Ideology or Power?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Super T, I’ll also add that I never said his ideas were based on a list of books, but that they were based on Skousen’s beliefs. I held up this missing list as evidence of that, but because I cannot find the list does not negate the veracity of my claim. There are many, many other ways to demonstrate the extent to which Beck agrees with Skousen. If I must, I will bombard this thread with quotes from Beck that back this up.

I also never said that Beck agreed 100% with Skousen. I’m sure Beck does not feel that the civil rights movement of the 1960’s was a Communist plot to take over the country, as Skousen did. I’m also sure that Beck does not think that Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist agent, as Skousen did. Nor do I feel that Beck agrees with Skousen’s claims that Henry Kissinger committed treason when he met with China in the 1970’s and that Kissinger was also a Communist spy.

Cut out the bullshit SuperT. If you really want to argue that Beck is not a supporter of Skousen’s basic political views, fine. But you’re on the losing side of that argument and no failure on my part to produce a reading list from 2 years ago is going to change that.

42

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]

I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]

His updated list does not contain anything by Skousen, but from what I remember from his original list about two years ago, there were four books by Skousen on it. The ones that I remember off the top of my head are: The 5000 Year Leap, Making of America and The Naked Communist.

But we’re quibbling over insignificant things here. My point is that Beck’s “ideology” is nothing more than a relfection (regurgitation is probably a better word) of Skousen’s own radical beliefs that were developed during the 1950’s regarding the spread of Communism. So to think that Beck is an ideologue or a brilliant, independent thinker is comical, as is the assertion that he is not a fervent Skousenite.

If you really believe that Beck takes everything in Skousen’s book with a grain of salt, here’s a quote fom Beck addressing “Leap” that I found on salon.com:

“I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired,”

That was straight from his show. Here’s another one, from his radio show:

. “Are you familiar with Skousen?” asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. “He’s fantastic,” he said. "I went back and I read ‘The Naked Communist’ and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won’t be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won’t be in print anymore. So you must collect those books.

It’s an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, ‘The Naked Communist,’ and where he talked about someday the history of this country’s going to be lost because it’s going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we’re there."[/quote]

So this “list” only excists in your head. Show me a link to his updated list, cause I can’t find it either. Beck sqaid on his radio show yesterdAY, THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE 5000 YEAR LEAP. This is not insignificant, if you are going to say that his ideas are based mostly on a list of books, you need to back it up, and you can’t even produce this list.
[/quote]

The entire argument over this list (which I admit I cannot find, although I hardly feel obligated to placate you) only came about because you attempted to 1) minimize the extent to which Beck agrees with Skousen and 2) you claimed that Beck had only read one book by him. The above quote clearly shows that he read more than one book by him.

Your obsession with this list is immaterial. The fact remains that Beck is an ardent supporter of Skousen’s ideology and my failure to provide a reading list does nothing to contradict this. What are you arguing about Beck? That he wholeheartedly disagrees with Skousen? Clearly that is not the case. I’m sure that he disagrees with some of his writings, but if you watch and listen to Beck, it becomes clear that in general he largely supports Skousen’s views.

The updated list that does not contain Skousen’s books can be found if you type “9/12 Project reading list” into your Google search engine. It’s the first fucking link provided for Christ’s sake. [/quote]

I forgot about the naked communist. My deal is you are saying Beck has no original thoughts. You say he just regurgatated Scouce. You are wrong, and i just wanted you to some hopw backup what you say. You talk about his list of books like you ahve it right in front of you, but when asked for it, you can not produce. You want me to go search for something that you should post to try and make a valid point. News flash i have seen the list you are talking about, and it further proves you are lying, because you said his updated list has none of clouse on it when the one you pointed out has 5000 year leap. I think i have proven my point that you have no idea what you are talking about, and Zeb is right you may vote libertarian, but you argue like a liberal. hollar back when you have a little proof of what you are saying.

43

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]

I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]

Hey T the liberal mind set is a simple one. If someone comments negatively on their chosen one then he must be a republican. They don’t understand the concept of libertarian as it is the polar opposite of big government taking care of everyones needs. They certainly don’t understand that a government large enough to give you everything that you want is also large enough to take everything you have - Including many freedoms.

Back to Beck: I was in a debate on another thread where they were cursing out Beck yet not one of them could find a single thing of substance that he was wrong on over the past 5 years. They were reduced to trying to nail him for slips of the tongue or having a wrong date on something.

Also, keep in mind that liberals are still upset over the great defeat that they just suffered. It was truly monumental as you know.

[/quote]
or his spelling. lol

44

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]

I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]

His updated list does not contain anything by Skousen, but from what I remember from his original list about two years ago, there were four books by Skousen on it. The ones that I remember off the top of my head are: The 5000 Year Leap, Making of America and The Naked Communist.

But we’re quibbling over insignificant things here. My point is that Beck’s “ideology” is nothing more than a relfection (regurgitation is probably a better word) of Skousen’s own radical beliefs that were developed during the 1950’s regarding the spread of Communism. So to think that Beck is an ideologue or a brilliant, independent thinker is comical, as is the assertion that he is not a fervent Skousenite.

If you really believe that Beck takes everything in Skousen’s book with a grain of salt, here’s a quote fom Beck addressing “Leap” that I found on salon.com:

“I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired,”

That was straight from his show. Here’s another one, from his radio show:

. “Are you familiar with Skousen?” asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. “He’s fantastic,” he said. "I went back and I read ‘The Naked Communist’ and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won’t be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won’t be in print anymore. So you must collect those books.

It’s an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, ‘The Naked Communist,’ and where he talked about someday the history of this country’s going to be lost because it’s going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we’re there."[/quote]

So this “list” only excists in your head. Show me a link to his updated list, cause I can’t find it either. Beck sqaid on his radio show yesterdAY, THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE 5000 YEAR LEAP. This is not insignificant, if you are going to say that his ideas are based mostly on a list of books, you need to back it up, and you can’t even produce this list.
[/quote]

The entire argument over this list (which I admit I cannot find, although I hardly feel obligated to placate you) only came about because you attempted to 1) minimize the extent to which Beck agrees with Skousen and 2) you claimed that Beck had only read one book by him. The above quote clearly shows that he read more than one book by him.

