out the door. This combined with Clinton's hands off approach to the media gave rise to Faux Noise, Fear Channel Communi(st)cations, etc.

Glenda Speck is nothing more than a rodeo clown, who, on The View yesterday, admitted he was no journalist (like that was really news) and did not research his facts or stories.

He's lucky to have found a friend in the Austrailian fascist Rupert Murdoch, from whom he takes his talking points, just like the Manatee and others.

Now with the Murdoch Street Journal poisioning the financial media, we have a loud, fascist right wing dominated media, all of which is conservative, save perhaps MSNBC, which the right is so hysterical over, but at the same time claims has no viewership. Go figure.

The problem with all of this is there are actually people who are socially retarded enough to watch, and worse, believe this values voter's vomit spewed by some really dumb individuals. Just watch Fox & Friends for a daily dose of drivel.

[ccbatson]

Define Fascism please? Does it include freedom of speech/expression? If not...you contradict yourself fatally.

[Lorax]

Take a look in the mirror.

How does that work for you?

If you really need a definition, you are completely lost.

Your Fox Friends like to re-define words, and you have been told Obama is everything from a fascist, communist, socialist, pinko, etc, etc.

And of course your pea sized brain believes it.

Fascism is the co-mingling of government and corporate interests, which is what we had full-tilt under the Tushies.

Hitler and Mussolini were fascists, not social democrats as Poopert Murdoch would have you believe. They started out lying about what their political agenda was, and morphed into what we all know they were- evil fascists.

Tush/Cheney campaigned as compassionate conservatives, which I guess if you believe compassionate involves allowing 9/11 to happen, murdering over a million Iraquis, etc, and being conservative involves raping and plundering the national treasury, then I guess you have your answer.

Tush/Cheney lied, millions died.

[ccbatson]

Hitler and Mussolini were fascists indeed.....nationalist, militarist, expansionist, collectivist/socialist (including corporate socialism where they control businesses), using crisis (real or imagined) to grab power for the supposed sake of "the people" while making said "people" the oppressed prisoners of their regimes.....sound familiar to you Obamaphiles? It should.

[Lorax]

You're describing the Bush Crime Family to a tee. Thank you for clarifying that. :eek:

[ccbatson]

Not expansionist, not militaristic (apart from defensive military use), CERTAINLY NOT collectivist, and terrorism is certainly not imagined.

Look closer at Obama for an epiphany.

[Lorax]

The war of choice for oil in Iraq not militaristic? Are you kidding?

Not expansionist, what do you call our occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, bases all over the place. Whether or not you believe it, what's important is how the world views it.

You're not convincing anyone that appearances aren't real.

If it looks like a cat, walks like a cat, it's probably a cat.

[Bobl]

Seems Mr. Beck has been caught in a lie by Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg. He had the poor judgment to fabricate the details a meeting with them on a public transit vehicle in his radio program shortly before he was scheduled to appear on their TV show.
Part of his excuse was "I am a commentator, not a journalist". Apparently, his belief is that commentators are not required to be truthful to make a point.

[rb336]

If it looks like a cat, walks like a cat, it's probably a cat.


or maybe a civet

[rb336]

Define Fascism please? Does it include freedom of speech/expression? If not...you contradict yourself fatally.

silly bats. WE have defined it correctly numerous times. he attempts to re-define it to git his dogma-driven vitriol

[Detroitej72]

Seems Mr. Beck has been caught in a lie by Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg. He had the poor judgment to fabricate the details a meeting with them on a public transit vehicle in his radio program shortly before he was scheduled to appear on their TV show.
Part of his excuse was "I am a commentator, not a journalist". Apparently, his belief is that commentators are not required to be truthful to make a point.

The fact that he would lie about such a trivial thing leads one to the conclusion that the man is a habitual liar. Now that his honesty has been proven to be suspect, he can never be trusted on matters of greater significance.

The neo-con zombies will still rally behind him, however, as they tend to be blinded by facts, and only believe what right wing lunatics like Beck, Savage, Rush, Levin and the rest of the clowns tell them.

