Crowd estimates Glenn Beck rally

[Hybrid]

I'm of substance.

Purely based on opinion.

[SansDodge75]

She could do me, I'm of substance.

Well voting for boobs makes you a......................

[KThaxton]

Purely based on opinion.

No, it's a fact because I believe it to be so. 

[kmule]

She could do me, I'm of substance.

I am going to have ask for pictures of said substance.

[cooper30]

I am going to have ask for pictures of said substance.

lmao

[SansDodge75]

I am going to have ask for pictures of said substance.

Ha Ha Ha!!!!!


Thats awesome!!!!!!!


 

[PowerWagonPete]

Petey, every time I read these gibberish statements of yours, I get a good chuckle. Firstly you sound like a liberal, with your name calling and all. Fascist, really?? I can't help but to think that you maybe just as ignorant as the liberal left who think that Fascism is of the right. The truth is, fascism is much more like leftist ideology, including centralized control and tyranny. Have you every really listened to Glenn Beck? He is a firm believer in our founding fathers and quotes them often in his editorials. I bet you probably don't know that he has dedicated many of his TV programs to the founding fathers with programs detailing what they did, what they said, and what they believed. Glenn Beck doesn't simply say that it's so, but he shows it to you, in their own words.

There is no doubt that factions of the GOP have attempted to co-op the Tea party, and have rightfully failed, but then again many Libertarians have tried to claim that Ron Paul started the Tea party, as if it was a libertarian cause. Let me tell you what the truth is. The Tea party is not a libertarian cause, or a republican cause it is an American cause. It was created by Americans, people of all colors, religions, backgrounds and political beliefs, who are fed up with the direction our country is going. We are just as opposed to RINOs as anyone else who do not hold to the principals that our nation was founded upon.

While Ron Paul has stopped at calling President Obama a Corporatist and refuses to recognize that he is a socialist or that the goal of Obama's corporatism is to usher America into Socialism, Glenn Beck has not only stated that Obama is using socialist friendly corporations to help push America into socialism, but Beck makes the case by showing us Obama's own words, in various video footage of what he has stated. But he goes even further by showing, in their own words all the quotes of those in his administration, and those he has surrounded himself or associated with throughout his life. Ron Paul is wrong not to recognize that Obama is a socialist. The scary thing is, by refusing to recognize this, Ron Paul has become dangerously exposed to being blindsided by the socialist, marxist left when they implement their plan to fundamentally change America

Petey, watch the program, you might be surprised at what you can learn from him.

Corporatism can be easily utilized to help usher in socialism, fascism, or a global social-fascist authoritarian New World Order, if you prefer, Ed.  LOL  

Socialism vs. Corporatism
By Dr. Ron Paul

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care "exchanges". Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama's "cap-and-trade" legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in "carbon trading." This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President's agenda.

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President's policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term -- corporatism -- forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.  

[SansDodge75]

Wow aren't we just a lovely bunch o coconuts here.


No matter who is in the Oval Office, no matter which party controls the House or
the Senate, there are people who will be against them. Thats how a multiple party political system works. The US is not a Democracy, its more of a Republic. True pure Democracy can not exist simply due to the fact the people that make up our country vary in morals, ideals and so on.

Do I Like Palin and her cronies? Hell no. Nor am I a fan of Mr. Obama. Shit is getting deep on both sides of the aisles and too much scratching of backs to get pet projects and special funding for them going on. We need term limits and pay cuts for them. They are running this country into the gound, and it will take a complete overhaul of the system to fix it, Republicans and Democrats alike are mired to deep in backroom politics and none have the backbone to stand up and do the right thing. 

[Drew]

What if anything of substance has she done? Nothing!

Well, she lives by her principles. She slashed Alaska's budget by 285 million dollars.  She started another Alaska pipeline, a boon for her state and the rest of the US.  Her approval ratings remained between 93% and 54% through her term in office.  She got big oil companies to stop sitting on leases they held and start drilling.  She cut the staff at the governor's mansion and sold the gov's plane while she was in office. 

Did anyone ever ask that question of Obama?    

[Drew]

Wow aren't we just a lovely bunch o coconuts here.


