Glenn Beck

[dav4463]

Why do people rag on Glenn Beck? If those who call him a nut would actually take the time to listen to what he is saying then they might change their minds. He makes a lot of sense. He even says he hopes he is wrong, but then presents facts that back up everything he says. What if Beck is right? That's what he asks of viewers/listeners. Does anyone care that we are becoming a communist country?

[HUSKER55]

You are asking a lib to do a reality check. Do you see a conflict of interest of interest here?

[Tom]

Still waiting for any of them to address his facts.
Not a one of them can do it.

[illinoisbred]

This administration has blurred all distinctions between fact and fiction. Facts are fiction-fiction has become fact.

[jballscalls]

Libs hate him because he is so passionatly against what many of them want and they view him as the enemy. I think they are scared of him, and when they see him crying, it makes him come off as a little unstable, so they attack that.

I really enjoy his specials he did on Obamacare and black conservatives. both were very interesting, but they were also just good dialogues, not the normal talking points and arguing we see on the cable news networks.

his latest book was good too!

[dartman51]

Many seem to forget that he railed against Bush also. When the Bush admin. started spending and growing gov., he bashed him on a regular basis. EVEN Bill Maher, who absolutely HATED Bush, said that Obama was no different than Bush on spending, except Obama was spending at HYPER SPEED.

[exactaplayer]

I like Glenn Beck as a possible vp with Sarah. Can't you see it, Sarah complains about the nasty ol msm asking her hard questions and Beck chimes in with his torrent of tears. Ah yes what an inspiring sight.:D

[Tom]

I love the way libs who cannot possibly argue with the substance of people resort to character assassination to compensate for them not having a leg to stand on. you have come a long way from the last two election where you brided votes with cigarettes. :lol:

The libs are scared of both Beck and Palin becasue the numbers show it clearly - they have the era of America and the lies of the left are being exposed daily. This is thier bigggest problem - they rely on ignorance and do not need people out there telling the truth. :lol:

[exactaplayer]

How's this for substance ? Find a quote where Sarah spoke two coherent sentences in a row. :lol: You betcha !

[boxcar]

How's this for substance ? Find a quote where Sarah spoke two coherent sentences in a row. :lol: You betcha !

Even if this were true, try applying the same standard to your boy BO. Without that teleprompter propping him up he'd be spending more time on the ground looking up than he has been.

Boxcar

[GaryG]

Find a quote where the POS/POTUS has ever spoken the truth. Beck merely shines the light of truth on all of the lies by this commie administration. Just look at the results. Approval rating is below 50%, unheard of in the first year. The Senate HC vote will be a crusher.

[jballscalls]

Even if this were true, try applying the same standard to your boy BO. Without that teleprompter propping him up he'd be spending more time on the ground looking up than he has been.

Boxcar

didn't we talk about this in the other thread the other day. you seem to have an automatic reply each time someone says something about Palin to go straight for your BO is an idiot button.

we get it, nobody is debating he's not a moron. You need some new material.

PS
Have a great day!

[jballscalls]

I dont think Glenn would ever get on any ticket, why would he take the massive pay cut?

like Tom always says, "i keep waiting for someone to address any of the facts GB has spoken and to refute them" the answer is.....they can't.

[HUSKER55]

REMEMBER WHEN wILD bILL SAID "IT IS NOT REAL SEX" AND HILLARY AGREED AND STAYED WITH HIM.

What does that tell ya except they don't know what sex is unless they are getting paid.


lucky us, we get the bill

[Tom]

How's this for substance ? Find a quote where Sarah spoke two coherent sentences in a row. :lol: You betcha !

How about YOU post two in a row that are not coherent?
Can you do it?

I will post the link to the Rush interview.
I know you have no plans to actually read it, but I love to follow up nonsense poss like yours with the real substance for the record. And then bookmark them for November 2010! :lol:

[boxcar]

didn't we talk about this in the other thread the other day. you seem to have an automatic reply each time someone says something about Palin to go straight for your BO is an idiot button.

we get it, nobody is debating he's not a moron. You need some new material.

PS
Have a great day!

People have short memories. They need to be reminded constantly that virtually everything is relative and that's it's absurd to mock some conservative's supposed intelligence deficiencies when we actually have THE Moron-in-Chief occupying the white house -- and this fact is documented everywhere.