BTW, anyone else enjoy Little Mikey Savage attacking Hannity, Beck and that neo-con god himself, Rushie a few weeks back? I love it when those elitists start to eat one another, it lets the moderates concentrate on more pressing matters, like fixing the Republican Recession we're in.

[mjs]

[Our Founding Fathers] knew . . . that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Whitney v California discussing the reversal of a conviction for a woman that formed a communist group because the government believed all communist groups encourage violent opposition.

[Lorax]

Not expansionist, not militaristic (apart from defensive military use), CERTAINLY NOT collectivist, and terrorism is certainly not imagined.

Look closer at Obama for an epiphany.

Actually terrorism on the magnitude of 9/11 wasn't imaginable under Democratic rule, but with Rethugnican'ts allowing such unimaginable terror to occur on their watch is ultimately what will render them to the dust bin of history.

[oladub]

Lorax, if the weather wasn't up to your standards, you would blame it on Republicans. There was an attempt to blow up a World Towers building while Clinton was in office. The planning and training for the 9/11 attack happened mostly during the Clinton administration. I am not blaming Clinton more than Bush but to continually blame every gliche in the Universe on Republicans is ridiculous.

Both attacks on the World Towers were made by people who were angry at US interventionist policies. There were also some interesting reports concerning the company that McVeigh kept. Yet, we continue to anger people in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan with our imperialistic hubris. I expect more 9/11 type attacks but think it silly to blame them all on either Republicans or Democrats when, in fact, they enrage people with the same imperialist actions.

Back on topic-

I have twice watched parts of the Ed Show on MSNBC. Ed is the 'progressive' version of Hannity. Like Hannity, Ed will turn a question into a sermon and then cut off his guest's response. Fair enough, guests know that might happen when they are invited on the Hannity and Ed shows.

[Lorax]

The old screed of "spreading the blame" doesn't work here.

The long term foreign policy of republicans from Reagan to Bush 41 & Bush 43 is consistent in it's drive to expansion, imperalism, and 'spreading democracy' which as we know can't be done at the point of a rifle.

This is intrinsically a republican, right wing, and indeed fascist attempt to fearmonger the American public, and designed to enrage portions of the planet who historically see us as an enemy, largely due to such foreign policy.

Axis of Evil

Evil Empire

Need I say more?

Blame is squarely in the republican corner. Period.

[oladub]

Ok Lorax, I'll explain to Pakistani villagers that the bombs that killed their children were good bombs delivered with the best of intentions to carry out benevolent Obama foreign policy. Then, the villagers will understand that their misfortunes aren't a by-product of Bush's evil foreign policy. Then I'll send a letter to a Serbian newspaper and explain that Clinton bombed Serbia for 78 days for Serbia's own good.

[Lorax]

Nice to see I have a fellow poster who is a pacifist just like me. No bombs, no wars, period.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Seems the logical solution, right?

[oladub]

slimshady, the Croats, Bosnians, and Albanians were also raping and killing. These groups have been having their ongoing civil war off and on for hundreds of years. Clinton bombed Serbia night and day for 78 days although Serbia had never done anything to us and was thousands of miles away. Prior to that, Serbia had considered the US to be an ally in the war on terrorism.

Our not minding our own business and sticking our nose into a long standing feud is exactly why people come here to kill us. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some teenage boys growing up in Pakisatan and Serbia today that hope to some day avenge US atrocities.

[oladub]

SM, I agree with you that there is such a thing as a justified war. Japan attacked the US. Serbia did not. Clinton killed thousands of Serbs anyway.Let's hope that Islamists and Balkan factions will make an exception and forgive us. I'm not assuming they, particularly the Islamists, will.

[oladub]

I am SS now, not SM ;)

Serbs are not Islamists. Serbs are primarily Orthodox Catholics who were killing Muslims. Since we were protecting the Muslims, somehow I think they will forgive us.

Oh, and it was NATO that did the bombing, not President Clinton himself.