Your obsession with this list is immaterial. The fact remains that Beck is an ardent supporter of Skousen’s ideology and my failure to provide a reading list does nothing to contradict this. What are you arguing about Beck? That he wholeheartedly disagrees with Skousen? Clearly that is not the case. I’m sure that he disagrees with some of his writings, but if you watch and listen to Beck, it becomes clear that in general he largely supports Skousen’s views.

The updated list that does not contain Skousen’s books can be found if you type “9/12 Project reading list” into your Google search engine. It’s the first fucking link provided for Christ’s sake. [/quote]

I forgot about the naked communist. My deal is you are saying Beck has no original thoughts. You say he just regurgatated Scouce. You are wrong, and i just wanted you to some hopw backup what you say. You talk about his list of books like you ahve it right in front of you, but when asked for it, you can not produce. You want me to go search for something that you should post to try and make a valid point. News flash i have seen the list you are talking about, and it further proves you are lying, because you said his updated list has none of clouse on it when the one you pointed out has 5000 year leap. I think i have proven my point that you have no idea what you are talking about, and Zeb is right you may vote libertarian, but you argue like a liberal. hollar back when you have a little proof of what you are saying.
[/quote]

How convenient. You demand that I prove that Beck is simply regurgitating Skousen’s ideology and to also prove that Beck is not an independent thinker. These things cannot be proven, which is why we debate. I provide examples to back up my assertions, you provide examples to back yours up.

Oh wait, you haven’t done that. You haven’t supplied me with anything to even remotely indicate that Skousen is not a heavy, heavy influence on Beck’s thinking and that his views are largely his own. All you’ve done is cling to this stupid fucking list.

Spend about five minutes on Google like I just did and you can find dozens of Glenn Beck reading lists from all sorts of sources, some of which have Skousen’s books on them and some that don’t. But almost all of them have “Leap” on them and most also have either “The Making of America” or “The Naked Communist”. This proves nothing regarding your claims or mine. Like I’ve repeatedly stated, I feel strongly that Beck’s views are largely a product of the HUGE influence that Skousen has had on him, something that Beck himself states in the foreward to Skousen’s newest edition of “Leap” and something that he also made clear in the quote I provided earlier for you.

I

45

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]

I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]

His updated list does not contain anything by Skousen, but from what I remember from his original list about two years ago, there were four books by Skousen on it. The ones that I remember off the top of my head are: The 5000 Year Leap, Making of America and The Naked Communist.

But we’re quibbling over insignificant things here. My point is that Beck’s “ideology” is nothing more than a relfection (regurgitation is probably a better word) of Skousen’s own radical beliefs that were developed during the 1950’s regarding the spread of Communism. So to think that Beck is an ideologue or a brilliant, independent thinker is comical, as is the assertion that he is not a fervent Skousenite.

If you really believe that Beck takes everything in Skousen’s book with a grain of salt, here’s a quote fom Beck addressing “Leap” that I found on salon.com:

“I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired,”

That was straight from his show. Here’s another one, from his radio show:

. “Are you familiar with Skousen?” asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. “He’s fantastic,” he said. "I went back and I read ‘The Naked Communist’ and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won’t be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won’t be in print anymore. So you must collect those books.

It’s an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, ‘The Naked Communist,’ and where he talked about someday the history of this country’s going to be lost because it’s going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we’re there."[/quote]

So this “list” only excists in your head. Show me a link to his updated list, cause I can’t find it either. Beck sqaid on his radio show yesterdAY, THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE 5000 YEAR LEAP. This is not insignificant, if you are going to say that his ideas are based mostly on a list of books, you need to back it up, and you can’t even produce this list.
[/quote]

The entire argument over this list (which I admit I cannot find, although I hardly feel obligated to placate you) only came about because you attempted to 1) minimize the extent to which Beck agrees with Skousen and 2) you claimed that Beck had only read one book by him. The above quote clearly shows that he read more than one book by him.

Your obsession with this list is immaterial. The fact remains that Beck is an ardent supporter of Skousen’s ideology and my failure to provide a reading list does nothing to contradict this. What are you arguing about Beck? That he wholeheartedly disagrees with Skousen? Clearly that is not the case. I’m sure that he disagrees with some of his writings, but if you watch and listen to Beck, it becomes clear that in general he largely supports Skousen’s views.

The updated list that does not contain Skousen’s books can be found if you type “9/12 Project reading list” into your Google search engine. It’s the first fucking link provided for Christ’s sake. [/quote]

I forgot about the naked communist. My deal is you are saying Beck has no original thoughts. You say he just regurgatated Scouce. You are wrong, and i just wanted you to some hopw backup what you say. You talk about his list of books like you ahve it right in front of you, but when asked for it, you can not produce. You want me to go search for something that you should post to try and make a valid point. News flash i have seen the list you are talking about, and it further proves you are lying, because you said his updated list has none of clouse on it when the one you pointed out has 5000 year leap. I think i have proven my point that you have no idea what you are talking about, and Zeb is right you may vote libertarian, but you argue like a liberal. hollar back when you have a little proof of what you are saying.
[/quote]

How convenient. You demand that I prove that Beck is simply regurgitating Skousen’s ideology and to also prove that Beck is not an independent thinker. These things cannot be proven, which is why we debate. I provide examples to back up my assertions, you provide examples to back yours up.

Oh wait, you haven’t done that. You haven’t supplied me with anything to even remotely indicate that Skousen is not a heavy, heavy influence on Beck’s thinking and that his views are largely his own. All you’ve done is cling to this stupid fucking list.

Spend about five minutes on Google like I just did and you can find dozens of Glenn Beck reading lists from all sorts of sources, some of which have Skousen’s books on them and some that don’t. But almost all of them have “Leap” on them and most also have either “The Making of America” or “The Naked Communist”. This proves nothing regarding your claims or mine. Like I’ve repeatedly stated, I feel strongly that Beck’s views are largely a product of the HUGE influence that Skousen has had on him, something that Beck himself states in the foreward to Skousen’s newest edition of “Leap” and something that he also made clear in the quote I provided earlier for you.

I[/quote]

If you actually listen to Beck you will know his thoughts are his own. Do theese books have an affect on him? probally, but you want to say that he is just resaying what scouse did, which is false. Beck points out that some of what scouse wrote has a wierd connection to what is going on today.

46

i dont think that “The Naked Communist” has ever been on becks list. He has talked about it but has gone short of recommending it. my mother is a beck fanatic and has all of the books on his list, but she does not have that one.