And when you have someone in the WH that inept, inexperienced and anti-American that makes him the most dangerous person in the world. He's a lot closer to those missile triggers than Sarah Palin is. He wields far more power than she does, yet all the stupid libs are obsessing over her!? They should be infinitely more concerned about formulating strategies to get BO out of office or defeating his Marxist-oriented agenda before it's too late for this country.

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

People have short memories. They need to be reminded constantly that virtually everything is relative and that's it's absurd to mock some conservative's supposed intelligence deficiencies when we actually have THE Moron-in-Chief occupying the white house -- and this fact is documented everywhere.

And when you have someone in the WH that inept, inexperienced and anti-American that makes him the most dangerous person in the world. He's a lot closer to those missile triggers than Sarah Palin is. He wields far more power than she does, yet all the stupid libs are obsessing over her!? They should be infinitely more concerned about formulating strategies to get BO out of office or defeating his Marxist-oriented agenda before it's too late for this country.

Boxcar

it's funny that you mention that,

I was having a chat with my best lib pal the other day and he said Beck was incompetant and dangerous.

my retort was Obama was competant and dangerous, which i find a more dangerous combination (even though obviously Beck is not imcompetant)

I think in general Obama is a smart guy, which i think makes him more dangerous than if he was a total idiot.

[boxcar]

I think in general Obama is a smart guy, which i think makes him more dangerous than if he was a total idiot.

Make up your mind already, will ya? Did you not just write in post #13:

we get it, nobody is debating he's not a moron.?

I think you just opened up the floor for such a debate, now that you suddenly think he's so smart. :bang: Unreal! :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Is this the same lib pal that says black people can't have an identity - that they are defined by the color of their skin? That liberal mentality that whites are racists except for them of course, and then they go on and make comments like "a black is (self-loathing) if he(she) is conservative" - or whatever you posted in another thread? They have no problem pidgeonholing, classifying, and demeaning people based upon the color of their skin... but they love to scream "racist" whenever any caucasian that isn't up their ass so much as states an opinion...

You need to take this lib pal of yours JBalls to the backside and put a lip chain on him/her...

[jballscalls]

Make up your mind already, will ya? Did you not just write in post #13:

we get it, nobody is debating he's not a moron.?

I think you just opened up the floor for such a debate, now that you suddenly think he's so smart. :bang: Unreal! :rolleyes:

Boxcar

your right that was a slip, i meant to say he's a moron!

[jballscalls]

Is this the same lib pal that says black people can't have an identity - that they are defined by the color of their skin? That liberal mentality that whites are racists except for them of course, and then they go on and make comments like "a black is (self-loathing) if he(she) is conservative" - or whatever you posted in another thread? They have no problem pidgeonholing, classifying, and demeaning people based upon the color of their skin... but they love to scream "racist" whenever any caucasian that isn't up their ass so much as states an opinion...

You need to take this lib pal of yours JBalls to the backside and put a lip chain on him/her...

yeah same guy, and he's a jock agent so he's already on the backside, but i don't go back there, those people actually have to get up early and do actual hard work. I prefer to just stop into the frontside for 5 hours, call some races, and get up and go home!

[exactaplayer]

I will post the link to the Rush interview.
I know you have no plans to actually read it, but I love to follow up nonsense poss like yours with the real substance for the record. And then bookmark them for November 2010! :lol:
Sorry Tom but, a scripted talk with the blowhard will not be considered valid in this test.

[johnhannibalsmith]

yeah same guy, and he's a jock agent ...

You should have just said that in the first place and spared me... :D

[Tom]

Sorry Tom but, a scripted talk with the blowhard will not be considered valid in this test.

Afraid to read it, huh?
Meanwhile.......

How about YOU post two in a row that are not coherent?
Can you do it?

Looks you don't cut it in this test. Lottsa talk, not so much walk.

[ElKabong]

As a registered Independant that votes conservative, Beck makes me uneasy. He's way too emotional. I predict the guy's career will go down in flames.

Whenever I see Beck I think of Chris Mathews in reverse. Just can't stomach the messenger.

