|
|
Post by Noble Work on Jun 7, 2010 16:52:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Jun 7, 2010 17:29:31 GMT -5
Glen Beck has been real "extra" for last two years. At least as far I have can tell. Not sure if he is looking to become the next Rush or O'Reilly.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Jun 7, 2010 21:35:22 GMT -5
Oh I thought this thread was about his making fun of Malia Obama. He is truly trippin.
|
|
|
|
Post by All Pledging Is Legal on Jun 7, 2010 22:16:13 GMT -5
He is doing exactly what he is supposed to do: Telling America how whites really feel right now.
I do not agree with him, but he is a voice for many white folks who feel they have been cheated out of white privilege in today's society. The ironic part about it is that it is whites who have cheated themselves out of opportunity by being complacent and remaining ignorant of changes in the world.
Many white Americans had grand opportunities to perpetuate their legacies. But they chose to stay lazy and be consumed by cheap entertainment, cheap food, cheap thrills, and cheap credit.
What is happening to many whites here is similar to what happened to whites in South Africa when apartheid ended. Those lazy and greedy white folks that benefited were left on the streets because they always thought that being white in and of itself would be enough to live the good life.
It's too bad that the same people listening to him still will not wake up and make the necessary changes to progress. They will rally and cheer when he speaks. But at the end of the day, the majority of his fans will go back to their little lives and grovel until death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Worthy Most Ancient Matron on Jun 11, 2010 20:18:34 GMT -5
Good point APIL
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Jun 15, 2010 17:17:43 GMT -5
He's dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by All Pledging Is Legal on Jun 15, 2010 20:10:05 GMT -5
To who? I think you need to stop being so timid and gullible. The guy is an entertainer first and foremost. He is in it for the money and fame. |
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on Jun 15, 2010 23:33:48 GMT -5
The earth has stopped again!  I agree denny, but I'm actually suprised to see that you feel that way. Now...as far as WHY he's dangerous (since someone asked "to who?") well, screaming freaks like Beck who advocate such anti-government sentiments so passionately have viewers/listeners out there who feed off of that kind of rhetoric on 24/7. Those kinds of folks are then led to believe that they are doing the work of God when they blow up federal buildings, organize militant groups with guns and weapons and then hold up in compounds, or inspire neo-Nazi orgs and militias to bring guns to town hall meetings and other gathering just feet away from Capitol Hill. Some even are led to believe that an ELECTED president is some kind of Manchurian candidate, a Nazi and is planning secret FEMA camps and will take everyone's guns away and come into our homes and kidnap our kids. |
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Jun 16, 2010 8:25:29 GMT -5
He is doing exactly what he is supposed to do: Telling America how whites really feel right now. I do not agree with him, but he is a voice for many white folks who feel they have been cheated out of white privilege in today's society. The ironic part about it is that it is whites who have cheated themselves out of opportunity by being complacent and remaining ignorant of changes in the world. Many white Americans had grand opportunities to perpetuate their legacies. But they chose to stay lazy and be consumed by cheap entertainment, cheap food, cheap thrills, and cheap credit. What is happening to many whites here is similar to what happened to whites in South Africa when apartheid ended. Those lazy and greedy white folks that benefited were left on the streets because they always thought that being white in and of itself would be enough to live the good life. It's too bad that the same people listening to him still will not wake up and make the necessary changes to progress. They will rally and cheer when he speaks. But at the end of the day, the majority of his fans will go back to their little lives and grovel until death. Exhalt, I love the perspective! |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Jun 17, 2010 7:55:11 GMT -5