No matter who is in the Oval Office, no matter which party controls the House or
the Senate, there are people who will be against them. Thats how a multiple party political system works. The US is not a Democracy, its more of a Republic. True pure Democracy can not exist simply due to the fact the people that make up our country vary in morals, ideals and so on.

Do I Like Palin and her cronies? Hell no. Nor am I a fan of Mr. Obama. Shit is getting deep on both sides of the aisles and too much scratching of backs to get pet projects and special funding for them going on. We need term limits and pay cuts for them. They are running this country into the gound, and it will take a complete overhaul of the system to fix it, Republicans and Democrats alike are mired to deep in backroom politics and none have the backbone to stand up and do the right thing. 

So, it's clear who you don't like.  Who do you like?   

Who are Palin's cronies?  I would think her worst "Cronie" would be McCain.  I wish she would have dropped him like a bad habit.  But I wish Bush would have sealed the border.  Noone's perfect.  I wish Obama wouldn't have tripled the debt, or whatever the number was he spent. 

[RXT]

Corporatism can be easily utilized to help usher in socialism, fascism, or a global social-fascist authoritarian New World Order, if you prefer, Ed.  LOL  

Easily utilized??? Pete, those guys are counting on it. Those socialists, just can't get into power and expect to flip a switch and we become a socialist nation, all of a sudden. I think what Ron Paul fails to understand is corporatism isn't an end, it is merely a stepping stone to a goal. Sure Obama is currently acting like a corporatist but he has to, because it takes time to set the stage for that fundamental change he talks so much about.


It's funny how you always throw in quotes to back up your case, but I'm gonna respond directly to this to clarify where Ron Paul is ignorant to the facts;

Socialism vs. Corporatism
By Dr. Ron Paul

Right in the title there is begins the first error where I think Ron has it wrong. It isn't Socialism vs Corporatism. Quite the contrary. If you look at Obama's past, from his own parents, to the people he has associated with throughout his personal and political life, and the things he said (Such as "Redistribute the wealth" to people like Joe the Plumber) You can get a good sense of what he believes in, but he uses Corporatism as a vehicle, to transform America into a socialist / Marxist nation. If Ron Paul could see and understand who Obama is, and what he believes in, he wouldn't come to the conclusion that Obama is a Corporatist rather than a Socialist

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

What Ron Paul doesn't understand is, people have been making close, honest examinations of President Obama. And what they've discovered is what Obama believes in. Glenn Beck has revealed in his TV program, Obama's history, how he was brought up as a child, who he has associated with and the things he has said as well as the words of those around him. It's not just Obama's policies and actions, but what he believes in his heart that counts.
 

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

This is correct, but it leaves out other important facts. Ron Paul is trying to suggest that Obama has to be a corporatist, because the evidence RP implies is the nation isn't in socialism.
We know that if given a choice, a large majority of Americans would rather prefer to live in a nation that believes in Freedom and Liberty as opposed to socialism. This is why for every agenda of the left, the Liberals must hide their true beliefs from the people. For every accusation of socialism, the socialist flat out deny the accusation, but what they say with their own mouth and what they do through their actions reveals that they want this nation to be a socialist nation. But so long as they must hide their true agenda from the people, they have to depend on corporatists to help them advance their goals, because if the people found out of their true intent, they would oppose it. And this is why Glenn Beck has made it his mission to reveal what the president and those around him are doing and saying in their own words.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care "exchanges". Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

I have to laugh at this line of thought. The purpose of progressivism is to incrementally advance an agenda to reach a goal. Not to advance it in one large push, which the people might see, and oppose.
Instead they start off small, and move it forward, a little at a time. The health care bill like the medicare system before it started small but they will eventually grow into a full blown all encompassing program where govt officials will eventually have authority to regulate what you eat and how you live, which is defined as socialism

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President's agenda.

(Obviously RP doesn't get it....)

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President's policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term -- corporatism -- forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Gotta disagree here too, lets say we called the president a corporatist, does RP think the president's defenders won't be able to deflect such charges? The socialist are going to hide their true intent from the people, no matter what they are called.

