Glenn Beck Rally

[ToadBrother]

Having a conservative news channel in Canada would be fine, great in fact. It's healthy to get different viewpoints on issues. However, i wouldn't want something like FOX News. Too much B.S. and twisting truth.

So you think the CRTC should now become the Commission of Truth?

Have people on there like Lowell Green, a conservative who criticizes left-wing policies in Canada but is well informed & doesn't spread complete B.S.

Canwest is conservative-leaning though (the newspapers more so than Global TV i find) so it's not like the right doesn't get a voice in Canada.

Do we live in a free society or not?

[jefferiah]

Canwest is conservative-leaning though (the newspapers more so than Global TV i find) so it's not like the right doesn't get a voice in Canada.

Conservatism is in the eye of the beholder.

I am not sure if I find Conservatives in Canada to be all that conservative-leaning. But to hear some people tell it, Harper is a bible-thumping, fascist Nazi and Canada has been a theocracy since 2006.

Edited September 1, 2010 by jefferiah

[dre]

Yes, because they're the only people talking in the entire United States.

Look, the fact is that the guys like Beck and O'Reilly are preaching to the converted. I doubt very much you're dealing with a lot of Democrats at that particular rally.

This is what always makes me nervous about my fellow countrymen. We always seem so nervous that someone might say something that doesn't coincide with the perceived orthodoxy. It's all those people who don't want a Fox North. Surely our freedoms are best served by a multiplicity of voices, and not by the kind of monochromatic view put forward by the "Establishment".

Worse, in a way, is the underlying notion that the electorate are a bunch of simpering morons.

Yes, because they're the only people talking in the entire United States.

No theyre just the loudest ones with the most corporate backing.

Look, the fact is that the guys like Beck and O'Reilly are preaching to the converted.

Right... trying to stir the pot.... promote hatred and drive a wedge between people because you can make good money saying inflamatory shit.

Surely our freedoms are best served by a multiplicity of voices

Our freedoms are best served by voices that tell the truth.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Our freedoms are best served by voices that tell the truth.

Your version of the "truth". No thanks. Stay censored in Canada when it comes to freedom of speech.

[dre]

Your version of the "truth". No thanks. Stay censored in Canada when it comes to freedom of speech.

Theres such thing as objective truths as well.

Edited September 1, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Theres such thing as objective truths as well.

Again...your version of objective truth. No thanks. You don't get to decide the truth for Americans.

[Moonlight Graham]

So you think the CRTC should now become the Commission of Truth?

I never said anything about the CRTC so i have no idea what you're talking about.

Do we live in a free society or not?

Depends on what you mean by "free". Freedom of speech and the press, yes. But limits on those too (ie: CRTC and "hate speech" laws. But whatever, i never said i'd want to ban a Fox News North, i just said that its big bro down south is propaganda truth-twisting pile of garbage. But if people want it here that's their right.

[Moonlight Graham]

Conservatism is in the eye of the beholder.

I am not sure if I find Conservatives in Canada to be all that conservative-leaning. But to hear some people tell it, Harper is a bible-thumping, fascist Nazi and Canada has been a theocracy since 2006.

There are lots of conservatives in Canada (though in minority to left-leaners). Take a drive out west, or to a rural area most anywhere. The Conservative party in govt right now is just a watered down version of itself due to the constraints of a minority govt.

[ToadBrother]

Our freedoms are best served by voices that tell the truth.

Our freedoms are best served by actually having them.

[ToadBrother]

Theres such thing as objective truths as well.

I'm not sure what truth has to do with this. Particularly as it refers to political debate, if you deny one side a voice, then all you're doing is distorting the other.

Are you really that terrified that John Q. Public are simpering half-wits that need your brand of orthodoxy otherwise everything falls of the rails? Surely the Commons must have as wide a latitude of ideas, even if some of those ideas seem outrageous, or yes, even false.

I don't think you really want freedom at all. You want a sort of pseudo-liberty, whereby people who are only permitted to speak one thing sort of ritually repeat the phrase "we have freedom of speech". Worse, I think you're of the opinion that the government or some agency thereof can determine these "objective truths".

It's hard to imagine that having the gift of are forebearers in the form of the Enlightenment, that people still think that the government can ever be considered a reliable arbiter of such things.

If Fox or something like it wants to come here, let it. Debate is a healthy thing. Orthodoxies and sacred cows are bad. Or is it, perhaps, that you lack the courage of your convictions, that your convictions need the artificial, and illusory security of state-sanctioned "truth" to keep them from falling off the rails.