I think what your referring to is “The Naked Capitalist” another Skousen book. It is basically a book report/reaction paper to “Tragedy and Hope” by Carrol Quigley. I have actually read them both. Quigley never thought his book would be in wide circulation, and it was basically made famous by Skousen. They are great conspiracy stories.

i am not a fanatic listener of beck, but if he’s on the radio and I am heading to a client I’ll give him the 15 - 30 minute commute time.

47

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]

I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]

Hey T the liberal mind set is a simple one. If someone comments negatively on their chosen one then he must be a republican. They don’t understand the concept of libertarian as it is the polar opposite of big government taking care of everyones needs. They certainly don’t understand that a government large enough to give you everything that you want is also large enough to take everything you have - Including many freedoms.

Back to Beck: I was in a debate on another thread where they were cursing out Beck yet not one of them could find a single thing of substance that he was wrong on over the past 5 years. They were reduced to trying to nail him for slips of the tongue or having a wrong date on something.

Also, keep in mind that liberals are still upset over the great defeat that they just suffered. It was truly monumental as you know.

[/quote]

I’ve never voted anything but Libertarian or Republican Zeb. Your assumption that my stance comes from a liberal viewpoint is wholly inaccurate, as do all of the conclusions about me that you arrive at based on your erroneous premise. Try again pal.[/quote]

I apologize for my assumptions, however they were based on what you’ve written. Almost every political assumption that you’ve made has been quite wrong as well.

48

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It was truly monumental as you know.
[/quote]

It was entertaining…it won’t prove to be monumental but rather business as usual. Politics.[/quote]

This monumental victory ZEB speaks of only happens about once every two to four years. It’s not uncommon at all for Congress to see the party affiliated with the sitting President get defeated in midterm elections. Hardly monumental.[/quote]

True, but not to the degree that it has this year. They picked up over 60 House seats, and 10 Governorships. As you may or may not know those Governorships will most assuredly help whomever is the GOP nominee in in 2012. And winning in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are what strategists call must win states for the GOP. This was huge and has not really been touted by the mainstream liberal medai. I think they are thinking that if they don’t talk about it that it will go away.

Furthermore, because of state level victories this puts the republicans in charge of redistricting to a greater degree than anytime since 1962. In 2011 all 435 congressional districts in the country will be reapportioned based on the 2010 census. The republicans added 690 state legislative seats this brings them close to their high-water mark of 1928!

That, my friend, DOES NOT happen every 2-4 years. It was a crushing defeat of monumental proportions for the democrats, brought to you primarily by Barack Obama. And, and this is the part I like, ready? Here it comes: Obama, Pelosi and Reid still don’t get it! I’m lovin this, I’m just lovin this to pieces. They will be rewarded once again in 2012 for their idiocy.

Just as Jimmy Carter (who didn’t lose nearly this many seats in 78’) helped launch 12 straight years of republican rule of the White House, so too Obama is helping the republican party.

I have to admit I was rattled when Obama beat McCain, even though I saw it coming a mile away. But right now I could not be happier that people were uninformed enough to elect the most liberal and inexperienced man in the history of Presidential elections.

Thank you mainstream liberal media.
:slight_smile:

49

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
SUPER-T wrote:

The entire argument over this list (which I admit I cannot find, although I hardly feel obligated to placate you) [/quote]

You are not placating anyone when you introduce evidence to support your point the onus in on you to produce that information. Produce it or drop it. Your choice.

50

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]

I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]

His updated list does not contain anything by Skousen, but from what I remember from his original list about two years ago, there were four books by Skousen on it. The ones that I remember off the top of my head are: The 5000 Year Leap, Making of America and The Naked Communist.

But we’re quibbling over insignificant things here. My point is that Beck’s “ideology” is nothing more than a relfection (regurgitation is probably a better word) of Skousen’s own radical beliefs that were developed during the 1950’s regarding the spread of Communism. So to think that Beck is an ideologue or a brilliant, independent thinker is comical, as is the assertion that he is not a fervent Skousenite.

If you really believe that Beck takes everything in Skousen’s book with a grain of salt, here’s a quote fom Beck addressing “Leap” that I found on salon.com:

“I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired,”

That was straight from his show. Here’s another one, from his radio show:

. “Are you familiar with Skousen?” asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. “He’s fantastic,” he said. "I went back and I read ‘The Naked Communist’ and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won’t be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won’t be in print anymore. So you must collect those books.

It’s an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, ‘The Naked Communist,’ and where he talked about someday the history of this country’s going to be lost because it’s going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we’re there."[/quote]

So this “list” only excists in your head. Show me a link to his updated list, cause I can’t find it either. Beck sqaid on his radio show yesterdAY, THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE 5000 YEAR LEAP. This is not insignificant, if you are going to say that his ideas are based mostly on a list of books, you need to back it up, and you can’t even produce this list.
[/quote]

The entire argument over this list (which I admit I cannot find, although I hardly feel obligated to placate you) only came about because you attempted to 1) minimize the extent to which Beck agrees with Skousen and 2) you claimed that Beck had only read one book by him. The above quote clearly shows that he read more than one book by him.

Your obsession with this list is immaterial. The fact remains that Beck is an ardent supporter of Skousen’s ideology and my failure to provide a reading list does nothing to contradict this. What are you arguing about Beck? That he wholeheartedly disagrees with Skousen? Clearly that is not the case. I’m sure that he disagrees with some of his writings, but if you watch and listen to Beck, it becomes clear that in general he largely supports Skousen’s views.

The updated list that does not contain Skousen’s books can be found if you type “9/12 Project reading list” into your Google search engine. It’s the first fucking link provided for Christ’s sake. [/quote]

I forgot about the naked communist. My deal is you are saying Beck has no original thoughts. You say he just regurgatated Scouce. You are wrong, and i just wanted you to some hopw backup what you say. You talk about his list of books like you ahve it right in front of you, but when asked for it, you can not produce. You want me to go search for something that you should post to try and make a valid point. News flash i have seen the list you are talking about, and it further proves you are lying, because you said his updated list has none of clouse on it when the one you pointed out has 5000 year leap. I think i have proven my point that you have no idea what you are talking about, and Zeb is right you may vote libertarian, but you argue like a liberal. hollar back when you have a little proof of what you are saying.
[/quote]

How convenient. You demand that I prove that Beck is simply regurgitating Skousen’s ideology and to also prove that Beck is not an independent thinker. These things cannot be proven, which is why we debate. I provide examples to back up my assertions, you provide examples to back yours up.

