Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Glen Beck 2A support speech.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    South KC, Raytown
    Posts
    61

    Glen Beck 2A support speech.

    Yes the man of the hour, Glen Beck, gave an awesome pro 2A speech on his program yesterday afternoon. Hope some of you all saw it. I will try and get a link up so you can watch it. I tell you what. It was worth hearing. Very reassuring to know that umpteen million people just heard about the second amendment, and even though the speech was not long, it still hit on why you should own a gun.

    He was talking about Oakland CA where the police are now refusing to come out on burglarized homes. Leaving it up to the home owner to make sure his/her house is not still inhabited by a burglar. I guess that Oakland basically has a not guns allow law for citizens. What bull----!

    Just thought it was some thing that should be noted. The GB is on our side.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16
    Doesn't change the fact he's still a ******. Imo of course!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by glockdnloaded View Post
    Doesn't change the fact he's still a ******. Imo of course!
    Sorry, I have to agree. Glad he did something worthwhile but we all get lucky Fox is making things worse for true conservatives...

  4. #4
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by peterarthur View Post
    Sorry, I have to agree. Glad he did something worthwhile but we all get lucky Fox is making things worse for true conservatives...
    Just for kicks and giggles, what is a "true conservative"? Most people I meet that identify themselves as "conservative" are actually "republicans".

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    Just for kicks and giggles, what is a "true conservative"? Most people I meet that identify themselves as "conservative" are actually "republicans".
    The actual original definition is that change in society is slow or non-existent (we conserve the current state) unlike liberalism which says change is a constant (progressive) and relative to each persons morals (moral relativity, if it feels good do it).

    But in our modern political discussion, most people really mean libertarian when they say conservative. Someone who believes in the LEAST amount of government interference in your life to include ZERO provisions for your welfare. Welfare of fellow citizens is the domain of charity and religion and should not be created by STEALING the money of other citizens. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, outlawing drugs, outlawing gay marriage; while I may dislike certain things that some people do, it is every man's right (and this lines up with the Bible in case this is your concern) to do whatever he pleases as long as he does not infringe on the freedom of another. Jesus said "Love one another" and he said the entire law was based on this concept, but since people in general are too stupid, the 10 commandments and thousands of other rules followed. Our statutes and codes exist because people need them. Unfortunately, government takes advantage of this to write laws that TRESPASS on personal liberty. Everyone should be free to succeed or fail. That is true conservatism because we were ORIGINALLY created (if you believe that) as free willed beings and if nothing had changed, we would still be treated as free willed beings. THAT is where the confusion lies. God or Nature's law, whatever you prefer, says we are all born free to be whatever we want. We know this instinctively, either by design (God) or evolution, take your pick (you know where I stand by now, I think ) This is why I say that the morons on Fox are not "conservatives in either sense. They want change (anti-conservative) and it is change that does not create COMPLETE personal liberty. They believe in SOME restriction by government on personal liberty for whatever reason they feel benefits society, which means they disagree with original design (or evolution) of human society, they we were all created (or evolved) free and should remain so always.

    And Republicanism as little to do with any of the above. The Republican party used to consist of people who have conservative values. That is where that confusion comes from. They are mostly liberal now, just at a slightly lesser degree than Democrats.

    But that's just my opinion. Can you smell it?
    Last edited by peterarthur; 08-28-2010 at 03:55 PM.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Registered Independent myself. I like the conservative positions on many things, but they are pretty far out there when they start regulating the behavior of others. I happen not to be gay however I also consider it WAY beyond my opinion how someone else chooses to live their life and what they do in their own bedroom.

    It just seems that while the republicans tend to work for smaller government, they invite it to be more intrusive into areas that are none of anyone's business.

    I applaud the NFL for saying they did not like Janet Jackson showing her boob, I despise the government saying they had to develop new laws because of it, if that is what she wants to do and there are folks whom want to see it, by all means, let them do so, and shows like the NFL can make their own choices and if folks do not like it, them tv's come with lots of channels.

  7. #7
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by peterarthur View Post
    The actual original definition is that change in society is slow or non-existent (we conserve the current state) unlike liberalism which says change is a constant (progressive) and relative to each persons morals (moral relativity, if it feels good do it).