I have no problems defending my views, as you can see, I'm sure. I don't need the CRTC or the "objective truth" police to tell me what to think or say. I say bring 'em all. Bring the Islamists and their nutty and suicidal notions, bring Fox News and its crazed sh*t-disturbers. Bring Neo-Nazis like Lictor. If we're any kind of society that it in any way appreciates what freedom of speech really means, then we can defend. Otherwise we're a small and pathetic people.

In other words, screw censorship. Censorship is the last redoubt of the worthless intellectual coward.

[ToadBrother]

Depends on what you mean by "free". Freedom of speech and the press, yes. But limits on those too (ie: CRTC and "hate speech" laws. But whatever, i never said i'd want to ban a Fox News North, i just said that its big bro down south is propaganda truth-twisting pile of garbage. But if people want it here that's their right.

I'm curious. You think Fox News is so inflammatory that it would qualify as hate speech? Wow! I mean, I just thought O'Reilly and Beck were blowhards. I didn't realize they were powerful forces of evil.

[Pliny]

The healthcare bill and the bailouts are merely tranfers of taxpayer wealth to government lobbying corporations. Theyre corporate welfare projects just like the GWOT. This is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE in Washington. Whenever people are afraid of something they hype up the fear, and invoke images of the great depression or a mushroom cloud over NewYork city, or desperate family thats going to lose somebody who cant get health insurance.... and get a virtually blank check.

Taking money from frightened Americans is the most profitable endeavor in the history of the human race.

I get it now. The progressive growth of government continues under Obama.

I think you are mistaken if you think government take over of health care is a a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to corporations. It is a massive increase in government size and control. And GM was not just a "bailout", it was an unprecedented government takeover of the management of a private corporation. Hardly the same old same old.

The tea party is about limiting the size and scope of government not government growth or demanding entitlements from government.

[Pliny]

and Pliny plays the idiot card - FTW! The point of inclusiveness was one that hits squarely on the racial divide that MLK focused on... that the Beck-Palin-a-palooza presumed to exploit for their personal agendas. The absence of blacks within that '87,000' crowd number has been discussed at length across the mainstream/blogs... the "inclusiveness fail". You puffed up and stated there were blacks present - you thought it significant to highlight the presence of "MLK's niece" (too bad you didn't do the legwork to appreciate how Beck exploited her in the lead-up... to recognize she has nothing in common with the principles/ideals of MLK). You could always presume to counter the accepted lack of inclusiveness... you know... take back your idiot card!

What Happens When A Liberal Black Man Goes To Glenn Beck's "I Have A Dream, Too" Speech?

c'mon Pliny... dispute the writers accounting and number... take exception with the author, one "AverageBro". Oh my, Pliny! I just wrote "AverageBro" since that's his nom de plume. Will this lead to another of your puffed-up claims of invective language?

Keep on talking about race, Waldo. We know how the left likes to so graciously include them in their numbers and hold them up as victims, - that only works as long as they remain victims though, Waldo. Why do you, and the left wing nuts you so love to cut and paste from, insist they remain victims, Waldo? Does it just serve a purpose or is it a real animosity? I'm sure they appreciate the pity in whatever form you so graciously bestow upon them.

[waldo]

Keep on talking about race, Waldo. We know how the left likes to so graciously include them in their numbers and hold them up as victims, - that only works as long as they remain victims though, Waldo. Why do you, and the left wing nuts you so love to cut and paste from, insist they remain victims, Waldo? Does it just serve a purpose or is it a real animosity? I'm sure they appreciate the pity in whatever form you so graciously bestow upon them.

Pliny... bro... other than the initial focus on the failed Beck-Palin-a-palooza exploitation of MLK, of highlighting Beck's touted inclusiveness (that wasn't), the only additional references to, as you say, "race", have been in direct response to your mentioning it. So, uhhh... which circle are you jerking?

Here... let me, as you say, so graciously bestow some pity... on you

[Pliny]

Pliny... bro... other than the initial focus on the failed Beck-Palin-a-palooza exploitation of MLK, of highlighting Beck's touted inclusiveness (that wasn't), the only additional references to, as you say, "race", have been in direct response to your mentioning it. So, uhhh... which circle are you jerking?

oh....I brought up the subject of race....nice! Race is not pertinent to my argument regarding the rally. It is pertinent to your argument and you introduced it with your invective in post number 30 on this thread.

Waldo:

affectionately being dubbed the great KKK 'Whitestock' fest... given the absence of them thar colored folk in the estimated crowd of... wait for it... wait for it... 87K big ones!

The "great KKK 'Whitestock' fest", "them thar colored folk"???? Incendiary to say the least but entirely indicative of how the left likes to exploit the race card.