Oh wait, you haven’t done that. You haven’t supplied me with anything to even remotely indicate that Skousen is not a heavy, heavy influence on Beck’s thinking and that his views are largely his own. All you’ve done is cling to this stupid fucking list.

Spend about five minutes on Google like I just did and you can find dozens of Glenn Beck reading lists from all sorts of sources, some of which have Skousen’s books on them and some that don’t. But almost all of them have “Leap” on them and most also have either “The Making of America” or “The Naked Communist”. This proves nothing regarding your claims or mine. Like I’ve repeatedly stated, I feel strongly that Beck’s views are largely a product of the HUGE influence that Skousen has had on him, something that Beck himself states in the foreward to Skousen’s newest edition of “Leap” and something that he also made clear in the quote I provided earlier for you.

I[/quote]

If you actually listen to Beck you will know his thoughts are his own. Do theese books have an affect on him? probally, but you want to say that he is just resaying what scouse did, which is false. Beck points out that some of what scouse wrote has a wierd connection to what is going on today. [/quote]

I watched his show last night. The section where he had the rabbi on was comical. Anyone here who has read “White Noise” by Don DeLillo or “Why We Hate Us” by Richard Meyer can tell you that the stuff Beck was talking about is an old, old concept. I agree with much of what he had to say in that segment. But it sounds to me like Beck just discovered the concept of moral relativism. Which is fine, except that Beck puts forth these viewpoints as if they’re something new. They may be new to Beck, but they’re not new in general. DeLillo’s book White Noise addresses the very nature of this consumer-driven culture we live in, but he did so in 1985. The concept of moral relativism (which the rabbi gave a different name that I can’t remember exactly now, but he claimed he came up with the term) is nothing new either.

51

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It was truly monumental as you know.
[/quote]

It was entertaining…it won’t prove to be monumental but rather business as usual. Politics.[/quote]

This monumental victory ZEB speaks of only happens about once every two to four years. It’s not uncommon at all for Congress to see the party affiliated with the sitting President get defeated in midterm elections. Hardly monumental.[/quote]

True, but not to the degree that it has this year. They picked up over 60 House seats, and 10 Governorships. As you may or may not know those Governorships will most assuredly help whomever is the GOP nominee in in 2012. And winning in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are what strategists call must win states for the GOP. This was huge and has not really been touted by the mainstream liberal medai. I think they are thinking that if they don’t talk about it that it will go away.

Furthermore, because of state level victories this puts the republicans in charge of redistricting to a greater degree than anytime since 1962. In 2011 all 435 congressional districts in the country will be reapportioned based on the 2010 census. The republicans added 690 state legislative seats this brings them close to their high-water mark of 1928!

That, my friend, DOES NOT happen every 2-4 years. It was a crushing defeat of monumental proportions for the democrats, brought to you primarily by Barack Obama. And, and this is the part I like, ready? Here it comes: Obama, Pelosi and Reid still don’t get it! I’m lovin this, I’m just lovin this to pieces. They will be rewarded once again in 2012 for their idiocy.

Just as Jimmy Carter (who didn’t lose nearly this many seats in 78’) helped launch 12 straight years of republican rule of the White House, so too Obama is helping the republican party.

I have to admit I was rattled when Obama beat McCain, even though I saw it coming a mile away. But right now I could not be happier that people were uninformed enough to elect the most liberal and inexperienced man in the history of Presidential elections.

Thank you mainstream liberal media.
:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Your comments about the redistricting is interesting. I’ve mentioned on other threads that letting the legislature draw up districts is one of the biggest problems we have in our form of representative democracy and I expect the Republicans to foul that up just as badly as the Democrats have done here in California.

If you look at who participates in primary elections, it tends to be the more “activist” members of political parties. The “casual” voter doesn’t turn out in primaries to nearly the same extent that they do in general elections. As a result, you have more ideologues (to get back to the main point of this thread) who determine the candidates in elections. Overwhelmingly, these candidates tend to be less-than moderate. Most districts throughout the country are heavily slanted one way or the other. This is the result of politicians drawing up the boundaries and creating safe havens where they are guaranteed to have success. What ends up happening is that the candidates in these districts are generally much further to the right or left than the middle. So what results is that the state’s legislatures are comprised of mostly representatives who are anything but moderate.

California is a perfect microcosm of this at work, and it has nothing to do with the liberal domination of the state senate. Most state reps here do not vote against their party. Democrats vote with their party something like 97 or 98% of the time and Republicans vote with theirs about 95% of the time. It is very common out here, as it is elsewhere, to see reps who cross party lines get booted right out of office. It almost happened here in Butte County when Wally Herger faced a serious challenge from within his own party for the first time in years. He voted with his party almost 90% of the time, but that wasn’t enough. My district is about 70% Republican.

What you are saying is essentially that it is a good thing that the Republicans are going to be allowed to pick their voters, rather than letting the voters pick them. It’s this kowtowing to the far reaches of each party that has undermined the political process more than anything else in my opinion. I think you are wrong to think that the Republicans being able to redraw as many districts as they can is a good thing for America. Is it good for the GOP? Yes, but not America as a whole. Political self-identification surveys, despite annual fluctuations, show that Americans tend to slef-identify as moderates about 40% of the time, as liberals 20% and as conservatives 30%. But the way districts are redrawn, this only helps the 30% or 20% and not the 40%.

52

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]

I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]

His updated list does not contain anything by Skousen, but from what I remember from his original list about two years ago, there were four books by Skousen on it. The ones that I remember off the top of my head are: The 5000 Year Leap, Making of America and The Naked Communist.

But we’re quibbling over insignificant things here. My point is that Beck’s “ideology” is nothing more than a relfection (regurgitation is probably a better word) of Skousen’s own radical beliefs that were developed during the 1950’s regarding the spread of Communism. So to think that Beck is an ideologue or a brilliant, independent thinker is comical, as is the assertion that he is not a fervent Skousenite.

If you really believe that Beck takes everything in Skousen’s book with a grain of salt, here’s a quote fom Beck addressing “Leap” that I found on salon.com:

“I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired,”

That was straight from his show. Here’s another one, from his radio show:

. “Are you familiar with Skousen?” asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. “He’s fantastic,” he said. "I went back and I read ‘The Naked Communist’ and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won’t be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won’t be in print anymore. So you must collect those books.

