Why is the left afraid of Glen Beck?

[DirtyMartini]

Michelle Bachmann is a nut just like Glen Beck but unlike Glen Beck she's actually in Congress. This week Bachmann screamed that Americorp was actually the secret brown shirt army which is supposedly going to man those FEMA camps Glen Beck claims are out there. This lunatic is in Congress. :\

Yes, she truly is batspit insane. Check out her questioning of Geitner and Bernanke regarding the stimulus bill-- "do you unequivically reject the idea of replacing the dollar with a new international currency?" She's the r-word.

[SpencerH]

Let us also not forget that Washington fully endorsed the Bank of the United States, advocated by his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. Washington, being more of a Federalist than a Democratic-Republican, endorsed greater federal control.

From my reading of George Washingtons life, I'd say that statement is a misrepresentation of his views. Above all else, Washington was a pragmatist that chose between Hamiltons and Jeffersons opposing views. To that end, he endorsed the creation of federal powers including the national bank that maintained the fragile union of states. On the other hand, he was first and foremost a Virginian and therefore not a federalist (certainly not in the same way as was Hamilton).

[Elok]

He also whipped black people to make them pick his cotton. Why do we care so little about the original intentions of our wise Founding Fathers?

[chequita guevara]

I'm debating KH about the meaning of a word and you chime in to criticize libertarians for pointing out what words mean and it aint directed at me? Then whats yer point? You do have a point, right? Or do you just wander around various threads posting rants about how you dont like arguing over the meaning of words with libertarians?

Actually, Kitty and I were discussing libertarians redefining words, when you chimed in, proving my point.

I'd still like an answer

I don't care. I think definition fights are stupid. If you want to use that definition, go ahead. I'm not gonna argue about it.

[Dinner]

He also whipped black people to make them pick his cotton. Why do we care so little about the original intentions of our wise Founding Fathers?

Amen. Clearly it was the intent of the founding fathers that black people should be slaves and made to pick cotton so that fat old white men could get rich. Why do we not honor the traditions of the founding fathers?

[Imran Siddiqui]

From my reading of George Washingtons life, I'd say that statement is a misrepresentation of his views. Above all else, Washington was a pragmatist that chose between Hamiltons and Jeffersons opposing views. To that end, he endorsed the creation of federal powers including the national bank that maintained the fragile union of states. On the other hand, he was first and foremost a Virginian and therefore not a federalist (certainly not in the same way as was Hamilton).

I think that's a somewhat more generous to Washington POV. Most historians of Washington conclude that he was more on the Federalist side (though, he wasn't an out and out Hamilton). And especially as Jefferson took over the Presidency, he was very much in line with the opposition, though he was not outspoken about it. Let us not forget that the US Bank was something that was to the Democratic-Republicans as legalized abortion is to the Republicans today. And the putdown of the Whisky Rebellion was something tyrannical. When Adams called up Washington in case the Quasi-war with France went farther, he named Hamilton as his second in command and said he wouldn't serve otherwise.

He was more Federalist than the man who was the most famous moderate of the day, Aaron Burr.

[Darius871]

And here is one where Glen Beck claims the FEMA Death Camps are real. The truth is the guy flip flops all over the place. When he's talking to the wing nuts he plays up their irrational fears and when he he's around normal people he tries to distance himself from the wing nuts. The funny part is the wing nuts don't even know they're being played.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPQAyv8nhno

Well in fairness, at least the "they're telling me to say this, help!" part was obviously facetious; in another clip you see the lead-up to it where he says something like "this'll drive those conspiracy guys nuts" in a joking tone before the whispering part, only for the conspiracy idiot in your clip to take it seriously as expected. As for his comments at the starting, he basically only said that some FEMA camps exist, not that they're necessarily for any nefarious purpose. There are a number of totally legitimate and commendable reasons to build some as a "just in case" preparation for myriad contingencies (natural disasters, terrorist attacks, nuclear war, civil unrest, etc.) which I hope FEMA plans for. Beck didn't comment on that intention point one way or the other, so he obviously doesn't buy into conspiracy BS at least for now.