I'm getting the idea that you are employed to post on forums, Waldo.

A paid left-wing poster; and it appears your homework is done for you by a research staff. I notice you have American spell check turned on - are you American?

Waldo - The new voice of the internet masquerading as independent thought. Bwa-ha-haha.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Pliny

[DogOnPorch]

After Greensboro in November 1979, the KKK went into decline. There are maybe 5,000-8,000 Klan members and it is no longer centralized. The Klan was at its height just after WW1 with something like a quarter-million members...most quite casual members rather than the iconic white-hooded thugs.

[waldo]

oh....I brought up the subject of race....nice! Race is not pertinent to my argument regarding the rally. It is pertinent to your argument and you introduced it with your invective in post number 30 on this thread.

ya, ya, Pliny - your junkyard dog act belies your own failed argument. As I said, the initial references to the failed exploitation of MLK and the much touted (also failed) Beck claims of inclusiveness are centered around blacks... the lack of blacks at the Beck-Palin-a-palooza... the lack of blacks within the tea-party base at the Beck-Palin-a-palooza. Anything after that is just you beaking off about - race.

[waldo]

the Beck-Palin religious movement

But other than time and place, the Beck-led antigovernment rally shared little with King’s Baptist-fired civil rights demonstration. Most significantly, King used his moment to call upon the federal government to produce voting, housing, and economic rights for black Americans. King’s speech was an affirming call for government action. Not so with Beck’s religion-flavored rant, which was at its heart a negative protest against the government and the people it aims to help.

Indeed, the day after his rally on the National Mall Beck declared that the Tea Party does not stand for social justice of any kind, telling Fox News that his new religious movement stands in contrast to liberation theology, which he says underpins President’s Obama’s faith. Predictably mischaracterizing the president’s faith and Christian-inspired social justice the president supports, Beck said “it’s a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it.”

If so, it’s also a perversion of exactly what King preached and Beck mimics. King envisioned the mountaintop where our nation moved forward, to grant justice and equality to all its citizens. King’s speech soared with its language that stands to this day in diametric opposition to the call by Beck for a return to an era when white males defined and imposed their self-idolizing view of American culture and society. Those days are long gone, thanks in part to the protests, marches, and martyrdom of social justice advocates like King.

Palin, who is something of the movement’s star attraction since her failed run as the GOP’s vice presidential nominee, confirmed Beck’s not so hidden agenda behind his religious revivalism. “We must not fundamentally transform America as some would want,” she said in what sounded like part-political swipe at President Obama and part-religious call to order. “We must restore America and restore her honor.”

It’s fairly obvious what Beck and Palin are attempting. In marketing terms, they are repackaging the old, stale product of white resentment that lurks at the heart of the Beck’s popularity and Tea Party outrage. Having exhausted racist tactics, Beck and his Tea Party faithful seek mainstream acceptability by cloaking their politics of resentment in a religious shawl. He links God and support for the military with his talk of “turning back” and “restoring honor.” This is old wine in new bottles, an appeal to the disaffected and frightened white Americans who see the nation changing right before their eyes.

Changing how? Our nation is becoming browner as racial minorities emerge as a greater percentage of the population. Demographers estimate that by the year 2050, the United States will no longer be a majority white nation. In contrast, those who attended last weekend’s Tea Party rally and demanded to “take back” their nation were overwhelmingly white.

Try as Beck might with his turn toward religious rhetoric and populist sleight of hand, his teary yelping is a tin-eared imitation of King’s prophetic voice. Indeed, the idea that Tea Party activists embraced Beck as the second coming of King—at a time when the nation is becoming increasingly multicultural—demonstrates why this religion gambit is doomed to fail.

Until Beck, Palin, and Tea Party believers link their national aspirations to an inclusive, affirming, and forward-looking view of the nation, the Tea Party will remain a murky mess, deeply mired in the right-wing’s crack-pot fringe.

Edited September 1, 2010 by waldo

[Shady]

You gotta love the references waldo provides as "proof."

DailyKos & American Progress. Two far leftwing blog websites.

[Pliny]

ya, ya, Pliny - your junkyard dog act belies your own failed argument. As I said, the initial references to the failed exploitation of MLK and the much touted (also failed) Beck claims of inclusiveness are centered around blacks... the lack of blacks at the Beck-Palin-a-palooza... the lack of blacks within the tea-party base at the Beck-Palin-a-palooza. Anything after that is just you beaking off about - race.

The Tea party, Glenn beck, Sarah Palin include Blacks if when Blacks wish to be included which makes them inclusive. There is no KKK "Whitestock" fest, and your attempt to position the rally as such is a racially incendiary statement as was your Black invective.