Number one- Beck is a mormon and religious pluralist. Anyone that does not advocate moral absolutes will not believe that his religion is the only way, thereby acquiescing to other beliefs. He has managed to get some spineless Christians to go along with his agenda. If he had me on his show, we would be doing a history on his Anti-Black, Polygamist religion and its founders. I am gald Beck is trying to give us a history lesson. Has anyone EVER wondered why you only take ONE year of U.S. History?  ? How do governments take control of a people? By rendering them educationally impotent. They do it in two ways, indoctrination and historical abscence. I guarantee you that 99% of school children 9-12th grade believe this country is a Democracy. I wonder how many of these kids have ever read, MORE THAN ONCE the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. I gave two of my sons a copy of both before they left to go to college. I had good reason to. Now for indoctrination I leave you some quotes, "THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world." Humanist Manifesto II "The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: A religion of humanity -- utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to carry humanist values into wherever they teach. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism." John Dunphy "John Dewey, remembered for his efforts in establishing America's current educational systems, was one of the chief signers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. It seems the Humanists have been interested in America's education system for nearly a century. They have been absolutely successful in teaching children that God is imaginary and contrary to "science." www.secular-humanism.com/Now the earth hasn't stopped moving. Beck and Obama are no different religiously, nor do they differ much politically. Obama and Beck are both religious pluralists and political extremists. Obama is a socialist bigot, while Beck is a capitalist bigot. If I was forced to choose sides, Obama would not be the one. I value freedom more than bringing everyone down to my level. So Robe, I am sure you have problems with the black panthers, correct? I hope so! You don't think Obama is inspiring extremist groups? Look at his Czars, his appointments, and the people he quotes and learns from. Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? |
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Jun 17, 2010 8:48:20 GMT -5
I typically suggest that those who scream out about how the US Constutition and their rights are being trampled on are usually those who don't know too much about the Consititution. They typically stay focused ONLY on the Bill of RIghts as if that is the ONLY part of the constitution...anyway, I digress...
"Anyone that does not advocate moral absolutes will not believe that his religion is the only way, thereby acquiescing to other beliefs"...Denounce. Im wondering how the First Amendment plays into your analysis. Specifically the freedom of religion and association. As someone who respects FREEDOM and the CONSTITUTION, how would suggest the government implement the First amendment if being open minded to other religions other than your own is "immoral" to you?
You mention indoctrination, but you seem to imply its a bad word. But FYI, ALL INSTITUTIONS INDOCTRINATE! Can you provide me some examples under which my conclusion is incorrect?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Jun 17, 2010 9:25:43 GMT -5
I am wearing of all extremists and that includes those who only deal in absolutes.
It is from this pool that suicide bombers are recruited. It is from this pool that the Timothy McVeghs are recruited. It is from this pool that Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings Hill, and Scott Roeder were found.
These crazies and extremist all believe in absolutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Jun 17, 2010 9:39:46 GMT -5
I can't seem to understand how you advocate FREEDOM and believe in absolutism. FREEDOM implies choice and absolutism does not . Folks were running to America away from persecution because they wanted freedom of religion, not be bound to an ABSOLUTE religion. How do you reconcile these two thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Jun 17, 2010 9:42:27 GMT -5
Good one^^
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Jun 18, 2010 9:49:13 GMT -5
""Anyone that does not advocate moral absolutes will not believe that his religion is the only way, thereby acquiescing to other beliefs"...Denounce. Im wondering how the First Amendment plays into your analysis. Specifically the freedom of religion and association. As someone who respects FREEDOM and the CONSTITUTION, how would suggest the government implement the First amendment if being open minded to other religions other than your own is "immoral" to you?"
Denounced
This is where the thin line must be drawn. I understand freedom of religion and have no problem with it. But there is a higher law at work here, divine law. I understand it would be best for people to follow a biblical worldview.
"You mention indoctrination, but you seem to imply its a bad word. But FYI, ALL INSTITUTIONS INDOCTRINATE! Can you provide me some examples under which my conclusion is incorrect? "
Denounced
But Secular Humanism seeks to indoctrinate without regard to the first amendment. This is why Christians are persecuted if they even mention intelligent design in public schools, yet evolution, with all of its proven fallacies is still taught without the biblical worldview.
