Is Glenn Beck Nuts????

[sgreger1]

Debate over. I'll live my life. You live yours.

And folks wonder what's wrong with the world.

I completely agree with you sundog..


People need to learn a little more about American history and how our forefathers didnt want religion dictating our government or laws, but they specifically said that they tried to tie in the basic tennants and principles of the major religions of the time, to include Muslim christianity and judaism.

They said that as long as we follow the basic message of these religions, we will always be okay. And that cognress or the president should not say god told him to do something, but instead be mindfull that we (at the time) are a country of moral, hard working and god fearing people.

Today we have become a secular society like france, and that never seems to work out to well for those who try it.


I am not a christian, nor am I a member of any religion, but I do believe in God, and I think that the fact people think there is no one watching is the reason why we are in this state of degradation in America

[VBSnus]

Debate over. I'll live my life. You live yours.

And folks wonder what's wrong with the world.

I like declaring debates over with a final dig at the end too.

[sgreger1]

From one of Michelle Bachmann's town hall meetings...

http://www.rollcall.com/news/38015-1.html

LeRoy Schaffer, a St. Francis city council member, dressed in a tuxedo and top hat for the occasion. Shaffer got visibly emotional asking Bachmann about the future of health care and the role of special interests in Washington. "I'll be danged if I am going to give up my Social Security because of socialism "Schaffer said, before being booed by the crowd.

Oh the irony. Isn't Social Security a form of socialism in itself?

These people bitching about socialism don't have a clue. Add up what you've put into the system versus what you take out. Idiots. :roll:

Social security is a giant pozi scheme and is a failed attempt at creating a sustainable social program. Perhaps those who are for social securtity don't have a clue. Its okay, if you think it's all good with SS, just wait a few years and try to retire on it (when all the money is gone)


When it runs out in the coming years they will just waste more of our money for another big government bailout.

[Veganpunk]

ok. two Becks then! But only one knows Where's It At.

Actually, three Becks. And this one would beat down the other two in a fight. :P

Allright, Jeff Beck and Beck Hansen On the Beck's Beer World Tour. On topic though, yea I prefer John Stewart.

[lxskllr]

Today we have become a secular society like france, and that never seems to work out to well for those who try it.

Norway's one of the most secular nations anywhere, and also socialist. They repeatedly top out "best place to live" charts ;^)

[sgreger1]

Today we have become a secular society like france, and that never seems to work out to well for those who try it.

Norway's one of the most secular nations anywhere, and also socialist. They repeatedly top out "best place to live" charts ;^)

Certainly you would agree that comparing the national policies of Norway to America is apples and oranges. We are much larger, have more individual territories (states), all with their own governments, and we have every race of people on the planet living over here in this giant melting pot.

Things that work in a small area with similar people may not work on a scale as large as The United States.

[lxskllr]

Certainly you would agree that comparing the national policies of Norway to America is apples and oranges. We are much larger, have more individual territories (states), all with their own governments, and we have every race of people on the planet living over here in this giant melting pot.

Things that work in a small area with similar people may not work on a scale as large as The United States.

Sure, but it's just as valid as comparing the USA to France :^)

[sgreger1]

Certainly you would agree that comparing the national policies of Norway to America is apples and oranges. We are much larger, have more individual territories (states), all with their own governments, and we have every race of people on the planet living over here in this giant melting pot.

Things that work in a small area with similar people may not work on a scale as large as The United States.

Sure, but it's just as valid as comparing the USA to France :^)

France is a little larger than Norway. Either way, America is an anomoly in the world and we need to sit down and look at what our plans are/should be instead of copying all of Europe. If we wanted to be like Europe than why did we have that silly war of independence?

[justintempler]

From one of Michelle Bachmann's town hall meetings...

http://www.rollcall.com/news/38015-1.html

LeRoy Schaffer, a St. Francis city council member, dressed in a tuxedo and top hat for the occasion. Shaffer got visibly emotional asking Bachmann about the future of health care and the role of special interests in Washington. "I'll be danged if I am going to give up my Social Security because of socialism "Schaffer said, before being booed by the crowd.

Oh the irony. Isn't Social Security a form of socialism in itself?

These people bitching about socialism don't have a clue. Add up what you've put into the system versus what you take out. Idiots. :roll:

Social security is a giant pozi scheme and is a failed attempt at creating a sustainable social program. Perhaps those who are for social securtity don't have a clue. Its okay, if you think it's all good with SS, just wait a few years and try to retire on it (when all the money is gone)

When it runs out in the coming years they will just waste more of our money for another big government bailout.

If these social programs are such a big failure then how come the people who complain about socialism are the first ones to cry about cuts in the programs. The problem is that they want socialism as long as they personally benefit from those social programs themselves but if someone else gets a benefit, it's bad.

It's just like the NIMBY crowd. Everyone knows we need garbage dumps and prisons just so as long as they are in someone else's backyard and not in their own.

[MrSnusNSnuff]

Where Glen Beck loses me is the whole social order/God thing.

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”

--Benjamin Franklin Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

Hmm... one nation under God?

“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” George Washington Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

And yet, people are screaming for government to outlaw abortions, homosexuality, and stem-cell research. Jeebus. Imagine if all politicians were Catholics. Condom manufacturers would cower in fright (but the Baby Industry would boom).

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

“In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” James Madison, April 1, 1774

Oh yeah... this is a country "founded on God" alright.

I want religious conservatives to be pushed to the fringe as much as radical Commie liberals. Both try to force their viewpoints on the entire population through legislation. What is wrong with letting people dictate the own path of their lives without threat of legal punishment?

[Roo]

That was awesome

[sundog]

I want religious conservatives to be pushed to the fringe as much as radical Commie liberals. Both try to force their viewpoints on the entire population through legislation. What is wrong with letting people dictate the own path of their lives without threat of legal punishment?

I'm not trying to "force" my viewpoints or virtues on anybody, either personally or through legislation. I'm for live and let live, but not to the point of lawlessness or anarchy.

What would you make illegal? Murder? Rape? Robbery? Anything?
There have to be some rules for a civilized society. People will differ on what the rules will be and how they will be enforced, but we have to agree on the basics.

[VBSnus]

I want religious conservatives to be pushed to the fringe as much as radical Commie liberals. Both try to force their viewpoints on the entire population through legislation. What is wrong with letting people dictate the own path of their lives without threat of legal punishment?

I'm not trying to "force" my viewpoints or virtues on anybody, either personally or through legislation. I'm for live and let live, but not to the point of lawlessness or anarchy.

What would you make illegal? Murder? Rape? Robbery? Anything?
There have to be some rules for a civilized society. People will differ on what the rules will be and how they will be enforced, but we have to agree on the basics.

Dictating the path of your life does not equal allowing crime. Also believe or disbelief in a Judeo-Christian God does not determine your moral characteristics. I've met some horribly mean Christians, and some amazingly charitable atheists.

The rules of society shouldn't be based upon the 10 commandments, the gospels of Christ, the writ of Hammurabi, the path of Buddha, the tablets of Zoroaster, the precepts of the Bhagavad Gita, or anything else. They should be based upon the moral characteristics of society as a whole and the one main rule of law: your rights stop where my nose begins. Thereby eliminating rape, murder, robbery, etc from being legal.

However, here's where people split. Take "your rights" and "my nose" too far, and you end up with people saying "I have a right to these necessities that only the rich get, their right to wealth ends where my nose begins" or people saying "You don't have the right to welfare using my tax dollars, that's where my nose begins."

[MrSnusNSnuff]

I want religious conservatives to be pushed to the fringe as much as radical Commie liberals. Both try to force their viewpoints on the entire population through legislation. What is wrong with letting people dictate the own path of their lives without threat of legal punishment?

I'm not trying to "force" my viewpoints or virtues on anybody, either personally or through legislation. I'm for live and let live, but not to the point of lawlessness or anarchy.

What would you make illegal? Murder? Rape? Robbery? Anything?
There have to be some rules for a civilized society. People will differ on what the rules will be and how they will be enforced, but we have to agree on the basics.

Dictating the path of your life does not equal allowing crime. Also believe or disbelief in a Judeo-Christian God does not determine your moral characteristics. I've met some horribly mean Christians, and some amazingly charitable atheists.

The rules of society shouldn't be based upon the 10 commandments, the gospels of Christ, the writ of Hammurabi, the path of Buddha, the tablets of Zoroaster, the precepts of the Bhagavad Gita, or anything else. They should be based upon the moral characteristics of society as a whole and the one main rule of law: your rights stop where my nose begins. Thereby eliminating rape, murder, robbery, etc from being legal.

However, here's where people split. Take "your rights" and "my nose" too far, and you end up with people saying "I have a right to these necessities that only the rich get, their right to wealth ends where my nose begins" or people saying "You don't have the right to welfare using my tax dollars, that's where my nose begins."

Amen to that. People confuse libertarianism with libertinism. The basic criticism always comes out: "you just wanna smoke weed, bang hookers, and shoot people when they piss you off." A libertarian still recognizes the basic need for some type of legal order. When one infringes upon another person's right to thrive through force, manipulation, or deception, that's where the line gets drawn (do NOT bring up abortion because that IS debatable - I'm certainly not comfortable with fully-formed fetuses at 7 or 8 months getting aborted; but a zygote or developing embryo? They wouldn't know the difference). I'm actually for HARSHER punishment for the above listed offenses. Example: I believe DUIs should be an automatic 5 years loss of license. Getting caught shooting dope with kids in the house? One trial, then the kids are taken and the parents have tubal ligation and/or vasectomy (working in Social Services, I see drug moms popping out numerous kids which put a drain on the foster care system). I don't think we have ENOUGH executions in this country. Most states have grown so soft on crime, or mired it to so much legal junk, that the existing laws do not serve enough as a deterrent.

But I do believe people should have the right to carry guns, smoke weed, and bang hookers, if that is what they choose in life. One's OWN moral compass can direct those toward the path they want. As long as they don't infringe upon the prosperity of others. I'm not talking about hurt feelings or ruined relationships with others. Example: Guy cheats on wife due to easily accessible hookers. But that is Guy's problem, and not the governments. Guy will reap full consequences of his actions - divorce, custody battles, etc. Let's not waste precious jail space and court time punishing him with legal sanctions cuz he was caught red-handed with a hooker. Those police resources we use to bust these people and imprison them could be used beneficially elsewhere.

[Snusdog]

I think he makes some good point. Sometimes a bit over the top in the delivery though