[mostpost]

Still waiting for any of them to address his facts.
Not a one of them can do it.
His facts? You mean like when he said of the Senate Health Care Bill:
BECK: All of the benefits of this bill don't kick in until when? You don't get a single benefit until 2014. But the taxes that we just went over, when do they start? Hmm. Wait a minute. So I'm not going to get any benefit, but I'm going to pay all of those taxes. We're taxing the American public ten years in order to pay for five years of coverage.
But Ezra Klein the Washington Post points out a dozen benefits which go into effect immediately.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/what_happens_before_2014.html

[mostpost]

Still waiting for any of them to address his facts.
Not a one of them can do it.
Here is another Glenn Beck fact: If you don't buy health Insurance you will go to jail.
Here is the truth.
Fact: Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time.
The reason for the tax is, if you are not going to buy health insurance and we are going to have to pay for your health care in the form of higher premiums and emergency room costs, then we are going to recoup those losses from you.
Fact: Willful failure to pay taxes of any sort can result in civil or criminal penalties
Rep. Dave Camp distorted the reply which he received from the Joint Committee on Taxation. There is nothing in any health care bill which says you will go to jail for not buying health care. There are laws currently on the books which prescribe penalties for NOT PAYING TAXES.

[mostpost]

Still waiting for any of them to address his facts.
Not a one of them can do it.
Glenn Beck fact #3
From the November 19 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: You know what kills me is the people in Congress, they're sworn to protect and defend this. They write this, they've never read these, and I guarantee ya, they haven't read this either. Maybe they should. Because, this is not in this. Nowhere in the Constitution can you find any of this.
Three Constitutional scholars disagree:
Scholar #1
constitutional expert Erwin Chemerinsky explained in an October 23 Politico piece that, regarding the "authority to compel people to purchase health insurance or pay a tax or a fine," "Congress clearly could do this under its power pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce among the states."
Scholar #2
According to Slate.com's Timothy Noah, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar and Fordham Law School dean William Treanor debunked conservatives' argument that the individual mandate could be considered a "taking" in violation of the Fifth Amendment:
continuing:
"A taking is paradigmatically singling out an individual," Amar explains. The individual mandate (despite its name) applies to everybody. Also, "takings are paradigmatically about real property. They're about things." The individual mandate requires citizens to fork over not their houses or their automobiles but their money. Finally, Amar points out, the individual mandate does not result in the state taking something without providing compensation. The health insurance that citizens must purchase is compensation. In exchange for paying a premium, the insurer pledges (at least in theory) to pay some or all doctor and hospital bills should the need arise for medical treatment. The individual mandate isn't a taking, Amar argues. It's a tax.
Scholar # 3
Responding to the arguments that health care reform violates the Tenth Amendment -- which reserves all power not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people -- Yale law professor Jack Balkin has noted that "the safeguards of federalism are political," not judicial, and that state governors do not have the power to nullify federal laws or "violate federal laws or interfere with federal employees

[mostpost]

Still waiting for any of them to address his facts.
Not a one of them can do it.
My #'s 26, 27, and 29 prove how wrong you are. There are many more examples. See you later. :lol: :lol:

[bigmack]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/11_19_09_23_01_38.png


Suck on the tailpipe of MediaMatters much? Careful, you might expose yourself & your comrades for being the real sheep that you accuse others of being.

Funny how these things come out in waves. We'll excuse you for being caught up in yet another MM wave.

This from the letter.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/11_19_09_22_59_55.png

I have the actual letter if you'd like to read it.

Now here's how your Mothership spins it.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/11_19_09_23_16_32.png

So they're saying you don't go to jail for not buying acceptable healthcare insurance you go to jail for not paying the tax that you have to pay for not buying acceptable healthcare insurance.

Then, people like you & hcap run around saying people are lying because it was boxed up in a different package. :lol: :lol:

Would it sound better if Beck & others said, you go to jail if you don't pay the taxes you must pay if you don't buy the acceptable plans?

Smoke & mirrors. Just what the country needs.

That's just one example. I haven't the drive to expose your other Mothership fed idiocy but I trust those playing the home game get the idea.

[newtothegame]

Its not very surprising....as long as the actual wording fits the agenda.
He and I talked a month or so ago in a healthcare thread about the cost. I suggested it was not close as what the dems were saying due to illegals and there coverage. His retort was that the bill specifically excluded illegals. I then proposed the democrats immigration push which was soon to follow. His only response was that he had seen nothing like that as of that time.

Well, now that the dems are starting their push on immigration reform WHICH IF PASSED WILL MAKE ILLEGALS LEGAL, wonder what most is thinking now? I can hear it already....." doesnt matter how they got here...they deserve this right." It will turn away from the original story line of its cost on healthcare to whether or not I believe in treating people humanely....
Funny how things from libs get turned and twisted to avoid all the truths.

You can verify this mosty by googling immigration reform...
Just last week DHHS Napolitano was sayng how immigration reform can NOT wait. How the time to act was NOW.
Amazing how this and healthcare go hand in hand :lol:

sorry I took thread a bit off topic...but its main point was to show that most libs will do anything to avoid the actual toic at hand with diversionary tactics

[Tom]

Bump.