I was referring to two groups; Islamists and Serbs. My guess is that we have more to worry about from the Islamists. By Islamist, I meant Wahhabis, Iranian extremists, Hamas, etc.. Since 9/11 occured after Clinton's attack on Belgrade, the proof is in that Islamists, at least Bin Laden's branch, didn't credit the US for bombing Belgrade. Technically, NATO bombed Serbia but it wouldn't have happened without Bill Clinton's leadership and the US providing the preponderance of military hardware. NATO is sometimes used as a fig leaf to make believe that with token third country forces this or that action is actually an international rather than a US action. I think it is quite correct to say that it was Clinton. I don't recall that Congress declared war on Serbia.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/march2006/150306clinton3.jpg

Clinton's handiwork in Serbia

[mjs]

FreeofAleTall, The Clinton Presidential library paints his role as peace negotiator and I still don't know where to stand on Bosnia/Serbia. What should the US have done? Like Israel/Palestine, both sides have legitimate complaints, but letting them kill each other can't be the solution.

[oladub]

You realize that the "Islamists" refers to a whole multitude of different groups and cultures?
Yes, that was made clear. Are you confusing Muslims with Islamists? One is a subset of the other.

You seem to believe that the US, in this case Clinton, can act arrogantly with regards to anything happening in the world even though it has nothing to do with us. Serbia was fighting KLA terrorists who were crossing the border from Albania and may have been receiving help from Al-queda. Clinton, in a moment of absolute stupidity, took the side of Al-queda. All of the ethnic groups in that corner of the world were guilty of atrocities. That is what they do there when they periodically renew their centuries old hatred toward each other. It had little or nothing to do with the US. I am saying we should stay out of such fraternal wars that have nothing to do with us.You are saying we should pick sides and bomb the heck out of whomever we choose to be the bad guys. This is how to make enemies. Why didn't we also bomb Hutu or Tamil villages or jump into a score of other local wars that had little or nothing to do with the US. Your wish has come true. We are now bombing villages in Pakistan and have contributed to creating 1,600,000 refugees.

The Germans were military allies of the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. As you realize, Serbia did not attack Pearl Harbor or anything American. Therefore, the Dresden analogy in not appropriate. However, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor could be likened to Clinton's bombing of Belgrade.

You failed to even address the lack of Constitutional authority Clinton exercized when he committed this act of war against Serbia.

[mjs]

Oladub and FreeofAleTall, lots of good points, but what if I believe we should have got involved in assisting a UN coalition in Hutu or Tamil? Are you saying that the US Military should never assist in any peace keeping roles? If you are, I disagree because I believe I'm my brother's keeper, but I can accept your view as a legitmate personal decison that values American lives over international peace.

[mjs]

FreeofAleTall, there's alot I don't know about the whole Kosovo conflict or the history that lead up to it, which is why I asked. Until recently, I thought we were part of a UN coalition rather than a NATO coalition. Who was pushing for our involvement? Why didn't the UN intervene? Why wasn't Serbia a member of the UN?

How did Kosovo come to have so many Albanians in the first place? Why did they move out of Albania? Why wasn't there more Serbs living in the region? Why was there such a culture clash? What role did Albania itself play? Is there any validity to accusations of genocide and targeting civilians? Why did the fighting get so uncivilized? Would bombing both sides have resulted in fewer civilian casualties or more?

[ccbatson]

I agree that it is the radical element that we are at war with.

However, the relative quiet from "moderate muslims" is disconcerting...especially in the US where it is unlikely that opponenets will be punished and killed.

[oladub]

SS, I brought up Clinton's attack as one of two examples of imperialistic hubris that were not caused by Republicans in response to Lorax post #82. I think that people who blame all problems on one of two parties, take your pick, are part of the problem as long as the two parties have such overlapping foreign policies.


mjs post#97: Oladub and FreeofAleTall, lots of good points, but what if I believe we should have got involved in assisting a UN coalition in Hutu or Tamil? Are you saying that the US Military should never assist in any peace keeping roles? If you are, I disagree because I believe I'm my brother's keeper, but I can accept your view as a legitmate personal decison that values American lives over international peace.

mjs, The US aircraft carrier that provided electricity and help to Indonesian tsunami victims was providing humanitarian aid. The bombing of Pakistani villages and Belgrade were acts of war. There is a difference. The United States is supposed to operate under the rule of law. The Constitution requires Congress to declare wars. It is commendable that you want to be your brother's keeper. There are a lot of organizations that will accept your donations of time and money to help the victims of war if you are not already contributing. I am not sure how much international peace is derived from bombing Serbian, Iraqi, Afghani, and Pakistani children though.