    But in our modern political discussion, most people really mean libertarian when they say conservative. Someone who believes in the LEAST amount of government interference in your life to include ZERO provisions for your welfare. Welfare of fellow citizens is the domain of charity and religion and should not be created by STEALING the money of other citizens. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, outlawing drugs, outlawing gay marriage; while I may dislike certain things that some people do, it is every man's right (and this lines up with the Bible in case this is your concern) to do whatever he pleases as long as he does not infringe on the freedom of another. Jesus said "Love one another" and he said the entire law was based on this concept, but since people in general are too stupid, the 10 commandments and thousands of other rules followed. Our statutes and codes exist because people need them. Unfortunately, government takes advantage of this to write laws that TRESPASS on personal liberty. Everyone should be free to succeed or fail. That is true conservatism because we were ORIGINALLY created (if you believe that) as free willed beings and if nothing had changed, we would still be treated as free willed beings. THAT is where the confusion lies. God or Nature's law, whatever you prefer, says we are all born free to be whatever we want. We know this instinctively, either by design (God) or evolution, take your pick (you know where I stand by now, I think ) This is why I say that the morons on Fox are not "conservatives in either sense. They want change (anti-conservative) and it is change that does not create COMPLETE personal liberty. They believe in SOME restriction by government on personal liberty for whatever reason they feel benefits society, which means they disagree with original design (or evolution) of human society, they we were all created (or evolved) free and should remain so always.

    And Republicanism as little to do with any of the above. The Republican party used to consist of people who have conservative values. That is where that confusion comes from. They are mostly liberal now, just at a slightly lesser degree than Democrats.

    But that's just my opinion. Can you smell it?
    Just curious because most of the pundits on FOX tend to shill for the Republican Party (Hannity, Oreilly, Van Susteren), whereas Beck is at least consistent in his criticism and disgust for the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. I find Beck to be one of the few I can actually listen to and agree with more than 50% of the time, granted, you do have to get around his "clowning around" sometimes.

    Personally, I find it repugnant when people try to equate "conservatism" with any religious or political agenda that advocates regulating/restricting/prohibiting any behavior(s) of an adult that does not infringe upon the rights of another, and most all of the restrictions of this nature in existence today stem from anti-freedom religious and political agendas. All of these government "programs" and "departments" that we are burdened with today only serve to take more freedom and liberty from the individual, and give government ever-expanding authority and control over the most personal aspects of our lives. The sooner we can rid ourselves of this monkey on our backs, the better.

    Unfortunately, I fear it's probably already too late.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Mistake number 1:

    Watching TV and thinking there is anything ov value on it at all.

    Go shooting instead!!!

  9. #9
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Mistake number 1:

    Watching TV and thinking there is anything ov value on it at all.

    Go shooting instead!!!
    If an adult doesn't possess the critical thinking skills to watch something on TV and form a reasonable analysis of good content versus bad content, then is it really a good idea for that person to pick up a gun with live ammunition?

    Valuable information can be gained from nearly any of cable news channels, but you have to be able to cut through the crap, decipher what is fact from what is hyperbole, and realize that when it comes to pundits, in most cases, you are hearing the viewpoint from a person who has their own agenda.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    If an adult doesn't possess the critical thinking skills to watch something on TV and form a reasonable analysis of good content versus bad content, then is it really a good idea for that person to pick up a gun with live ammunition?

    Valuable information can be gained from nearly any of cable news channels, but you have to be able to cut through the crap, decipher what is fact from what is hyperbole, and realize that when it comes to pundits, in most cases, you are hearing the viewpoint from a person who has their own agenda.
    I guess I just got jaded after listening to them all lie. They spend hours telling me what they are going to tell me and then lie there butts off, I gave up on it. Radio is not much better, I now get all my information via the internet and the tv only comes on whenever a netflix movie arrives.

    While you may think that folks have critical thinking skills, perhaps you might want to review the 2008 election results before expressing that super strongly.