It’s an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, ‘The Naked Communist,’ and where he talked about someday the history of this country’s going to be lost because it’s going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we’re there."[/quote]

So this “list” only excists in your head. Show me a link to his updated list, cause I can’t find it either. Beck sqaid on his radio show yesterdAY, THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE 5000 YEAR LEAP. This is not insignificant, if you are going to say that his ideas are based mostly on a list of books, you need to back it up, and you can’t even produce this list.
[/quote]

The entire argument over this list (which I admit I cannot find, although I hardly feel obligated to placate you) only came about because you attempted to 1) minimize the extent to which Beck agrees with Skousen and 2) you claimed that Beck had only read one book by him. The above quote clearly shows that he read more than one book by him.

Your obsession with this list is immaterial. The fact remains that Beck is an ardent supporter of Skousen’s ideology and my failure to provide a reading list does nothing to contradict this. What are you arguing about Beck? That he wholeheartedly disagrees with Skousen? Clearly that is not the case. I’m sure that he disagrees with some of his writings, but if you watch and listen to Beck, it becomes clear that in general he largely supports Skousen’s views.

The updated list that does not contain Skousen’s books can be found if you type “9/12 Project reading list” into your Google search engine. It’s the first fucking link provided for Christ’s sake. [/quote]

I forgot about the naked communist. My deal is you are saying Beck has no original thoughts. You say he just regurgatated Scouce. You are wrong, and i just wanted you to some hopw backup what you say. You talk about his list of books like you ahve it right in front of you, but when asked for it, you can not produce. You want me to go search for something that you should post to try and make a valid point. News flash i have seen the list you are talking about, and it further proves you are lying, because you said his updated list has none of clouse on it when the one you pointed out has 5000 year leap. I think i have proven my point that you have no idea what you are talking about, and Zeb is right you may vote libertarian, but you argue like a liberal. hollar back when you have a little proof of what you are saying.
[/quote]

How convenient. You demand that I prove that Beck is simply regurgitating Skousen’s ideology and to also prove that Beck is not an independent thinker. These things cannot be proven, which is why we debate. I provide examples to back up my assertions, you provide examples to back yours up.

Oh wait, you haven’t done that. You haven’t supplied me with anything to even remotely indicate that Skousen is not a heavy, heavy influence on Beck’s thinking and that his views are largely his own. All you’ve done is cling to this stupid fucking list.

Spend about five minutes on Google like I just did and you can find dozens of Glenn Beck reading lists from all sorts of sources, some of which have Skousen’s books on them and some that don’t. But almost all of them have “Leap” on them and most also have either “The Making of America” or “The Naked Communist”. This proves nothing regarding your claims or mine. Like I’ve repeatedly stated, I feel strongly that Beck’s views are largely a product of the HUGE influence that Skousen has had on him, something that Beck himself states in the foreward to Skousen’s newest edition of “Leap” and something that he also made clear in the quote I provided earlier for you.

I[/quote]

If you actually listen to Beck you will know his thoughts are his own. Do theese books have an affect on him? probally, but you want to say that he is just resaying what scouse did, which is false. Beck points out that some of what scouse wrote has a wierd connection to what is going on today. [/quote]

I watched his show last night. The section where he had the rabbi on was comical. Anyone here who has read “White Noise” by Don DeLillo or “Why We Hate Us” by Richard Meyer can tell you that the stuff Beck was talking about is an old, old concept. I agree with much of what he had to say in that segment. But it sounds to me like Beck just discovered the concept of moral relativism. Which is fine, except that Beck puts forth these viewpoints as if they’re something new. They may be new to Beck, but they’re not new in general. DeLillo’s book White Noise addresses the very nature of this consumer-driven culture we live in, but he did so in 1985. The concept of moral relativism (which the rabbi gave a different name that I can’t remember exactly now, but he claimed he came up with the term) is nothing new either.[/quote]

You should watch it agian. Beck mentions it is an old theory.

53

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]

I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]

His updated list does not contain anything by Skousen, but from what I remember from his original list about two years ago, there were four books by Skousen on it. The ones that I remember off the top of my head are: The 5000 Year Leap, Making of America and The Naked Communist.

But we’re quibbling over insignificant things here. My point is that Beck’s “ideology” is nothing more than a relfection (regurgitation is probably a better word) of Skousen’s own radical beliefs that were developed during the 1950’s regarding the spread of Communism. So to think that Beck is an ideologue or a brilliant, independent thinker is comical, as is the assertion that he is not a fervent Skousenite.

If you really believe that Beck takes everything in Skousen’s book with a grain of salt, here’s a quote fom Beck addressing “Leap” that I found on salon.com:

“I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired,”

That was straight from his show. Here’s another one, from his radio show:

. “Are you familiar with Skousen?” asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. “He’s fantastic,” he said. "I went back and I read ‘The Naked Communist’ and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won’t be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won’t be in print anymore. So you must collect those books.

It’s an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, ‘The Naked Communist,’ and where he talked about someday the history of this country’s going to be lost because it’s going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we’re there."[/quote]

So this “list” only excists in your head. Show me a link to his updated list, cause I can’t find it either. Beck sqaid on his radio show yesterdAY, THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE 5000 YEAR LEAP. This is not insignificant, if you are going to say that his ideas are based mostly on a list of books, you need to back it up, and you can’t even produce this list.
[/quote]

The entire argument over this list (which I admit I cannot find, although I hardly feel obligated to placate you) only came about because you attempted to 1) minimize the extent to which Beck agrees with Skousen and 2) you claimed that Beck had only read one book by him. The above quote clearly shows that he read more than one book by him.

Your obsession with this list is immaterial. The fact remains that Beck is an ardent supporter of Skousen’s ideology and my failure to provide a reading list does nothing to contradict this. What are you arguing about Beck? That he wholeheartedly disagrees with Skousen? Clearly that is not the case. I’m sure that he disagrees with some of his writings, but if you watch and listen to Beck, it becomes clear that in general he largely supports Skousen’s views.