SS, Don't forget that Afghanistan has been our business for a long time. The US empowered Osama to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But it works both ways. The US got rid of a left leaning democratically elected leader in Iran and replaced him with the Shah. Oh, and we sided with Saddam when he attacked Iran after the Shah had been removed. Now you tell us that you wanted the US to take action against the Hutus, and somehow involve ourselves in Somalia (again), and Sudan. Hey, since it worked out so good in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, maybe we could bomb some folks in Sudan too.

Yes I do realize that nuclear bombs can be smuggled in. I assume that some used Soviet backpack bombs already have been smuggled in although they could just as easily have been smuggled in across the Mexican border disguised as drugs with the usual payoffs. The genie is out of the bottle. Bombing Pakistani villages probably won't help much except to provide a motive for revenge.

FreeofAletall, Do you know what happened to retired carpenter Mike Birac? He was my foreman back around 1968. He often spent his lunch break educating any trademen who would listen about Croat atrocities of hundreds of years ago. Mike was born and raised in the US, had been a US Marine, but he still sorta bought his brother a wife in Toledo.

[mjs]

The Constitution does require Congress to declare war. The Constitution also gives the President certain implied powers as Commander in Chief and the Congress the power over military spending. Since the Constitution was ratified almost 220 years ago, the President has used his power of military action over 125 times. Congress has used its power to declare war in only five wars: War of 1812, Mexican American War, Spanish American War, World War I, and World War II.

Fun fact question. Congress originally proposed 12 Amendments to the Constitution. Which one was ratified at a later date and when?

[mjs]

Oladub, I have donated before and I have a feeling you have too. Are you against any bombings or killings to create international peace or do you feel its an oxymoron? The Newshour has said that the US supplies 23% of all funding for UN peacekeeping missions, but their bigger problem is manpower commitments.

[Linda from Detroit]

I've watched Fox news at times and that includes Beck. I'll agree he is certainly "different" in a number of ways, but I have never heard anyone threatening any elected official or hating America or any of that stuff. Often there are people on both ends of the spectrum that get upset pretty easy and start reading stuff in that isn't there or at least isn't intended. I guess the old adage of taking things with a grain of salt apply in this case too.

[Linda from Detroit]

Sorry, I hit the button too quickly. As far as the "concentration camp for Americans " thing, I watched that show and that is NOT what was said. Beck said that there are people claiming that and it isn't true. I guess whoever wrote the article didn't understand or missed that part. Either way, I wish people on both extremist ends would calm down and take a few deep breaths:rolleyes:

[oladub]

mjs, I prefer to take my Constitution straight. Implications, and discoveries sound too much like reported private messages from God or things repeated over and over in mental institutions. Besides, had we been less creative in living Constitutional interpretations, we could have avoided Vietnam, Iraq, a crashing dollar, and huge debts for our children to inherit. Of course, states would probably have picked up some of the slack in bungling but at least states don't get into trouble with bombs and counterfit machines.

I don't necessarily have problems with peacekeeping missions that have Congressional approval like protecting refugee camps or distributing food although I don't define 'peacekeeping' to include dropping bombs on peoples' heads. Nor do I have problems with self defense on the high seas which SS confuses with bombing sovereign territory. The Constitution also allows 'Letters of Marquis' to pursue someone like Bin Laden. Our military also has a duty to protect our borders. It is a standing police role that doesn't require a Congressional act of war.

The 27th - although, don't tell, I cheated and looked it up.

[d.mcc]

http://www.toofly.com/userGallery/1242942166.jpg

This about sums it up...

[mjs]

The 27th Amendment. Proposed by Congress in 1789, but not Ratified until 1992 had the longest ratification process ever. When Michigan ratified it, everyone thought it had passed, but everyone was wrong. It had passed two days earlier. I looked it up about a year ago when I was curious about when we last passed an Amendment.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

[mjs]

I've generally been a strict constructionalist as well, but if they hadn't held that "necessary and proper" basically eliminated the Tenth Amendment, we'd have no OSHA, EPA, NHTSA, FDA, etc, so I've been waining over the years. I don't feel too good about the marginalization of the power to declare war, but its certainly not something new.

[Lorax]

The problem with strict constructionists is they are largely living in the past.

The Constitution was designed to be amendable, it's basic tenents set in stone as the foundation of what makes us American.

Without government agencies, however flawed they may perform under republicans, they are necessary in an age of the global corporatocracy whose sole purpose for existence is maximizing profits for their shareholders.

Without agencies like the EPA, OSHA, FDA, etc., there would be no oversight, so we could enjoy endless lead in our paints, imports, E-coli in our food, and myriad other disasters that would arise from unregulated, unfettered capitalism.

When most people grew their own food a century or more ago, you didn't have such a need for consumer agencies. Family owned banks and businesses were accountable, and could be confronted by walking in the door.

Giant corporations of today are no different than small governments, and are protected by laws written by their own lobbyists and rafts of attorneys ready to do their bidding.

[mjs]

You're right. The Consitution outlines a process to amend it and you state good reasons for amending it, so why didn't the Roosevelt administration use the process to have it amended instead of forcing an interpretation they wanted by threatening to pack the courts? What part of the Constitution gave the Feds the power to say you can't grow wheat on your farm for your own use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[mjs]

So, the UN did play a role in Kosovo? How much of a role? Why didn't they respond militarily when they were attacked? Why didn't the NATO nations do this under UN colors? I'm asking anyone thats well informed on the subject.

[mjs]

Thanks to both sides for all of this information. I'm picking up a great deal. Tell us more.


Culture clash? Why is there a culture clash here between people?
Blacks are racist towards whites, whites towards blacks, hispanics hate this one,,Asians that one.
In multicultural societies we will always have clashes.

Sure there's clashes, but it fortunately doesn't rise to massive wars and attempts at genocide. A large amount of the black/white culture clash here is still from the civil war, what lead up to it, and how the postwar period was handled. One reason non-slave holding southerners fought for their cause was because slavery meant no matter how bad off a white man was, at least he knew he wasn't a slave or even a disenfranchised black. By passing along the justifications that allowed that system and having that system taken away, many had their pride hurt and passed on hatred for generations. The end of slavery also meant many southern areas were financially obliterated. Think of whats happening to Metro-Detroit and our feelings to the attitudes of some uncompassionate fellow Americans and multiply it ten fold. Lincoln's plan was the best to peacefully remove slavery without financially decimating the south: Have all slave children born free and have the Feds buy freedom for the current slaves. Since it was gradual plan, another advantage is that the country would have avoided the sudden influx of laborers that lead to so much animosity and industrialists like Ford wouldn't have been able to flame those animosities to create competition between the work groups. After the war, Lincoln was the best chance a defeated Confederacy had to a compassionate reintegration, but John Wilkes Booth killed him. The scars of war then made for a vindictive reconstruction and the south brutally took it out on the blacks giving them long lasting scars as well.

As to Kosovo, I have no in depth historical understanding of their animosity or why it rose to the level of acts of genocide. I'm looking for insight from a former citizen.

[ccbatson]

If the UN were more involved?? Would that make one iota of difference? If it did, it would be the first time.

[ccbatson]

A resolution with teeth only when backed up by who? Right again...us. By itself, the UN is worse than useless....corrupt and harmful.

[Lorax]

You three are so far off topic, you should rename this thread "The Rethugnican Circular Firing Squad"

You're putting everyone to sleep.