The issue is with you and your undeniable, exploitative use of the race card.

Just keep dragging in those far, far left-wing cites with you. I, for one, appreciate the laughs.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I am a centrist...And I have strong views on both sides of the poltical spectrum...This hardly makes me a part of the Lib/Left..

It seems many "Canadian" Liberals consider themselves centrists.

However, if compared to the American centrist they would hardly fit that description.

You area a conservative libertarian who would have to admit to feeling all things from the left are some sort of long creep into Socialist/Marxist totalitarianism.

Politically, I am a minarchist Libertarian. As an individual I hold conservative social views. That means others can go out and enjoy their sex, drugs and rock and roll. I'll stay home with the wife, have a beer and play some Stones after the kids are in bed.

I don't hold that view...I contend that the extreme left and extreme right have done enough horrible things all on their own,seperate and distinct from one another,and,the motivations of both totalitarian forms come from completely seperate starting points.

Governments, especially democratic governments, left or right, tend to grow themselves and centralize power into socialist totalitarian states. We know the extreme left and right will do horrible things. The extreme left and right are big, authoritarian central planners. They don't become big unless they evolve that way or revolt to seize an already centralized power. The solution, in my view, is to decentralize power and keep the federal mandate small.

I disagree that they have separate starting points. It is, as I said, only the evolutionary centralization of power or a seizing of that already centralized power that makes them at all possible.

You and I do not agree on economics but we do agree on the issues involving Enviromarxists...

You and I do not agree on organized labour but I'll bet we do agree on issues involving the state of Israel...

So,and so forth...

That's not one dimensional,and because I seem to hold diametrically opposing ideological viewpoints on certain issues,that's not even two dimensional.

Are you saying you, yourself hold diametrically opposing ideological viewpoints on certain issues? Not impossible if you aren't an ideologue.

In reflecting upon it I think we are all politically one dimensional otherwise we are indecisive, unopinionated, or just don't know.

Being two dimensional,in this case,means one only see's things in an either/or fashion(good or bad,black or white etc.)Now I've just given away Professor Kitzel's answer for him...That would be the one he did'nt have the intellect to admit to...

You watch the right, Jack and I think you would agree that someone has to watch the left. Stemming the tide of right wing extremism with a big left-wing government only provides opportunity for both, left or right extremism, to then claim any real or fabricated crisis a necessity for totalitarianism.

Being two-dimensional means, as you say, everything outside your singular view fits in another box and there is only one other box.

Like lumping socialism and communism together. Or the CPC and fascism together.

[waldo]

The Tea party, Glenn beck, Sarah Palin include Blacks if when Blacks wish to be included which makes them inclusive.

Pliny, you'd fit in perfectly with all those angry white dudes that form the majority base of the tea-baggers... with all your declared inclusiveness, care to speculate on why the tea-bagger message/platform doesn't resonate with anyone... other than your favoured angry white dude types?

[Shady]

care to speculate on why the tea-bagger message/platform doesn't resonate with anyone... other than your favoured angry white dude types?

It does, but bigots like you refuse to acknowledge them. Or they're treated as "uncle toms" and "negros." Seriously, why do we let bigots like waldo post in this forum?

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm curious. You think Fox News is so inflammatory that it would qualify as hate speech? Wow! I mean, I just thought O'Reilly and Beck were blowhards. I didn't realize they were powerful forces of evil.

What the heck is with you putting words in my mouth or insinuating false links in my posts. I simply meant that "hate speech" laws are an example of limits to freedom of speech in Canada. I never linked "hate speech" to Fox News or claimed Fox News promotes "hate speech", and i don't believe that anyways.

wtf man.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Pliny]

Pliny, you'd fit in perfectly with all those angry white dudes that form the majority base of the tea-baggers... with all your declared inclusiveness, care to speculate on why the tea-bagger message/platform doesn't resonate with anyone... other than your favoured angry white dude types?

ewwwww..."angry white dudes". There are angry white dudes out there.

Does that men politicians need to be on the look out or maybe...you mean something..."racial".

There were a thousand people at that rally, at least, and even your cites say there were 100 black people. That's like ten percent!

I don't see any left-wing cites quoted? What's up? Staff on holiday?

The tea bagger message/platform resonates with a lot of Americans and the more the message gets out the more it resonates.

Your job - squelch that message, play the race card, call Beck and Palin names and nutters. Don't address the issues though, you 'll lose on that count.

Since you ignored my earlier questions we will assume you are a paid poster and you are American.