The updated list that does not contain Skousen’s books can be found if you type “9/12 Project reading list” into your Google search engine. It’s the first fucking link provided for Christ’s sake. [/quote]

I forgot about the naked communist. My deal is you are saying Beck has no original thoughts. You say he just regurgatated Scouce. You are wrong, and i just wanted you to some hopw backup what you say. You talk about his list of books like you ahve it right in front of you, but when asked for it, you can not produce. You want me to go search for something that you should post to try and make a valid point. News flash i have seen the list you are talking about, and it further proves you are lying, because you said his updated list has none of clouse on it when the one you pointed out has 5000 year leap. I think i have proven my point that you have no idea what you are talking about, and Zeb is right you may vote libertarian, but you argue like a liberal. hollar back when you have a little proof of what you are saying.
[/quote]

How convenient. You demand that I prove that Beck is simply regurgitating Skousen’s ideology and to also prove that Beck is not an independent thinker. These things cannot be proven, which is why we debate. I provide examples to back up my assertions, you provide examples to back yours up.

Oh wait, you haven’t done that. You haven’t supplied me with anything to even remotely indicate that Skousen is not a heavy, heavy influence on Beck’s thinking and that his views are largely his own. All you’ve done is cling to this stupid fucking list.

Spend about five minutes on Google like I just did and you can find dozens of Glenn Beck reading lists from all sorts of sources, some of which have Skousen’s books on them and some that don’t. But almost all of them have “Leap” on them and most also have either “The Making of America” or “The Naked Communist”. This proves nothing regarding your claims or mine. Like I’ve repeatedly stated, I feel strongly that Beck’s views are largely a product of the HUGE influence that Skousen has had on him, something that Beck himself states in the foreward to Skousen’s newest edition of “Leap” and something that he also made clear in the quote I provided earlier for you.

I[/quote]

If you actually listen to Beck you will know his thoughts are his own. Do theese books have an affect on him? probally, but you want to say that he is just resaying what scouse did, which is false. Beck points out that some of what scouse wrote has a wierd connection to what is going on today. [/quote]

I watched his show last night. The section where he had the rabbi on was comical. Anyone here who has read “White Noise” by Don DeLillo or “Why We Hate Us” by Richard Meyer can tell you that the stuff Beck was talking about is an old, old concept. I agree with much of what he had to say in that segment. But it sounds to me like Beck just discovered the concept of moral relativism. Which is fine, except that Beck puts forth these viewpoints as if they’re something new. They may be new to Beck, but they’re not new in general. DeLillo’s book White Noise addresses the very nature of this consumer-driven culture we live in, but he did so in 1985. The concept of moral relativism (which the rabbi gave a different name that I can’t remember exactly now, but he claimed he came up with the term) is nothing new either.[/quote]

You should watch it agian. Beck mentions it is an old theory.
[/quote]

Video or it didn’t happen. In the event that you do supply it, I’ll take a page out of your book and deny its relevance anyways.

54

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It was truly monumental as you know.
[/quote]

It was entertaining…it won’t prove to be monumental but rather business as usual. Politics.[/quote]

This monumental victory ZEB speaks of only happens about once every two to four years. It’s not uncommon at all for Congress to see the party affiliated with the sitting President get defeated in midterm elections. Hardly monumental.[/quote]

True, but not to the degree that it has this year. They picked up over 60 House seats, and 10 Governorships. As you may or may not know those Governorships will most assuredly help whomever is the GOP nominee in in 2012. And winning in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are what strategists call must win states for the GOP. This was huge and has not really been touted by the mainstream liberal medai. I think they are thinking that if they don’t talk about it that it will go away.

Furthermore, because of state level victories this puts the republicans in charge of redistricting to a greater degree than anytime since 1962. In 2011 all 435 congressional districts in the country will be reapportioned based on the 2010 census. The republicans added 690 state legislative seats this brings them close to their high-water mark of 1928!

That, my friend, DOES NOT happen every 2-4 years. It was a crushing defeat of monumental proportions for the democrats, brought to you primarily by Barack Obama. And, and this is the part I like, ready? Here it comes: Obama, Pelosi and Reid still don’t get it! I’m lovin this, I’m just lovin this to pieces. They will be rewarded once again in 2012 for their idiocy.

Just as Jimmy Carter (who didn’t lose nearly this many seats in 78’) helped launch 12 straight years of republican rule of the White House, so too Obama is helping the republican party.

I have to admit I was rattled when Obama beat McCain, even though I saw it coming a mile away. But right now I could not be happier that people were uninformed enough to elect the most liberal and inexperienced man in the history of Presidential elections.

Thank you mainstream liberal media.
:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Your comments about the redistricting is interesting. I’ve mentioned on other threads that letting the legislature draw up districts is one of the biggest problems we have in our form of representative democracy and I expect the Republicans to foul that up just as badly as the Democrats have done here in California.

If you look at who participates in primary elections, it tends to be the more “activist” members of political parties. The “casual” voter doesn’t turn out in primaries to nearly the same extent that they do in general elections. As a result, you have more ideologues (to get back to the main point of this thread) who determine the candidates in elections. Overwhelmingly, these candidates tend to be less-than moderate. Most districts throughout the country are heavily slanted one way or the other. This is the result of politicians drawing up the boundaries and creating safe havens where they are guaranteed to have success. What ends up happening is that the candidates in these districts are generally much further to the right or left than the middle. So what results is that the state’s legislatures are comprised of mostly representatives who are anything but moderate.

California is a perfect microcosm of this at work, and it has nothing to do with the liberal domination of the state senate. Most state reps here do not vote against their party. Democrats vote with their party something like 97 or 98% of the time and Republicans vote with theirs about 95% of the time. It is very common out here, as it is elsewhere, to see reps who cross party lines get booted right out of office. It almost happened here in Butte County when Wally Herger faced a serious challenge from within his own party for the first time in years. He voted with his party almost 90% of the time, but that wasn’t enough. My district is about 70% Republican.

What you are saying is essentially that it is a good thing that the Republicans are going to be allowed to pick their voters, rather than letting the voters pick them. It’s this kowtowing to the far reaches of each party that has undermined the political process more than anything else in my opinion. I think you are wrong to think that the Republicans being able to redraw as many districts as they can is a good thing for America. Is it good for the GOP? Yes, but not America as a whole. Political self-identification surveys, despite annual fluctuations, show that Americans tend to slef-identify as moderates about 40% of the time, as liberals 20% and as conservatives 30%. But the way districts are redrawn, this only helps the 30% or 20% and not the 40%.[/quote]

Any (legal) way that the republicans gain control and prevent the lunatic left from pushing their agenda is fine with me.