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Jun 18, 2010 9:57:37 GMT -5
I am wearing of all extremists and that includes those who only deal in absolutes. It is from this pool that suicide bombers are recruited. It is from this pool that the Timothy McVeghs are recruited. It is from this pool that Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings Hill, and Scott Roeder were found. These crazies and extremist all believe in absolutes. Relative Morality is a fallacy in and of itself, and all who believe in it are self-deceived. Sorry Cam, but these dudes do not follow a biblical worldview. Scott Roeder did to Tiller what Tiller did to babies. He was deceived. You say absolutes, but I mean moral absolutes based on a biblical worldview. You want me to give you some examples of those who held relative morals and how many they killed? You don't want me to go there.......... |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Jun 18, 2010 10:14:18 GMT -5
I can't seem to understand how you advocate FREEDOM and believe in absolutism. FREEDOM implies choice and absolutism does not . Folks were running to America away from persecution because they wanted freedom of religion, not be bound to an ABSOLUTE religion. How do you reconcile these two thoughts? You say good Cam........... The gift of freedom for me is in Christ Jesus, which is why I do not have to go out and shoot abortionists. They are a dime a dozen, and are already under divine judgment, lest they repent and stop killing. You think that I am advocating a National Theocracy. I am not, and do not subscribe to it. You said indoctrination should be obvious to me, but persecution of Christians should be even the more apparent. I advocate that civil laws be based upon moral law. Well where to humans even get the ability to judge morally. See it depends on what you believe. If you are a Secular Humanist, you believe in natural law, where right and wrong are based on human judgments (i.e. morals are relative and laws are discovered via human logic and reasoning). Biblical Law is centered around the God of the Bible. We make laws based on his laws. If biblical law is applied to human beings, the good are rewarded and the evil punished. Not so with relative morality. Relativism falls on its own face. It's so bad now that students are not willing to say that Hitler did anything wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on Jun 18, 2010 11:33:19 GMT -5
denny,
Well, you did redeem yourself just a bit for a short time. I guess we can't ask for much. Tell us...in what way is Pres. Obama an extremist, and what people or groups of people has he inspired to violence, vitriol, hatred and racist attacks against, huh?
That goes for the Black Panthers as well. Tell me on any occasion when the Black Panthers have ravaged the country and assaulted and killed white folks. When you can show me where either Pres. Obama or the Black Panthers have done any of these things, you may just recover a granule of redemption.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Jun 18, 2010 19:03:41 GMT -5
I can't seem to understand how you advocate FREEDOM and believe in absolutism. FREEDOM implies choice and absolutism does not . Folks were running to America away from persecution because they wanted freedom of religion, not be bound to an ABSOLUTE religion. How do you reconcile these two thoughts? You say good Cam........... The gift of freedom for me is in Christ Jesus, which is why I do not have to go out and shoot abortionists. They are a dime a dozen, and are already under divine judgment, lest they repent and stop killing. You think that I am advocating a National Theocracy. I am not, and do not subscribe to it. You said indoctrination should be obvious to me, but persecution of Christians should be even the more apparent. I advocate that civil laws be based upon moral law. Well where to humans even get the ability to judge morally. See it depends on what you believe. If you are a Secular Humanist, you believe in natural law, where right and wrong are based on human judgments (i.e. morals are relative and laws are discovered via human logic and reasoning). Biblical Law is centered around the God of the Bible. We make laws based on his laws. If biblical law is applied to human beings, the good are rewarded and the evil punished. Not so with relative morality. Relativism falls on its own face. It's so bad now that students are not willing to say that Hitler did anything wrong. Just out of curiosity... is American law based on Biblical law? |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Jun 19, 2010 6:51:57 GMT -5
denny, Well, you did redeem yourself just a bit for a short time. I guess we can't ask for much. Tell us...in what way is Pres. Obama an extremist, and what people or groups of people has he inspired to violence, vitriol, hatred and racist attacks against, huh? That goes for the Black Panthers as well. Tell me on any occasion when the Black Panthers have ravaged the country and assaulted and killed white folks. When you can show me where either Pres. Obama or the Black Panthers have done any of these things, you may just recover a granule of redemption. I will answer more completely when I get the chance. As for violence, vitriol, etc. you truly do not understand a socialist agenda. It takes over things little by little through back door legislation. I am sure you have heard of re-gentrification? I saw it happen in D.C., and was told how it would happen. Well it happened in Harlem where my dad used to live, and it is happening here in North Carolina. No guns, no violence, just kicking blacks out of their homes with promises of section 8 housing elsewhere. As for OBAMA, he is an abortionist, I need to say anything more about that. Peppermint- Your a Christian, have at it. I will say that if governments would use biblical law as a basis for our laws, this world, this country would be a lot better place. Your question can be answered by several Supreme Court decisions over the past 50 years and the attitudes against Christianity for the past 100-150 years by people, lawmakers, etc. What happens in the absence of Biblical Law? DEATH by the millions!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Jun 19, 2010 6:54:15 GMT -5
Robe- Once again you have misread me. There was a specific occasion where the Black Panthers exhibited much greater intelligence than blacks today. Allow me to remind you of an incident that occurred in California as to bringing guns to a rally. You know what I'm talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jun 21, 2010 1:04:32 GMT -5
Laws for a country that believes in freedom of religion can not base its laws from the Bible because then you are infringing on the rights of those who do not subscribe to Christanity. People kill me with this socialist nonesense. We do have the right as Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but your pursuit to obtain these rights cannot infringe on anyone else's right and that is what people fail to understand.