You having that much trouble finding an example?
Or did you lie in your post?



How about YOU post two in a row that are not coherent?
Can you do it?

I will post the link to the Rush interview.
I know you have no plans to actually read it, but I love to follow up nonsense poss like yours with the real substance for the record. And then bookmark them for November 2010! :lol:

[Tom]

Never mind.....I'll post one from Sara and one from Al Gore.
Gore held the office you guys think Sara is not qualified to.

Maybe AP should hire 11 fact checkers for Al Gore! :lol::lol::lol:

PALIN: To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies … or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia … or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries … we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we’ve got lots of both.



GORE: People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ...

[ddog]

Palin = absurd non-understanding of the event you claim she said in the post.

Childish and anyone with a passing , even a remote passing understanding of what's going on over there KNOWS she is freakin nuts in her reasons if these are her reason or does she just think you couldn't take hearing the real reasons?

I am all for sourcing from US , but of course we get more from Canada and could get more if needed than all those she ranted about.

Terrorists and Iran are a joke.

CHina - India - Russia are the players - the terrorist for the most part are their socket puppets or wink and nod partners.

Just as the Taliban were and WILL BE AGAIN ours.


P.S. last I heard a country can sell their oil/gas to whichever country THEY choose. Is that not your understanding?
If chavez wants to sell to CHina/russia that's his right. THey are not going to shutdown sales of their only cash money crop! They may not sell to us, but of course if we wanted it badly enough WE WOULD TAKE IT.



Gore - is a nutjob , but he's correct as any oil/gas person will tell you-- finding some "reserves" is a long way from using them.

Oh and yeah the midlle of the earth is hot. I think the Bible established that one! :D



P.S. Iran imports energy supplies! :lol:

[HUSKER55]

nice one Tom. :D

[mostpost]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/11_19_09_23_01_38.png


Suck on the tailpipe of MediaMatters much? Careful, you might expose yourself & your comrades for being the real sheep that you accuse others of being.

Funny how these things come out in waves. We'll excuse you for being caught up in yet another MM wave.

This from the letter.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/11_19_09_22_59_55.png

I have the actual letter if you'd like to read it.

Now here's how your Mothership spins it.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/11_19_09_23_16_32.png

So they're saying you don't go to jail for not buying acceptable healthcare insurance you go to jail for not paying the tax that you have to pay for not buying acceptable healthcare insurance.

Then, people like you & hcap run around saying people are lying because it was boxed up in a different package. :lol: :lol:

Would it sound better if Beck & others said, you go to jail if you don't pay the taxes you must pay if you don't buy the acceptable plans?

Smoke & mirrors. Just what the country needs.

That's just one example. I haven't the drive to expose your other Mothership fed idiocy but I trust those playing the home game get the idea.
There are two seperate choices here. Choice #1 whether to purchase health insurance. If you choose not to, there is a penalty. That penalty is a tax. That tax is the only penalty for choosing not to purchase. Then you have a second choice. Whether to pay the tax. If you choose not to, there is a penalty. That penalty is either a fine or jail time or both.
In your reply you referrenced sections 7203 and 7201. If anyone got the impression that those sections were in HR3962, they are not. They are from some other law on taxes.
The real point is that the purpose of the tax on non purchase, is not to put people in jail; it is to encourage them to purchase. The tax is set up to mirror the cost of health insurance. I do not undertand why anyone would spend $100 to pay a tax and receive nothing for it, but would not spend $100 to purchase health insurance and receive protection for that money.

Another thing I do not understand is those people who do not wish to purchase health insurance because they are young and "Never get sick".
I have had, and paid for, health insurance since I joined the work force. Except for employment physicals, I did not visit a doctor's office one time from the time I was in my middle teens to my late 40's. I never considered that I was being ripped off. I considered it an investment in my future.

How about this? When you enter the workforce or when you reach a certain age, you must declare whether you want to partake of health insurance. If you choose not to, your decision is irrevocable. And you will not receive any treatment unless you have cash in hand and upfront. If you have a heart attack and don't have the $100,000 plus for the operation, too bad you die!!!! I wonder how many of our rugged he-men, no one tells me what to do, guys would agree to that.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You have a choice to not buy something, but by not buying it you must instead buy nothing that costs the same.