55

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It was truly monumental as you know.
[/quote]

It was entertaining…it won’t prove to be monumental but rather business as usual. Politics.[/quote]

This monumental victory ZEB speaks of only happens about once every two to four years. It’s not uncommon at all for Congress to see the party affiliated with the sitting President get defeated in midterm elections. Hardly monumental.[/quote]

True, but not to the degree that it has this year. They picked up over 60 House seats, and 10 Governorships. As you may or may not know those Governorships will most assuredly help whomever is the GOP nominee in in 2012. And winning in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are what strategists call must win states for the GOP. This was huge and has not really been touted by the mainstream liberal medai. I think they are thinking that if they don’t talk about it that it will go away.

Furthermore, because of state level victories this puts the republicans in charge of redistricting to a greater degree than anytime since 1962. In 2011 all 435 congressional districts in the country will be reapportioned based on the 2010 census. The republicans added 690 state legislative seats this brings them close to their high-water mark of 1928!

That, my friend, DOES NOT happen every 2-4 years. It was a crushing defeat of monumental proportions for the democrats, brought to you primarily by Barack Obama. And, and this is the part I like, ready? Here it comes: Obama, Pelosi and Reid still don’t get it! I’m lovin this, I’m just lovin this to pieces. They will be rewarded once again in 2012 for their idiocy.

Just as Jimmy Carter (who didn’t lose nearly this many seats in 78’) helped launch 12 straight years of republican rule of the White House, so too Obama is helping the republican party.

I have to admit I was rattled when Obama beat McCain, even though I saw it coming a mile away. But right now I could not be happier that people were uninformed enough to elect the most liberal and inexperienced man in the history of Presidential elections.

Thank you mainstream liberal media.
:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Your comments about the redistricting is interesting. I’ve mentioned on other threads that letting the legislature draw up districts is one of the biggest problems we have in our form of representative democracy and I expect the Republicans to foul that up just as badly as the Democrats have done here in California.

If you look at who participates in primary elections, it tends to be the more “activist” members of political parties. The “casual” voter doesn’t turn out in primaries to nearly the same extent that they do in general elections. As a result, you have more ideologues (to get back to the main point of this thread) who determine the candidates in elections. Overwhelmingly, these candidates tend to be less-than moderate. Most districts throughout the country are heavily slanted one way or the other. This is the result of politicians drawing up the boundaries and creating safe havens where they are guaranteed to have success. What ends up happening is that the candidates in these districts are generally much further to the right or left than the middle. So what results is that the state’s legislatures are comprised of mostly representatives who are anything but moderate.

California is a perfect microcosm of this at work, and it has nothing to do with the liberal domination of the state senate. Most state reps here do not vote against their party. Democrats vote with their party something like 97 or 98% of the time and Republicans vote with theirs about 95% of the time. It is very common out here, as it is elsewhere, to see reps who cross party lines get booted right out of office. It almost happened here in Butte County when Wally Herger faced a serious challenge from within his own party for the first time in years. He voted with his party almost 90% of the time, but that wasn’t enough. My district is about 70% Republican.

What you are saying is essentially that it is a good thing that the Republicans are going to be allowed to pick their voters, rather than letting the voters pick them. It’s this kowtowing to the far reaches of each party that has undermined the political process more than anything else in my opinion. I think you are wrong to think that the Republicans being able to redraw as many districts as they can is a good thing for America. Is it good for the GOP? Yes, but not America as a whole. Political self-identification surveys, despite annual fluctuations, show that Americans tend to slef-identify as moderates about 40% of the time, as liberals 20% and as conservatives 30%. But the way districts are redrawn, this only helps the 30% or 20% and not the 40%.[/quote]

Any (legal) way that the republicans gain control and prevent the lunatic left from pushing their agenda is fine with me.
[/quote]

You do realize though that redistricting is counterproductive to achieving even this, right? All it takes is one or two bad terms from a Republican President to end up with a legislature packed with Dems who’ll do the same thing you’re talking about. How does that help the country as a whole? Keep in mind that there are only about 30% of Americans who would call themselves conservative. So as long as you are kept happy, fuck everyone else, right?

Come on. What are we really talking about here? Bettering the country or pushing one side or the other’s agenda and then trying to convince us that THAT is what’s good for the country? I don’t have any problem whatsoever keeping the lunatic left agenda out of mainstream politics, but not if it means that we’re stuck with the lunatic right’s agenda as the driving force in the political arena.

The only solution is to let an independent group of citizens draw up the boundaries in a way that most districts end up being pretty evenly split amongst registered Democrat and Republican voters. This will force candidates back to the middle where they have the best chance of representing the majority of American wants and needs. Do you not agree with this sentiment? Or do you truly think that the way things work now is going well? Do you deny that the nature of politics in general in this country has become extremely polarized and that this polarization is only serving to placate BOTH lunatic fringes?

56

Power or ideology? Both. I call it…Powereology.

57

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Come on Super-T. We both know damn well that “The Coming Insurrection” is on that list as a scare tactic and that Beck almost unequivocally equates progressivism with liberalism. We also both know that when he says that the book is indicative of where the country is going the overt implication is that this is where the country is going under a Democratic administration. Beck rarely railed against progressivism while Bush was in office, in comparison to his almost-nightly diatribes against it now. Him pointing out that progressivism exists in both parties is nothing more than a disingenuous overture to “bipartisanship”. I’ll also point out that the Republicans who he accuses of being progressives he also accuses of working closely with Democrats. To him, Republicans who try to work with moderate Democrats (an admittedly rare phenomenon) are nothing more than progressive-leaning.[/quote]

I have looked for this list you talk about and can not find it. Will you please post a link to it. I have looked all over his website with no luck. I have seen some other 9/12 sites that have a list, but I can not find one about Glenn. He has called Bush, Mccain, and a few other R’s progressive. He calls himself libertarian, so why would he protect the r’s[/quote]

His updated list does not contain anything by Skousen, but from what I remember from his original list about two years ago, there were four books by Skousen on it. The ones that I remember off the top of my head are: The 5000 Year Leap, Making of America and The Naked Communist.

But we’re quibbling over insignificant things here. My point is that Beck’s “ideology” is nothing more than a relfection (regurgitation is probably a better word) of Skousen’s own radical beliefs that were developed during the 1950’s regarding the spread of Communism. So to think that Beck is an ideologue or a brilliant, independent thinker is comical, as is the assertion that he is not a fervent Skousenite.

