Glenn Beck's 'restore honor' rally...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

When it comes to who's running the nation, I have to say, I dislike extremes. Extreme left is bad. Extreme right is equally bad. One part or another controlling congress and the white house is bad.

I wish this age of political extremism would go away. I want people who are logical, pragmatic, intelligent, informed, does not see the world as just black and white but also the shades of gray it really is, and can make decisions not based on faith, but on what is logical and prudent for the matter at hand. But since im dreaming big here, I also want said leaders with a sense of integrity who make decisions based on what is good the country, not for what is good special interests.

Said description doesn't exist in either party right now, and probably never will. I wonder if it ever has.

I can't add much to that. Good call.

[AngusJS]

The rally worked! America's honor has risen 35% in the last 24 hours, and continues to climb!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

The rally worked! America's honor has risen 35% in the last 24 hours, and continues to climb!

An interesting 'statistic'. How do you determine that?

Originally Posted by AngusJS

The rally worked! America's honor has risen 35% in the last 24 hours, and continues to climb!

Not on this board.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

An interesting 'statistic'. How do you determine that?

I'm betting some kind of Sarcasm Meter was involved.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Other than your apparent disdain for corporations*, you'd fit right in as a libertarian I can see where you're coming from, though. I used to hold many of the same opinions you do until I became disillusioned with the system. The 541t just don't seem fair, does it? All this inequality isn't right. How does one ever justify a CEO making more than a hundred times what a line worker does? How does one justify any associated circumstance? How could a responsible person even allow such things to happen? You'd think some sense of human decency would compel them to redistribute their own wealth. How much does one freaking person or family need, anyway? From here, I could go on to further describe inequality but I think you have pretty much the same view.

IMO, you'd be pretty much on the mark (no pun intended) if everyone was as thoughtful and intelligent and compassionate as you. Problem is, they aren't. Without diving into human biology, evolution, sociology, and philosophy, you can see this, even if you don't know why. If you'll excuse the somewhat incorrect simile, I feel like an engineer explaining electronics or physics to a brilliant, yet decidedly optimistic visionary. The stuff just don't work that way. People like you don't get elected to office, and they don't make policies.

Before I go on, are you with me so far?


* - For libertarians, this is a case of misplaced blame. One cannot rationally expect a company or the people who comprise the same to do anything other than what is beneficial to themselves. That includes giving them the means to outlaw competition through licensures, quotas, and taxes.

I'm with you, and for as much doodie as I give you about it, I actually do respect and agree with a lot of libertarian ideals. But libertarianism can be as idealistic as anything else.

My disdain for corporations is not because of their self-interest. Indeed, if a corporation wasn't sociopathically self interested, it wouldn't make much money for its shareholders. My disdain comes from allowing them the power to direct and influence our government and laws as much as they do. Government and laws are made for the people. Not to protect and enhance a corporate bottom line. The founding fathers sought to limit corporate power and influence. Originally, their charters could be cancelled by the states if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm, they were banned from making any kind of political contribution or influencing the lawmaking process. It wasn't until the days of the big industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller that corporations started to truly exert their influence.

I find it offensive and the biggest threat to our personal liberties in this country that corporations can buy and sell laws and lawmakers at will.

[Alky]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I find it offensive and the biggest threat to our personal liberties in this country that corporations can buy and sell laws and lawmakers at will.

I'm pretty sure corporations aren't really in favor of "Cap & Trade", single payer health care etc., that's the progressive administration doing that.
I`ve never understood why the left is jealous about how much someone earns, how does that affect anyone else on a personal level? As long as a corporation makes profit, it hires people. If a corporation is punished through taxation and regulation, as if by magic they move to someplace more profitable or shut down altogether and thousands of people become unemployed. Personal liberties aren't under attack by corporations, think government!

Looks large to me.....

The rally worked! America's honor has risen 35% in the last 24 hours, and continues to climb!

Once the honour has risen 50% they can gear up for taking the pledge as born again virgins

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I'm with you, and for as much doodie as I give you about it, I actually do respect and agree with a lot of libertarian ideals. But libertarianism can be as idealistic as anything else.

Can it? Libertarian ethics and ideals stop at the end of your nose. All rights are neutral and negative. Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot less idealistic than some ideologies.

My disdain for corporations is not because of their self-interest. Indeed, if a corporation wasn't sociopathically self interested, it wouldn't make much money for its shareholders. My disdain comes from allowing them the power to direct and influence our government and laws as much as they do. Government and laws are made for the people. Not to protect and enhance a corporate bottom line. The founding fathers sought to limit corporate power and influence. Originally, their charters could be cancelled by the states if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm, they were banned from making any kind of political contribution or influencing the lawmaking process. It wasn't until the days of the big industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller that corporations started to truly exert their influence.

I find it offensive and the biggest threat to our personal liberties in this country that corporations can buy and sell laws and lawmakers at will.

Essentially, then, we are agreed. Heck, you half make my argument for me. Unfortunately, laws can and will be used to protect the bottom line so long as you allow such legislative power to exist. Even if we completely banned corporations from ever having anything to do with politics, they'd still be there as long as the power is there. They would mobilize through their employees and their customers, only moreso than they already do. Keeping a representative govenrmnent away from the interests of large groups of people, including corporations, is just plain impossible. Even if we somehow managed to completely eradicate corporations from the equation, we'd still be left with large numbers of people bound together in very distinct and self-interested groups seeking legislative power for the benefit of themselves, especially where their employment is concerned. And that's in a world where representatives can't be bought off by money, or votes, or publicity. Do you see what I'm getting at, here? Democracy is a paradox, or, to put it in more familiar terms, it is the tyranny of the majority.

You can't put corporations in a box and then seperate the box from society or democratic or representative governance. You're stuck with them so long as you believe in anything resembling equality of opportunity or human rights, because corporations are made of people.

The simplest and therefore most elegant solution is to just remove the power that like-mided interests seek to control. Without power, said interests must compete, and competition places power in the hands of the consumer and the common worker.

I guess clinging to God and firearms is a winner after all. Looking at the rest of the world, freedom to protect ones self and freedom of worship is a rarity.

The MLK speech invoked God 4x and Faith 5x, coming from an ordained minister involving himself in politics is seldom, if ever, criticised. Yet some are uncomfortable when politics and religion intersect.

[gimpy117]

It's a mockery to MLK if you ask me.

King taught peace, While Beck teaches calling everyone a nazi if you don't agree with them

Originally Posted by gimpy117

It's a mockery to MLK if you ask me.

King taught peace, While Beck teaches calling everyone a nazi if you don't agree with them

I suspect Beck would take issue with that comment. But believe what you will.

MLK used God 4x and faith 5x in his speech. I think Beck is honoring MLK and wishing the same for every one.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

I suspect Beck would take issue with that comment. But believe what you will.

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Un=edited comments are always better than youtube. Watch his program on FOX.