If Ron Paul was to examine the examples of history, and apply those examples to today, he would see that Hitler and Stalin could both be described as corporatist, based on the definition he gives, but we both know what Hitler and Stalin really were. In defense of Obama, we know that he didn't murder millions of people, and maybe thats what Ron Paul really means when he doesn't want us to compare Obama to a socialist, but I don't think he understands, that every nation that has ever dabbled in Socialism, Marxism or Communism, governments become tyrannical and people eventually end up dead. We have this one time in our lives to prevent it from happening here.

Ed  

[PowerWagonPete]

HMMMM Ed, did it ever occur to you that if guys like Beckenheimer label guys like NWObama "corporatists", they might be exposing their own true agenda as well?   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism   

[Jack-Amish]

HMMMM Ed, did it ever occur to you that if guys like Beckenheimer label guys like NWObama "corporatists", they might be exposing their own true agenda as well?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism  

 in order to "respectfully" deceive you they must first tell you just what is to come, its in the elitist rule" hand-book ,,, has bin that way for a very long time..... they say what it is they will do and they do what they say

[RXT]

HMMMM Ed, did it ever occur to you that if guys like Beckenheimer label guys like NWObama "corporatists", they might be exposing their own true agenda as well?   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism   

Petey and what might that true agenda be? Please tell, because I don't see an agenda. He's not a socialist. He believes in the concept of Freedom and Liberty. He quotes often from our founding fathers. and he believes in God. 

Look Pete, Obama is no doubt using corporatism to advance his own political agenda. Ron Paul doesn't even realize that the corporations that are in bed with the Obama administration, are really nothing more than political front groups whose roll it has been to raise money for political goals, lobby the government for the left's interest, support liberal agendas and numerous other reasons. And we know the organizations, Acorn, Chicago Climate Exchange, Tides Foundation, etc. Put it all together and you will see that Obama and his followers are nothing more than Socialist who trying to change the nation, and we have it within us to stop it before it's too late.

Of the things that Glenn Becks says, if we are going to stop this thing, we as a people have to set aside our differences, stop blaming the other side and unite for a common cause. "United we stand, Divided we fall"

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately"
  -Benjamin Franklin

Ed

[MT_84Ram]

Palin is an idiot - she should go back to Wasilla and worry about whether the dog catcher is doing the job properly - she knows nothing about economics, foreign policy or history.  She can duke it out with her ex, soon-to-be son-in-law for mayor.

Glenn Beck is a showman and nothing more, bought and paid by conservative corporate media.  Where is/was the outrage when the us supreme court recently ruled on what allows corporations to finance political campaigns, you tell me whether they were following the law or making the law.

Is there really room for glenn and bill o - I think bill will take him down - odds??

[Drew]

Palin is an idiot - she should go back to Wasilla and worry about whether the dog catcher is doing the job properly - she knows nothing about economics, foreign policy or history.  She can duke it out with her ex, soon-to-be son-in-law for mayor.

Glenn Beck is a showman and nothing more, bought and paid by conservative corporate media.  Where is/was the outrage when the us supreme court recently ruled on what allows corporations to finance political campaigns, you tell me whether they were following the law or making the law.

Is there really room for glenn and bill o - I think bill will take him down - odds??

Any of them could do a better job than Barry Soetero

[SansDodge75]

Palin is an idiot - she should go back to Wasilla and worry about whether the dog catcher is doing the job properly - she knows nothing about economics, foreign policy or history.  She can duke it out with her ex, soon-to-be son-in-law for mayor.

Glenn Beck is a showman and nothing more, bought and paid by conservative corporate media.  Where is/was the outrage when the us supreme court recently ruled on what allows corporations to finance political campaigns, you tell me whether they were following the law or making the law.

Is there really room for glenn and bill o - I think bill will take him down - odds??

 

[Drew]

I ask all the complainers again, who's better?   

[PowerWagonPete]

I ask all the complainers again, who's better?  

For the answer to that question, Drew, we have a poll...  

http://ramchargercentral.com/religion-politics-board/who-would-be-the-worst-possible-2012-gop-presidential-candidate/  

[Drew]

For the answer to that question, Drew, we have a poll...  

http://ramchargercentral.com/religion-politics-board/who-would-be-the-worst-possible-2012-gop-presidential-candidate/  

I want to know who's the best.