If you really believe that Beck takes everything in Skousen’s book with a grain of salt, here’s a quote fom Beck addressing “Leap” that I found on salon.com:

“I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired,”

That was straight from his show. Here’s another one, from his radio show:

. “Are you familiar with Skousen?” asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. “He’s fantastic,” he said. "I went back and I read ‘The Naked Communist’ and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won’t be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won’t be in print anymore. So you must collect those books.

It’s an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, ‘The Naked Communist,’ and where he talked about someday the history of this country’s going to be lost because it’s going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we’re there."[/quote]

So this “list” only excists in your head. Show me a link to his updated list, cause I can’t find it either. Beck sqaid on his radio show yesterdAY, THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE 5000 YEAR LEAP. This is not insignificant, if you are going to say that his ideas are based mostly on a list of books, you need to back it up, and you can’t even produce this list.
[/quote]

The entire argument over this list (which I admit I cannot find, although I hardly feel obligated to placate you) only came about because you attempted to 1) minimize the extent to which Beck agrees with Skousen and 2) you claimed that Beck had only read one book by him. The above quote clearly shows that he read more than one book by him.

Your obsession with this list is immaterial. The fact remains that Beck is an ardent supporter of Skousen’s ideology and my failure to provide a reading list does nothing to contradict this. What are you arguing about Beck? That he wholeheartedly disagrees with Skousen? Clearly that is not the case. I’m sure that he disagrees with some of his writings, but if you watch and listen to Beck, it becomes clear that in general he largely supports Skousen’s views.

The updated list that does not contain Skousen’s books can be found if you type “9/12 Project reading list” into your Google search engine. It’s the first fucking link provided for Christ’s sake. [/quote]

I forgot about the naked communist. My deal is you are saying Beck has no original thoughts. You say he just regurgatated Scouce. You are wrong, and i just wanted you to some hopw backup what you say. You talk about his list of books like you ahve it right in front of you, but when asked for it, you can not produce. You want me to go search for something that you should post to try and make a valid point. News flash i have seen the list you are talking about, and it further proves you are lying, because you said his updated list has none of clouse on it when the one you pointed out has 5000 year leap. I think i have proven my point that you have no idea what you are talking about, and Zeb is right you may vote libertarian, but you argue like a liberal. hollar back when you have a little proof of what you are saying.
[/quote]

How convenient. You demand that I prove that Beck is simply regurgitating Skousen’s ideology and to also prove that Beck is not an independent thinker. These things cannot be proven, which is why we debate. I provide examples to back up my assertions, you provide examples to back yours up.

Oh wait, you haven’t done that. You haven’t supplied me with anything to even remotely indicate that Skousen is not a heavy, heavy influence on Beck’s thinking and that his views are largely his own. All you’ve done is cling to this stupid fucking list.

Spend about five minutes on Google like I just did and you can find dozens of Glenn Beck reading lists from all sorts of sources, some of which have Skousen’s books on them and some that don’t. But almost all of them have “Leap” on them and most also have either “The Making of America” or “The Naked Communist”. This proves nothing regarding your claims or mine. Like I’ve repeatedly stated, I feel strongly that Beck’s views are largely a product of the HUGE influence that Skousen has had on him, something that Beck himself states in the foreward to Skousen’s newest edition of “Leap” and something that he also made clear in the quote I provided earlier for you.

I[/quote]

If you actually listen to Beck you will know his thoughts are his own. Do theese books have an affect on him? probally, but you want to say that he is just resaying what scouse did, which is false. Beck points out that some of what scouse wrote has a wierd connection to what is going on today. [/quote]

I watched his show last night. The section where he had the rabbi on was comical. Anyone here who has read “White Noise” by Don DeLillo or “Why We Hate Us” by Richard Meyer can tell you that the stuff Beck was talking about is an old, old concept. I agree with much of what he had to say in that segment. But it sounds to me like Beck just discovered the concept of moral relativism. Which is fine, except that Beck puts forth these viewpoints as if they’re something new. They may be new to Beck, but they’re not new in general. DeLillo’s book White Noise addresses the very nature of this consumer-driven culture we live in, but he did so in 1985. The concept of moral relativism (which the rabbi gave a different name that I can’t remember exactly now, but he claimed he came up with the term) is nothing new either.[/quote]

You should watch it agian. Beck mentions it is an old theory.
[/quote]

Video or it didn’t happen. In the event that you do supply it, I’ll take a page out of your book and deny its relevance anyways.[/quote]

What did I deny? I asked you to provide the list, and you could not. The list you did provide had the book on it, and you said that it did not. You make no sense.

58

straight from the transcript. I can post the whole transcript if you like, and you can see where Beck says nothing of this being his idea. It was all the Rabbi, and he even said it goes back to the Bible.

This may seem like a new story to you, but a new world order is not. The very fist time that this was tried â?? let me bring in Rabbi Lapin. He is the president of the American Alliance for Jews and Christians.

Rabbi, the very first time socialism or communism or new world order was tried was the Tower of Babel, right?

LAPIN: Yes

59

DB, maybe you are reffering to this, even if you are read carefull, because you are still wrong. He is talking about Nimrod from the Bible having a new idea.

BECK: And Nimrod comes and there’s something about â?? you know, he had a â?? he had a new idea, right? Tell me about the new idea.

LAPIN: The new idea is â?? and is presented as the Babel blueprint. This is not long forgotten story. This is actually something which is as relevant today as it will be tomorrow, as it was when Robespierre was conducting the French Revolution. The principle is always the same.

60

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
straight from the transcript. I can post the whole transcript if you like, and you can see where Beck says nothing of this being his idea. It was all the Rabbi, and he even said it goes back to the Bible.

This may seem like a new story to you, but a new world order is not. The very fist time that this was tried �¢?? let me bring in Rabbi Lapin. He is the president of the American Alliance for Jews and Christians.

Rabbi, the very first time socialism or communism or new world order was tried was the Tower of Babel, right?

LAPIN: Yes

[/quote]

Here’s the list I was talking about. The first four books are by Skousen. It’s a Utah chapter of the 9/12 project. I had to sign up with the Project to get access to their reading list on the official site and I am awaiting approval. I don’t know why it’s taking so long to be approved for an anonymous, free membership, but when I get cleared, I’ll have more for you. Until then, this should suffice, although I can provide other states’ chapters that have these books on their list as well.

I seem to remember you calling me a liar. I expect an apology, but since I value my life, I won’t hold my breath.

http://daviscounty9-12project.com/books.php

edit: sorry, make that 5 books by Skousen. I missed one further down the list.