  11. #11
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    <snip>....While you may think that folks have critical thinking skills, perhaps you might want to review the 2008 election results before expressing that super strongly.
    Yes, but I never claimed that people, in general, possess critical thinking skills. I simply questioned if someone who lacked them should really be handling loaded firearms. Best I can tell from the 2008 Presidential Election is that there are about 130 Million voters in this country who might need to have their heads examined.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    Yes, but I never claimed that people, in general, possess critical thinking skills. I simply questioned if someone who lacked them should really be handling loaded firearms. Best I can tell from the 2008 Presidential Election is that there are about 130 Million voters in this country who might need to have their heads examined.
    Along with about 600 million more who did not bother to speak!

    I know what you mean, I am just not one for the idiot box myself, it is all fantasy and I just am not entertained by it at all. House is kind of cool, seen it a few times and I am way too much identical to him not to understand. The character is an INTJ personality type and he plays it perfectly. Most folks never really quite "get it" and just how obsessive compulsive thinking can be.

    That is why the election was easy to predict, McCain an angry old man, like the guy who keeps the kids ball when it goes over his fence and thinks everyone's yard should be trimmed as his, and the young progressive who seems to be trying to listen to what folks have to say and being extra nice all the time.

    I have polled O voters and none of them can identify his position on anything that made them vote for him, scary stuff.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Along with about 600 million more who did not bother to speak!

    I know what you mean, I am just not one for the idiot box myself, it is all fantasy and I just am not entertained by it at all. House is kind of cool, seen it a few times and I am way too much identical to him not to understand. The character is an INTJ personality type and he plays it perfectly. Most folks never really quite "get it" and just how obsessive compulsive thinking can be.

    That is why the election was easy to predict, McCain an angry old man, like the guy who keeps the kids ball when it goes over his fence and thinks everyone's yard should be trimmed as his, and the young progressive who seems to be trying to listen to what folks have to say and being extra nice all the time.

    I have polled O voters and none of them can identify his position on anything that made them vote for him, scary stuff.
    INFJ here lol

  14. #14
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    the huffing post hates Glen Beck, so he must be doing something right

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by glockdnloaded View Post
    Doesn't change the fact he's still a ******. Imo of course!
    Do you disagree with what he says, or how he delivers his message?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    South KC, Raytown
    Posts
    61
    I see that some of you do not like Mr. Beck. I personally think he is a great American and he has done so much for this country in terms of keeping people informed, even if his shows, TV and Radio, are opinion based. There are still loads of facts that are brought up on his shows that need to be known. He has also supported where it is monetarily or not all of our Constitutional rights.
    I think degrading someone with the tag ****** is just down right pathetic. You can disagree with someone, but there is no need to degrade them with such a discussing term.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by ALOTAGLOCK View Post
    I see that some of you do not like Mr. Beck. I personally think he is a great American and he has done so much for this country in terms of keeping people informed, even if his shows, TV and Radio, are opinion based. There are still loads of facts that are brought up on his shows that need to be known. He has also supported where it is monetarily or not all of our Constitutional rights.
    I think degrading someone with the tag ****** is just down right pathetic. You can disagree with someone, but there is no need to degrade them with such a discussing term.
    Yes, that is a harsh term and only degrades the name caller
    But when I was growing up, a man cried when his son died in war, or when his wife died, not every time he did a TV special. This is a display of the "wussification" of America and I find it embarassing and revolting to see such an emotional display with such regularity. I am not saying my eyes don't well up every time I hear (and sing) the national anthem and that I do not get a little misty eyed watching my children play in the backyard while I contemplate their future in this country. But crying like a televangelist so regularly and publicly just is not manly and I am sure the founding fathers would have cringed inwardly to see such a display.

    Maybe that's what he was referring to with his comment, the "shower" of tears we get with every other show

    But let me add, I like most of what he is standing up for and appreciate it and I think he is a good person. I just wish he would man up a little, I can't watch the blubbering...
    Last edited by peterarthur; 09-14-2010 at 10:03 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Independence, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    115

    just a thought...

    Quote Originally Posted by peterarthur View Post
    Yes, that is a harsh term and only degrades the name caller
    But when I was growing up, a man cried when his son died in war, or when his wife died, not every time he did a TV special. This is a display of the "wussification" of America and I find it embarassing and revolting to see such an emotional display with such regularity. I am not saying my eyes don't well up every time I hear (and sing) the national anthem and that I do not get a little misty eyed watching my children play in the backyard while I contemplate their future in this country. But crying like a televangelist so regularly and publicly just is not manly and I am sure the founding fathers would have cringed inwardly to see such a display.