The Bibical World View works for you and me Denounced because we are both Christians but all Americans are not and it would be unjust to make non-Christians adhere to Bibical law.An unjust law anywhere is an unjust law everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Jun 21, 2010 9:12:55 GMT -5
""Anyone that does not advocate moral absolutes will not believe that his religion is the only way, thereby acquiescing to other beliefs"...Denounce. Im wondering how the First Amendment plays into your analysis. Specifically the freedom of religion and association. As someone who respects FREEDOM and the CONSTITUTION, how would suggest the government implement the First amendment if being open minded to other religions other than your own is "immoral" to you?" Denounced This is where the thin line must be drawn. I understand freedom of religion and have no problem with it. But there is a higher law at work here, divine law. I understand it would be best for people to follow a biblical worldview. A thin line drawn? Your line is not so thin my brother its a broad stroke if you ask me! lol!! You suggest a limitation on the freedom of religion. This is what you are saying: Freedom of religion for all but you must follow the Bible. I wonder how Jews, Muslims, Hindus and even Buddists in America will feel about your religious policy. Denounce what you are actually in support of is the "taking away" or the abridgement of people's 1st Amendment Right to practice their religion freely. YOU and others accuse President Obama and his administration of trampling on the US constitution, but your suggestion would be doing the same thing. The first amendment and its policy does not and will not support your thinking. It's not Obama's fault it's the fault of our forefathers! (I am being facetious) Also, your argument is not wrong because you suggest limitations. Limitations are already attached on our freedoms. We can't just say whatever we want if it will cause or create a dangerous environment, and our practice of religion can't involve breaking of laws (e.g., rasta's and weed). But your suggestion is "misplaced" because it goes against the very purpose of freedom of religion and that can not be supported. Other religions are not infringing on your ability to practice Christianity do not infringe on theirs. |
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Jun 21, 2010 9:32:04 GMT -5
"""You mention indoctrination, but you seem to imply its a bad word. But FYI, ALL INSTITUTIONS INDOCTRINATE! Can you provide me some examples under which my conclusion is incorrect? " Denounced But Secular Humanism seeks to indoctrinate without regard to the first amendment. This is why Christians are persecuted if they even mention intelligent design in public schools, yet evolution, with all of its proven fallacies is still taught without the biblical worldview. Denouce, Secular Humanism is not an institution but a philosophical perspective that has found itself in our PUBLIC school system. Intelligent design supports a religious perspective and that has no place in our PUBLIC schools. We do have Private Schools and CHURCH for such discussions and indoctrination! Evolution is based on SCIENCE which is a discipline traditionally taught in ALL schools. Again, our 1st Amendment at work yet you don't like it. Do you really understand our 1st Amendment? Because you can't support something you don't understand. Sounds like you want to make some constitutional changes...ones that support the trampling of rights?  |
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Jun 21, 2010 9:34:17 GMT -5
Laws for a country that believes in freedom of religion can not base its laws from the Bible because then you are infringing on the rights of those who do not subscribe to Christanity. People kill me with this socialist nonesense. We do have the right as Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but your pursuit to obtain these rights cannot infringe on anyone else's right and that is what people fail to understand. The Bibical World View works for you and me Denounced because we are both Christians but all Americans are not and it would be unjust to make non-Christians adhere to Bibical law. An unjust law anywhere is an unjust law everywhere. Gone and get dat said! I totally support this statement!  |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jun 21, 2010 10:10:52 GMT -5
Lol! I was just reading your statements and I was like she has gone into lawyer mode, lol!