How about we drop the word 'choice' and cut to the chase, please. This battle of semantics reflects poorly on those that wish to justify the mandate. I'd sooner go to jail or die of a heart attack than have a lifetime of 'choices' like the one you so eloquently describe.

[rastajenk]

No kidding. The use of the word choice here is absolutely Orwellian.

[Tom]

Small people roll over and let the government tell what they have to do.
But the fact is they have no right to tell us what we have to buy.
And they will live to regret trying to force us to pay for abortions.
The Manhattan Declaration may signal the end of peaceful opposition.
The HC bill will signal the end of America.

[Tom]

As a registered Independant that votes conservative, Beck makes me uneasy. He's way too emotional. I predict the guy's career will go down in flames.

Whenever I see Beck I think of Chris Mathews in reverse. Just can't stomach the messenger.

He is sick a lot and I fear he will die of a heart attack or stroke before too long - couple years max.

The message is not tainted by the messenger, but I wonder if hcap and EP make fun of Steven Hawking? I mean, he is funny looking and sounding, right?
Can't be too bright and his messages and work must be looked at with suspicion and ridiculed. Isn't this what hcap and EP are all about?

[ddog]

this HC deal is surreal.

The costs have already doomed the HC system itself.

Nothing can survive with it's costs going up 15-20% a year in an economy that is shrinking or "growing" 1-2%.

It doesn't matter , it's a sideshow.

Whatever they pass will be looked back on as a relic of another time within 5 years.


As long as the many can get whatever they want , no matter the cost and not even care about the final insured cost you can't stop the big bang.


You look around at the amount of unhealthy kids and adults based on their own action in this country and the endless crap that they call food thanks to the gvt and FDA and you can see the crunch coming big time.

get ready eddy.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The only legit gripe with Beck is that he intentionally blurs the line between heartfelt passion and blatant entertainment.

His most impassioned moments on TV often look, well, like bad acting. The heart clenching, the tears, the stammering... this is when I find him hard to stomach because the emotion looks feigned.

I'm not implying that he isn't genuine with his concern or his message, but his delivery is far too reminiscent of Steve Martin in the movie Leap of Faith.

I enjoy the show largely because he is a fantastic entertainer with tremendous researchers and a committment to contradict conventional wisdom and mainstream portrayals.

He isn't scary unless you fear what he may reveal.

[ddog]

Him and some of his crew are Mormans, nuff said. ;)


I think he 100% believes what he is saying and the emotions are real to him at the time.

[bigmack]

you will not receive any treatment unless you have cash in hand and upfront.
Have you spent anytime in an ER in the last 20 years? They're filled with people seeking and getting care that ain't got no level of insurance, and will more than likely not choose to get any insurance. They laugh at a tax. They laugh at the possibility of going to jail. They know if push comes to shove (and some people push & shove people out of cars at the entrances of ER's) - they will be cared for. Want to know how many hospitals have gone out of business because of their free care?

Your other argument about jail/taxes & la dee da, is again back to an Orwellian State.

[boxcar]

There are two seperate choices here. Choice #1 whether to purchase health insurance. If you choose not to, there is a penalty. That penalty is a tax. That tax is the only penalty for choosing not to purchase.

You call that a real choice. Anytime anyone is FORCED to do something against their will, that is NOT a free choice. Only in LaLa Land wherein you live could that be considered a free, unencumbered choice.


Then you have a second choice. Whether to pay the tax. If you choose not to, there is a penalty. That penalty is either a fine or jail time or both.
In your reply you referrenced sections 7203 and 7201. If anyone got the impression that those sections were in HR3962, they are not. They are from some other law on taxes.

The real point is that the purpose of the tax on non purchase, is not to put people in jail; it is to encourage them to purchase.

Love your euphemism "encourage". :rolleyes: You really meant to say COERCE, didn't you? And what part of the term "mandate", don't you understand? Mandating goes well beyond "encouraging". We are talking LAW here. We are taking a tyrannical government forcing very many people against their will to purchase insurance UNDER THE PENALTY OF THAT LAW. The reasons laws have penalties, sir, is to not merely "encourage" people to obey, but to ENFORCE the law upon us -- to require us to obey. To COMPEL us to obey. And you characterize this as merely the way the government "encourages" people? :bang: :bang: :bang:

You are a Kool-Aid-aholic. I'm sorry to say, but you are hopelessly naive and probably beyond all hope. You will buy anything any liberal will sell to you and consider it to be the gospel truth.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

stay tuned;

Glenn Beck to announce ‘big plan’ for 2010 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29776.html)

Glenn Beck, the controversial Fox News television host, is planning on becoming more active in the populist conservative movement he spawned, according to sources familiar with his thinking.



At a rally Saturday at a massive retirement community in Central Florida, Beck is planning to unveil what he has billed as a “big plan” for 2010, which is expected to involve the 9.12 Project, the group he started earlier this year and named for the day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when he says the nation was unified.



“Coming this January, my whole approach changes on this program,” he hinted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7_J0wb98YU&feature=player_embedded) cryptically on his Wednesday show. “This next year is going to be critical, and I think it's going to change and I think we are going to set it right, at least set our course right. And if that means the Democrats or the Republicans are destroyed along the way, well, good. Good.”

[boxcar]

BTW, Mosty, I hear the new bill is over 2,000 pages long, so we know that something that verbose has to be really good, right? It's going to be so good, that U.S Senators and Representatives alike are going to set the example for us peons by making themselves subject to all its provisions, yes? They're going to give up their "cadillac coverages" to show all Americans just how good everything is going to be under this HC reform act, right?

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

stay tuned;

Glenn Beck to announce ‘big plan’ for 2010 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29776.html)

Glenn Beck, the controversial Fox News television host, is planning on becoming more active in the populist conservative movement he spawned, according to sources familiar with his thinking.



At a rally Saturday at a massive retirement community in Central Florida, Beck is planning to unveil what he has billed as a “big plan” for 2010, which is expected to involve the 9.12 Project, the group he started earlier this year and named for the day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when he says the nation was unified.



“Coming this January, my whole approach changes on this program,” he hinted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7_J0wb98YU&feature=player_embedded) cryptically on his Wednesday show. “This next year is going to be critical, and I think it's going to change and I think we are going to set it right, at least set our course right. And if that means the Democrats or the Republicans are destroyed along the way, well, good. Good.”

Thanks for posting this story, Jim. Now I can avoid massive retirement communities in Central Florida and Beck's show. :p

The "according to sources familiar with his thinking" part was particularly entertaining. :lol:

[mostpost]

Have you spent anytime in an ER in the last 20 years? They're filled with people seeking and getting care that ain't got no level of insurance, and will more than likely not choose to get any insurance. They laugh at a tax. They laugh at the possibility of going to jail. They know if push comes to shove (and some people push & shove people out of cars at the entrances of ER's) - they will be cared for. Want to know how many hospitals have gone out of business because of their free care?

Your other argument about jail/taxes & la dee da, is again back to an Orwellian State.
As usual, you missed my point entirely. I was proposing a hypothetical about those people who can afford to get insurance, but refuse to do so. Then when the get to be fifty, they think they can buy insurance and get the same treatment that I get even though I've been paying premiums for thirty years and they've been paying for three months. It had nothing to do with ptople who are in the emergency room now because they can't afford health insurance.
Now that I have explained this to you, I am sure that you still won't understand it. :bang:

[mostpost]

BTW, Mosty, I hear the new bill is over 2,000 pages long, so we know that something that verbose has to be really good, right? It's going to be so good, that U.S Senators and Representatives alike are going to set the example for us peons by making themselves subject to all its provisions, yes? They're going to give up their "cadillac coverages" to show all Americans just how good everything is going to be under this HC reform act, right?

Boxcar
Same stuff over and over again. We've told you a thousand times, nobody has to give up their coverage if they don't want to. Not the Senators, not the Representatives, not me, not you. That is a fact. If you choose not to believe it then I can not help you out of your ignorance.

[Show Me the Wire]

In a country where you have freedom to make decisions, why must you be forced to buy a product you do not need, until there is a need for the product?

If you don't drive or own a car you do not have to buy insurance, until you drive or buy a car. Guess what you get the same insurance rate as others, when you do.

mostpost you really miss the mark with your logic. Just say it, you want everyone to subsidize your choice to have health insurance. There is no logical argument which justifies your position, the only justification is your desire to be subsidized.

[mostpost]

Love your euphemism "encourage". You really meant to say COERCE, didn't you? And what part of the term "mandate", don't you understand? Mandating goes well beyond "encouraging". We are talking LAW here. We are taking a tyrannical government forcing very many people against their will to purchase insurance UNDER THE PENALTY OF THAT LAW. The reasons laws have penalties, sir, is to not merely "encourage" people to obey, but to ENFORCE the law upon us -- to require us to obey. To COMPEL us to obey. And you characterize this as merely the way the government "encourages" people?
Encourage is the correct word, because you do not have to buy the insurance. You can pay the tax. You don't have to pay the tax. You can go to jail. You don't have to go to jail. You can move to another country. You can barricade yourself in your house. you don't have to come out of your house. You can die. Now you are out of options.

Every day we do things because the government tells us to do them. We stop at stop signs. We obey speed limits. We maintain our property. We don't take money out of our bank without presenting a withdrawal slip. we do a thousand things that maybe we don't like to do because we understand that this is necesary to a functioning society.

[mostpost]

In a country where you have freedom to make decisions, why must you be forced to buy a product you do not need, until there is a need for the product?

If you don't drive or own a car you do not have to buy insurance, until you drive or buy a car. Guess what you get the same insurance rate as others, when you do.

mostpost you really miss the mark with your logic. Just say it, you want everyone to subsidize your choice to have health insurance. There is no logical argument which justifies your position, the only justification is your desire to be subsidized.
Nobody is required to drive or own a car. But when you do, in most states, you are required to have insurance. Everybody is required to have a body. Therefore, everybody should be required to have insurance for that body, just like for their cars.

[boxcar]

Same stuff over and over again. We've told you a thousand times, nobody has to give up their coverage if they don't want to. Not the Senators, not the Representatives, not me, not you. That is a fact. If you choose not to believe it then I can not help you out of your ignorance.

But they will because the U.S. government will not let the insurance companies compete. They will come at the American people through the "back door" -- through the insurance companies who eventuall will only offer the highest cost plans to the people who can afford. In fact, the new stringent laws will even discourage employers from providing insurance. They'll tell their employees to guy buy their own -- either directly from the insurance companies or through the public option. Middle class, lower middle class even upper middle class won't be able to afford private insurance. This means they'll have to give it up and be forced to go with the "public option". (Oh, wait, my bad...be "encouraged" to go with the "public option".)

Boxcar
P.S. From what I've been told the government won't even allow a reasonable grace period for people to shop and buy insurance if they should become uninsured with a private carrier. The bill virtually requires CONTINUOUS (as in non-stop coverage). Real cute. I know you're going to love living under a tyrannical government.

[mostpost]

In a country where you have freedom to make decisions, why must you be forced to buy a product you do not need, until there is a need for the product?
Let's say you and I are neighbors. (I should stop as I am sure you went to jump off a cliff upon hearing that news) We live along a river and I am downstream of you. The river used to flood and you and the other neighbors built a flood control device and have shared the cost of maintaining it.
I decide I am not going to pay for my share of the maintainance because my property has never flooded as long as I have been there. I will start to pay after the first flood. What would your reaction be to that?

[boxcar]

Nobody is required to drive or own a car. But when you do, in most states, you are required to have insurance. Everybody is required to have a body. Therefore, everybody should be required to have insurance for that body, just like for their cars.

Why? There is no parallel between required auto insurance and personal health insurance. But be my guest. I'll give you a shot at it, even though we've debunked this idiotic, lame attempt at an analogy -- one that the Moron-in-Chief himself loves to use.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Let's say you and I are neighbors. (I should stop as I am sure you went to jump off a cliff upon hearing that news) We live along a river and I am downstream of you. The river used to flood and you and the other neighbors built a flood control device and have shared the cost of maintaining it.
I decide I am not going to pay for my share of the maintainance because my property has never flooded as long as I have been there. I will start to pay after the first flood. What would your reaction be to that?

Another lame analogy. If we're all living in a high risk flood zone, as you imply, then all the smart folks in the neighborhood will have flood insurance. So, it really doesn't matter if the "device" works or not. If you're dumb enough to not have any insurance....well...shame on you, 'cause the rest of us smart folks aren't picking up your tab. We're not going to share in your personal liability.

Any other lame analogies?

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Everybody is required to have a body... really? By definition everybody has a body, therefore requiring it would only be prudent if say... you were simply trying to make an inane point where there isn't one.

I usually enjoy your side of things even if I disagree, but you are being a complete dolt with your non-analogous comparisons of things that are "mandated" a la health insurance.

I don't need to maintain property that I don't buy. I don't need to obey traffic laws on roads that I do not drive on. I don't need a withdrawal slip for a bank account that I do not have.

You honestly believe that the answer to dissatisfaction with the government on the one hand demanding that I buy something, and on the other, wanting to provide it - is to encourage people to relinquish their citizenship or set up a barracks?

This is all very cute - "you can just choose to go to jail..."