    Maybe that's what he was referring to with his comment, the "shower" of tears we get with every other show

    But let me add, I like most of what he is standing up for and appreciate it and I think he is a good person. I just wish he would man up a little, I can't watch the blubbering...
    I am not sure how often you have taken the opportunity to watch his show, but like you, I happen to believe with what he is standing up for, and I do watch his show pretty regularly. He is a man who wears his emotions on his sleeve. During the three years that I've watched him daily...I can count on about 5 fingers when he got that emotional. I have noticed that "most" of those times happened when he was discussing issues that directly impacted him as either a husband or a father. Is he "manning up" when he shows his anger and disgust?

    I just find it a bit disengenious when people exaggerate to make a point. Blubbering? Not sure what your definition of "blubbering" is, but a geniune display of emotion, be it anger, disgust, frustration, empathy or sorrow...to me, are signs of an individual who is true to himself, his family and his friends. I personally find it quite refreshing. Obviously tens of millions of other americans across the nation do as well.

  19. #19
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by randyj View Post
    I am not sure how often you have taken the opportunity to watch his show, but like you, I happen to believe with what he is standing up for, and I do watch his show pretty regularly. He is a man who wears his emotions on his sleeve. During the three years that I've watched him daily...I can count on about 5 fingers when he got that emotional. I have noticed that "most" of those times happened when he was discussing issues that directly impacted him as either a husband or a father. Is he "manning up" when he shows his anger and disgust?

    I just find it a bit disengenious when people exaggerate to make a point. Blubbering? Not sure what your definition of "blubbering" is, but a geniune display of emotion, be it anger, disgust, frustration, empathy or sorrow...to me, are signs of an individual who is true to himself, his family and his friends. I personally find it quite refreshing. Obviously tens of millions of other americans across the nation do as well.
    I am guessing that Peterarthur is not a regular GB viewer. I watch the GB show, perhaps, once a week. Use to watch it a lot more regularly when he was on HNN as the timing worked out much better for me. Since he moved to FOX, he fills the 4:00pm time slot; a time when I am usually working. The re-runs are on each night at 1:00 AM; a time when I am usually asleep. So I catch the show about once a week on average.

    Anyway, I tend to agree with your assessment of GB above. He gets emotional to the point of having tears in his eyes on very rare occasions; usually when talking about issues of a very personal nature. More importantly, at least in my mind, is that he comes off as a fallible human being who has made mistakes and continues to make mistakes in his life. I've also seen him admit to making mistakes in his broadcasts, and apologize for making mistakes in his broadcasts, on more than a couple of occasions; something that you'd be hard pressed to hear from most other political pundits. Yeah, he clowns around a bit on most of his shows, and it can sometimes be annoying, but I truly believe that that is just the way he is.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    I am guessing that Peterarthur is not a regular GB viewer. I watch the GB show, perhaps, once a week. Use to watch it a lot more regularly when he was on HNN as the timing worked out much better for me. Since he moved to FOX, he fills the 4:00pm time slot; a time when I am usually working. The re-runs are on each night at 1:00 AM; a time when I am usually asleep. So I catch the show about once a week on average.

    Anyway, I tend to agree with your assessment of GB above. He gets emotional to the point of having tears in his eyes on very rare occasions; usually when talking about issues of a very personal nature. More importantly, at least in my mind, is that he comes off as a fallible human being who has made mistakes and continues to make mistakes in his life. I've also seen him admit to making mistakes in his broadcasts, and apologize for making mistakes in his broadcasts, on more than a couple of occasions; something that you'd be hard pressed to hear from most other political pundits. Yeah, he clowns around a bit on most of his shows, and it can sometimes be annoying, but I truly believe that that is just the way he is.
    Just to be clear: I LIKE him, he just feels too comfortable wearing his emotions out there for all to see. Reminds of the con artist preachers I saw as a kid. Doesn't mean I think he IS one, just an assocation and not what I expect of a grown man. But that is only my opinion and it only matters to me.
    Last edited by peterarthur; 09-15-2010 at 09:06 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •