This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1perdondaris
Glenn Beck is our generation's Martin Luther King and will unveil his plans on regenerating America's happiness and prosperity through his plan based on What God Wants for America.
My question is does anyone think Glenn is going to announce a Presidential run in 2012? If he does can he win? Will he be Buzz Windrip or Ronald Reagan if he wins (or any other extreme GOP candidate)? Or a flop like Barry Goldwater?
I used to get upset every time I heard Glenn Beck lying on his show. Now I realize he is an actor and an entertainer like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh and not to take him seriously as a threat to my well being or anyone else's. Are we witnessing the rise of a movement that will change America forever or Perotista nonsense?
My question is does anyone think Glenn is going to announce a Presidential run in 2012? If he does can he win? Will he be Buzz Windrip or Ronald Reagan if he wins (or any other extreme GOP candidate)? Or a flop like Barry Goldwater?
I used to get upset every time I heard Glenn Beck lying on his show. Now I realize he is an actor and an entertainer like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh and not to take him seriously as a threat to my well being or anyone else's. Are we witnessing the rise of a movement that will change America forever or Perotista nonsense?
2DeusExLibrus
He may be an entertainer, but the danger comes when those who lack enough intelligence or education fail to see the fantasy and take him seriously.
3Lunar
Trying to redo MLK's march on washington is bound to be a let-down. It'll be as forgettable as Live Aid was... unless the statue at the Lincoln memorial stands up and starts zapping people. For some reason that statue makes me think of the cyber controller of the Cybermen from the new Doctor Who.
4myshelves
Gahan Wilson related an incident from a special NY press preview of the Disney "animatronic" Lincoln, which debuted at the 1964 World's Fair. The journalists were impressed when Lincoln rose to his feet, but fled after a glitch had him lurching around the room, out of control.
6theoria
This has everything to do with ratings and nothing to do with politics. That's entertainment.
Even Bristol Palin is cashing in, in her case on being the mother of an illegitimate child.
Opportunity knocks when you are America's best-known teenage mom, and Bristol Palin has signed on with Single Source Speakers to give lectures at $15,000 to $30,000 a pop, more lucrative than her current job at an Anchorage doctor's office. http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/206347.asp
I guess her mom never read to her the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 at bed time.
SEC. 101. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Marriage is the foundation of a successful society.
(2) Marriage is an essential institution of a successful society which promotes the interests of children.
(3) Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and the well-being of children. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c104:1:./temp/~c104PwMe1n:e669:
Even Bristol Palin is cashing in, in her case on being the mother of an illegitimate child.
Opportunity knocks when you are America's best-known teenage mom, and Bristol Palin has signed on with Single Source Speakers to give lectures at $15,000 to $30,000 a pop, more lucrative than her current job at an Anchorage doctor's office. http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/206347.asp
I guess her mom never read to her the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 at bed time.
SEC. 101. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Marriage is the foundation of a successful society.
(2) Marriage is an essential institution of a successful society which promotes the interests of children.
(3) Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and the well-being of children. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c104:1:./temp/~c104PwMe1n:e669:
7perdondaris
Marriage is the foundation of childbearing and States promote childbearing as a means to fill up its Armies. Hence childbearing is considered one of the most patriotic of qualities. Hitler and Ceascesu banned abortion to encourage their nation's militarism. Gay marriage does not qualify as patriotic since there is no natural issue from unions of the same sex and hence no aggressive soldiers.
One must always be aware that patriotism is a religion and a business, not a virtue.
One must always be aware that patriotism is a religion and a business, not a virtue.
8lriley
#7 Not that I don't agree in general but many of the original Nazis were not only militaristic but there were quite a number who were homosexual and a few who were pedophiles. Granted Hitler purged them--OTOH they were essential to his coming to power in the first place.
As much as I don't care for people informing their political views completely around their religious beliefs (as Beck and many others on the right tend to do) I think you're reaching a bit equating having/raising children with some sort of super pro-militaristic patriotism. At least I've never felt that way.
As much as I don't care for people informing their political views completely around their religious beliefs (as Beck and many others on the right tend to do) I think you're reaching a bit equating having/raising children with some sort of super pro-militaristic patriotism. At least I've never felt that way.
9perdondaris
I am talking about the State's point of view on marriage. Patriotism is always about war and it is the bread and butter of tyranny--capitalist or Marxist.
People don't have children to appease the State or make soldiers. That is the mistake in your argument.
Homosexuals were not essential to Hitler's rise to power--it was the militias, the German form of the V.F.W.--that helped Hitler come to power. The homosexuality of some of its members was incidental and kept well under wraps until the purge of the S.A. when it was used as an excuse. Hitler and other Nazi's "sexual perversity" is a myth invented by the O.S.S. (for character assassination purposes) and the conservatives use that myth to say: "That is why the Nazis screwed up!" ignoring the fact that the Nazis reinstated laws against homosexuality (Berlin was the San Francisco of the 1920s and Hitler turned it into Arkansas) and the first victims of the Nazis were Socialists and radicals.
People don't have children to appease the State or make soldiers. That is the mistake in your argument.
Homosexuals were not essential to Hitler's rise to power--it was the militias, the German form of the V.F.W.--that helped Hitler come to power. The homosexuality of some of its members was incidental and kept well under wraps until the purge of the S.A. when it was used as an excuse. Hitler and other Nazi's "sexual perversity" is a myth invented by the O.S.S. (for character assassination purposes) and the conservatives use that myth to say: "That is why the Nazis screwed up!" ignoring the fact that the Nazis reinstated laws against homosexuality (Berlin was the San Francisco of the 1920s and Hitler turned it into Arkansas) and the first victims of the Nazis were Socialists and radicals.