That said, he is a nutcase in a more general way.

[TCO]

Dude, the club for growth guys you get a stiffy for ended up sending a Dem from MD-1 for the first time in forever. Better be careful about your tactics.

wha?

club for growth?

I like it?

implication of democrat?

And it's a chubbie, not a stiffie.

[KrazyHorse]

wha?

club for growth?

I like it?

implication of democrat?

Club for growth is a small-gov type org within repubs who tries to rid the party of RINOs. They managed to kick out Wayne Gilchrest in the primary, only to have their man Andy Harris lose to Dem Frank Kratovil in a squeaker, in a traditionally Repub area.

[Dinner]

I'm glad this smell like ****.

[Aeson]

Which turns the statement of moral principle into a tautology. No ****, that's what I was laughing about.

The statement, "I am against forceful imposition, but support self-defense" is not a tautology unless you are saying "self-defense" is the only possible allowable response to forceful imposition. This is clearly not the case, since it is possible to outlaw both forceful imposition and self-defense, essentially saying that only the law is allowed to respond to forceful imposition.

The statement gives the stances on 2 separate (even though they are closely related) issues.

I'm not claiming that they're inconsistent.

you are claiming that "self-defense" is necessarily "forceful imposition". It implies that you find the statement contradictory because if we accept your position on the terms, being for "self-defense" would thus be for at least some "forceful imposition", and thus the unqualified position against "forceful imposition" would be contradicted by the support for "self-defense".

Just that they spend their time playing games with definitions, twisting them slightly to fit into their preconceived moral principles. It's a word game, as far as I'm concerned.

In this case (your terminology) there is no "twist" to the definition of "imposition". It is a perfectly acceptable use of the term to use it in regards to "unfair" or "unjust" actions and not "fair" or "just" actions. (Just as it would be acceptable to use the term in regards to both.)

As for games with definitions, you play them often enough yourself, and are even participating in such in this thread. I personally find word games fun, and an excellent way to keep an open mind. (Since it often involves finding ways to argue points or ideologies which don't fit my own personal stances, leading to seeing things from a different point of view.)

It appeals to a certain, very small, very dorky, very verbal segment of the population.

Such word games* appeal to those who can appreciate them. ( ) Appreciating such does not necessarily disallow one from appreciating other avenues of entertainment or intellectual exercise.

*I do not agree that the use of "imposition" and "self-defense" in regards to the specific statement qualifies as such. Though I would say that your arguments that it does, does... as well as plenty of other statements in this thread and on this forum.

Why would you want to identify with this type of individual?

Why would you want to identify with the type of person who incorrectly groups people together based on similarities (whether real or imagined) of their stances on a single specific issue?

I personally don't care who I'm agreeing with or disagreeing with. At least not on internet forums. There may be real value in conforming to the ideology of a person or group of person in some real life situations... but on internet forums the whole subject is generally only good for lame jokes (nothing wrong with lame jokes, it's it's own sort of humor) poking fun at someone you disagree with. (Which you may or may not have been doing given the ambiguous nature of communication over the internet in general... which doesn't really matter because it's funny either way.)

[KrazyHorse]

The statement, "I am against forceful imposition, but support self-defense"

This is not even close to the statement of moral principles I ascribed to them in the context of being a tautology. Either read the ****ing thread or mind your own business.

[KrazyHorse]

As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to bother reading it, since I assume it will be on par with the rest of the crap you post, i.e. the pedestrian pretentious and plodding reasoning of a third-class intellect.

Having a discussion with you is like trying to run through corn syrup.

[Aeson]

Sure KH, just tuck your tail and run away now. (A nice example of Berz's "self-defense" Such forceful imposition!)

Here are the quotes where you specifically imply that the statement, "I am against forceful imposition, but for self-defense" is contradictory:

Self defense is not forcefully imposing your will on another

Yes it is, you dork.

...

They claim that they are against all forceful imposition, then define forceful imposition to mean whatever they want.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Having a discussion with you is like trying to run through corn syrup.

QFT

Sure KH, just tuck your tail and run away now.

There you go again...