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Jun 21, 2010 13:09:05 GMT -5
HAHA!!! I just reread and I think I was getting carried away! LOL! I mean I meant what I said but I was getting ready to pull up the Constitution on him! LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jun 22, 2010 13:30:04 GMT -5
"""You mention indoctrination, but you seem to imply its a bad word. But FYI, ALL INSTITUTIONS INDOCTRINATE! Can you provide me some examples under which my conclusion is incorrect? " Denounced But Secular Humanism seeks to indoctrinate without regard to the first amendment. This is why Christians are persecuted if they even mention intelligent design in public schools, yet evolution, with all of its proven fallacies is still taught without the biblical worldview. Denouce, Secular Humanism is not an institution but a philosophical perspective that has found itself in our PUBLIC school system. Intelligent design supports a religious perspective and that has no place in our PUBLIC schools. We do have Private Schools and CHURCH for such discussions and indoctrination! Evolution is based on SCIENCE which is a discipline traditionally taught in ALL schools. Again, our 1st Amendment at work yet you don't like it. Do you really understand our 1st Amendment? Because you can't support something you don't understand. Sounds like you want to make some constitutional changes...ones that support the trampling of rights?
That being the case, why should the tenants of Secular Humanism be perpetuated in school while the tenants of [insert any religion name here] are not? |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Jun 23, 2010 5:27:22 GMT -5
Laws for a country that believes in freedom of religion can not base its laws from the Bible because then you are infringing on the rights of those who do not subscribe to Christanity. People kill me with this socialist nonesense. We do have the right as Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but your pursuit to obtain these rights cannot infringe on anyone else's right and that is what people fail to understand. The Bibical World View works for you and me Denounced because we are both Christians but all Americans are not and it would be unjust to make non-Christians adhere to Bibical law.An unjust law anywhere is an unjust law everywhere. "Laws for a country that believes in freedom of religion can not base its laws from the Bible because then you are infringing on the rights of those who do not subscribe to Christanity." JA Is this the old legislate morality theme? Well the real case is what works best. Laws are always going to infringe on someone else, so it is always best to choose the laws that punish the wicked and reward the good. "People kill me with this socialist nonesense. We do have the right as Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but your pursuit to obtain these rights cannot infringe on anyone else's right and that is what people fail to understand." JA I do not fail to understand that, but socialists do not. So it's the socialist nonsense that kills the ignorant. |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Jun 23, 2010 5:39:54 GMT -5
"A thin line drawn? Your line is not so thin my brother its a broad stroke if you ask me! lol!!
You suggest a limitation on the freedom of religion. This is what you are saying: Freedom of religion for all but you must follow the Bible. I wonder how Jews, Muslims, Hindus and even Buddists in America will feel about your religious policy. Denounce what you are actually in support of is the "taking away" or the abridgement of people's 1st Amendment Right to practice their religion freely." MD
Denounced
Good try to misreprsent. As I stated, I have no rpoblem with the first amendment. Jews can be Jews, Muslims can be Muslims, etc. But if any of our countries laws are broken due to their NORMAL religious practices, it's jail time.
"YOU and others accuse President Obama and his administration of trampling on the US constitution, but your suggestion would be doing the same thing. The first amendment and its policy does not and will not support your thinking. It's not Obama's fault it's the fault of our forefathers! (I am being facetious)" MD
Denounced
What do you really know about the founders of this country, and I am not talking 1776 either? And the fist amendment would be just fine with my line of reasoning. You would not have to worry about the United Pentecostals becoming a federal or state church anywhere.
"Also, your argument is not wrong because you suggest limitations. Limitations are already attached on our freedoms. We can't just say whatever we want if it will cause or create a dangerous environment, and our practice of religion can't involve breaking of laws (e.g., rasta's and weed). But your suggestion is "misplaced" because it goes against the very purpose of freedom of religion and that can not be supported. Other religions are not infringing on your ability to practice Christianity do not infringe on theirs." MD
Denounced
As I stated before, basing a nation's criminal and civil laws from a biblical standpoint won't keep Muslims from the Mosque or Jews from the Synagogue. But there would be no beating of women for their ankles showing either, understand where I am coming form now?
|
|