10lriley
#9--A definition of what 'a' or 'the State' is would be helpful or if you have a particular one or all of them in mind. To be honest I'm not sure how I would define any particular one myself. There is something abstract or even arbitray about almost all human constructions.
In any case I think Hitler came to know very well the people he was working with even if he was still an insane megalomaniac. Instilling fear was a requisite in order to establish and maintain domination over the German population. Then they could build the war machine. The first purge was against his own to gain control of the movement--after that he looked for sub-groups including homosexuals in general. In a sense these are classic political moves from an extreme position towards a central one to get public support then moving gradually back to the extreme position by normalizing the ideology. He was hardly the only rabble rouser though and again however incidental their sexual proclivities a number of originals of the movement were orientated differently. It's not that hard to see. 'They' as Andy Warhol put it later had their fifteen minutes of fame.
In any case I think Hitler came to know very well the people he was working with even if he was still an insane megalomaniac. Instilling fear was a requisite in order to establish and maintain domination over the German population. Then they could build the war machine. The first purge was against his own to gain control of the movement--after that he looked for sub-groups including homosexuals in general. In a sense these are classic political moves from an extreme position towards a central one to get public support then moving gradually back to the extreme position by normalizing the ideology. He was hardly the only rabble rouser though and again however incidental their sexual proclivities a number of originals of the movement were orientated differently. It's not that hard to see. 'They' as Andy Warhol put it later had their fifteen minutes of fame.
11perdondaris
The State is a representation of the Order that a particular conservative philosophy ordains to keep society from falling into chaos. Not all conservative philosophies are the same but they are based in the same premise. That premise is civilization is ordered by an event (usually a revolution or the appearance of a religious figure) in the remote past when the laws and framework of morality and justice were laid down. For Christians and Jews it is the Ten Commandments of Moses. For Muslims it is the Koran. The more conservative a society is the more oppressive the adherence to the original laws are: Saudi Arabia and Uganda are examples of conservative theocratic societies. Also the communist societies of North Korea and the former Warsaw Pact are (or were) conservative societies in a way that I will explain below.
The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries in Europe were considered the most conservative and backward after the Reformation and the Enlightenment. The leaders were autocrats and the majority of the population were servile peasants. These countries had the Inquisition (the basis of the modern totalitarian State) and religion was the dominating force maintaining the Order through an ecclesiastic and aristocratic Hierarchy. France joined the modern world after its Revolution while the conservative religious societies continued to languish. People from these countries flocked to countries based in secular humanism--America and England, albeit these countries too have streaks of religious conservatism that rise up in cycles (Cromwell and Cotton Mather) of tyranny.
With the beginning of the Bolshevik Revolution many left wing intellectuals flocked there (some were expelled there) seeking to help the revolution and realize a just socialist society that could not be found in capitalist countries. When they arrived they were immediately disappointed as the Bolsheviks were not interested in democracy and freedom (which the Bolshies referred to as "bourgeois" and "counterrevolutionary") and only desired to impose a dictatorship whose history we know from novels 1984 and Darkness at Noon. In the 1980s the hard liners (Brezhnev) in the Communist Party were called conservatives and the Reformers (Gorbachev) were called liberals. This is not an inappropriate use of the terms liberal and conservative. The hard liners felt the Russian Revolution was the last word. The principles of Communism ended with Lenin and any attempts to change or move away from those principles (like Goulash Communism or Dubcek's Communism with a human face) were deviations and counterrevolutionary and therefore had to be suppressed. You can see this ideology in American conservatives with their reverence for the Founding Fathers and the Principles of the American Revolution and their visceral dislike of progressives and liberals. Those, in other words, who seek in the words of Martin Luther King: "to redeem the promissory note" of freedom and equality that the Founding Fathers fell far short of in actual practice.
The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries in Europe were considered the most conservative and backward after the Reformation and the Enlightenment. The leaders were autocrats and the majority of the population were servile peasants. These countries had the Inquisition (the basis of the modern totalitarian State) and religion was the dominating force maintaining the Order through an ecclesiastic and aristocratic Hierarchy. France joined the modern world after its Revolution while the conservative religious societies continued to languish. People from these countries flocked to countries based in secular humanism--America and England, albeit these countries too have streaks of religious conservatism that rise up in cycles (Cromwell and Cotton Mather) of tyranny.
With the beginning of the Bolshevik Revolution many left wing intellectuals flocked there (some were expelled there) seeking to help the revolution and realize a just socialist society that could not be found in capitalist countries. When they arrived they were immediately disappointed as the Bolsheviks were not interested in democracy and freedom (which the Bolshies referred to as "bourgeois" and "counterrevolutionary") and only desired to impose a dictatorship whose history we know from novels 1984 and Darkness at Noon. In the 1980s the hard liners (Brezhnev) in the Communist Party were called conservatives and the Reformers (Gorbachev) were called liberals. This is not an inappropriate use of the terms liberal and conservative. The hard liners felt the Russian Revolution was the last word. The principles of Communism ended with Lenin and any attempts to change or move away from those principles (like Goulash Communism or Dubcek's Communism with a human face) were deviations and counterrevolutionary and therefore had to be suppressed. You can see this ideology in American conservatives with their reverence for the Founding Fathers and the Principles of the American Revolution and their visceral dislike of progressives and liberals. Those, in other words, who seek in the words of Martin Luther King: "to redeem the promissory note" of freedom and equality that the Founding Fathers fell far short of in actual practice.