[ccbatson]

We have 3 conservatives on this forum?? On this thread?

[oladub]

SS & Lorax, Here is Marine Major General Smedley Butler saying some controversial things about a lot of those little unconstitutional Congressionally undeclared conflicts we always seem to be getting into. Strange talk for a decorated leader but if he did resist the offer to lead a coup against Roosevelt, Butler is a hero.

Meet Maj General Smedley Butler (http://vodpod.com/watch/1408645-meet-maj-general-smedley-butler) . Its Memorial Day.

[mjs]

We've fought a great many unnecessary wars including many for capitalism and the conquering of other countries lands. Seeing how the overwhelming majority of these had congressional and public support, I fail to understand how forcing Congress to make a formal declaration of war would have avoided these or what it has to do with the constitutionality of the President's ability to take military action.

Not only do I agree Marine Major General Smedley Butler is indeed a hero if he resisted the offer to lead a coup against Roosevelt, I think he was a hero regardless and Congress agreed. Many historians also believe that incidences such as the Boxer Rebellion, in which he participated, were a foreshadowing of upcoming world wars as more nations clamored to join the ranks of Imperialist nations. I am also aware of the allegations of what he is referring to; it was called the Business Plot.

A New York Times (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/New_York_Times) editorial dismissed Butler's story as "a gigantic hoax" and a "bald and unconvincing narrative." Thomas W. Lamont of J.P. Morgan (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/J.P._Morgan) called it "perfect moonshine." General Douglas MacArthur (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur), alleged to be the back-up leader of the putsch if Butler declined, referred to it as "the best laugh story of the year." Time Magazine (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Time_Magazine) and other publications also scoffed at the allegations.

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

[Big Dog]

ccbatson (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/member.php?u=384) http://www.detroityes.com/mb/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif | Yesterday, 05:26 PM | Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,090 #133 (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showpost.php?p=23739&postcount=133) http://www.detroityes.com/mb/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/report.php?p=23739)

We have 3 conservatives on this forum?? On this thread?



No, 2 conservatives, and one phony bullshitter

[mjs]

Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction,
but surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
- United States President Barack Obama

[Big Dog]

You never can refute, truth.

[oladub]

mjs, It isn't a matter of forcing Congress. The Constitution requires that of Congress. Letters of Marquis can also be issued by Congress for some more limited situation. I would support a Letter of Marquis to pursue Bin Laden. Since the House is, in theory, most sensitive to popular opinion, this forces Representatives to put their own careers on the line. Our representatives aren't willing to take such risks. They defer and look the other way, so we wind up in too many conflicts. Congress can no more hand over its Constitutional duty to declare war to the president, as it did prior to Iraq, than the Supreme Court can let the President decide cases. The Constitution has nothing to do with popularity. It could be amended, though, so we can bomb foreign capitals with impunity or invade little countries and put their leaders in Miami jails indefinitely - if that's what Americans really want. A couple on this board seem to. At least an amendment would legalize such a foreign policy.

Its Butler's word against MacArthur's. Flip a coin. I don't necessarily believe every conclusion of banksters and the corporate media.

Relevent red pills from Ron Paul on Memorial Day expanding on the above-
05.14.2009 Ron Paul House Floor Speech on War (http://vodpod.com/watch/1624990-05-14-2009-ron-paul-house-floor-speech-on-war-supplementals-foreign-intervention-torture-financial-crises) 5min35sec
In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?) (http://vodpod.com/watch/1259042-ron-paul-in-the-name-of-patriotism-who-are-the-patriots?mp=1&pod=911truth) a lecture, 23min36sec

[mjs]

I defiantly agree thats a rational reading of the Constitution and how it should be for the reasons you stated especially about making Congressman have to take a stand on a vote. I'm just saying its not how its ever been read and I'm not sure that if the Supreme Court had read it that way, it would have done much to keep us out of conflicts.

[ccbatson]

I only count one (conservative) consistently (myself), but welcome more.

Our use of military force is not merely reactionary, but often preemptive in light of active threats against our interests/security/and way of life.