So then it is okay for me to choose to maim someone as long as I am willing to do the time or pay the fine? You consider a law with punishments an implicit invitation to engage in the criminal conduct for which the punishment is prescribed?

Stop it already and use your well-functioning skills of debate to make a point that holds a little bit of water.

[bigmack]

you do not have to buy the insurance. You can pay the tax. You don't have to pay the tax. You can go to jail. You don't have to go to jail. You can move to another country. You can barricade yourself in your house. you don't have to come out of your house. You can die. Now you are out of options.

Every day we do things because the government tells us to do them. We stop at stop signs. We obey speed limits. We maintain our property. We don't take money out of our bank without presenting a withdrawal slip. we do a thousand things that maybe we don't like to do because we understand that this is necesary to a functioning society.
http://scott.heiferman.com/notes/images/2007/11/04/ad_apple_1984_2_3.jpg

Ladies & Gentleman, I give you...

Front row center, the buttered popcorn eating, JuJuBeads at the ready, highly attentive to absorb every word...

Let's hear it for The PostMan from NorthRiverside, IL ---- MostPost

[mostpost]

Still waiting for any of them to address his facts.
Not a one of them can do it.
Getting this thread back on track, here are several Glenn Beck "facts" relating to SEIU.
1.Beck falsely attributes quote to Rep. Michaud to suggest he was "bribe[d]" or "scare[d]" by Obama and SEIU
After claiming Michaud said "personal coaxing" from Obama secured his vote for health care, Beck suggests Michaud was bribed or bullied by SEIU. From the November 16 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
In Reality: the phrase was used in a WSJ article and was not a quote by Michaud.
In fact, the words "personal coaxing" came from Wall Street Journal writers, not Michaud, and the Journal article did not mention SEIU. In a November 9 article, Journal writers Jonathan Weisman and Naftali Bendavid wrote that "it was personal coaxing from President Barack Obama" that secured Michaud's vote for health care reform. The article quoted Michaud's statement that "I am pleased that [Obama] understood my concerns as they relate to Maine and pledged to work with me to address them." From the November 9 Journal article:
2.Beck falsely smears SEIU's Stern as a communist because he said "workers of the world, unite"
The truth:
In fact, while discussing use of "workers of the world, unite" slogan, Stern said "the good news is, Communism is dead." During the May 14, 2006, edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, reporter Lesley Stahl said to Stern: "You like to say, 'Workers of the world unite.' Which sounds, it is Karl Marx. But that's your, that's your kind of slogan now." Stern replied: "Well the good news is Communism is dead," adding, "ut the truth is the phrase means a lot because all of a sudden workers in London and workers in the United States are working for the same employer and the same owners."
3.Beck suggestion of cover-up in alleged assault is entirely without evidence
BECK: Those special interests are thugs. They are not used to taking no for an answer. Let me tell you about this guy. His name is Kenneth Gladney. When Kenneth heard about the opportunity to have his voice be heard at a town hall on health care -- it was hosted by a Missouri Democrat -- he jumped at the chance to go. But once there, he started to hand out these Don't Tread On Me flags. That's when it happened. He was attacked and beaten by several thugs from SEIU, the union that the president knows quite well.
Two newspapers disagree:
Beck provided no evidence of a cover-up, and reports have noted that the video of the incident is "inconclusive." Beck stated that "here we are over 90 days later and there are no charges here -- none" in the incident and claimed that maybe Obama "feel[s] that justice was served that day." He hosted former state Sen. John Loudon, who noted that Patricia Reddington "is a Democrat-appointed county counselor. She serves at the pleasure of the Democrat county executive, Charlie Dooley." However, Beck did not provide evidence of a cover-up or any improper action by authorities. [B]Moreover, The Wichita Eagle reported that the video Beck showed as evidence of the alleged assault on Gladney "show[s] a scuffle but is inconclusive as to what exactly happened." Kansas City Star editorial page columnist Barb Shelly has also noted that the "[v]ideo seems inconclusive as to who initiated the melee."
4.Beck falsely suggests Stern's "persuasion of power" quote is a threat of violence and somehow related to alleged attack on Gladney
From Bill Moyers show:
In fact, Stern was talking about "power" to "change laws" and "strike," not physical force. When asked by PBS' Bill Moyers, "What kind of leverage do[es] [SEIU] have against these huge private equity firms?" Stern stated, in part, "We're trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn't work we're going to use the persuasion of power. Because there are governments and there are opportunities to change laws that affect these companies. I'm not naïve. We're ready to strike. We're ready to talk." Stern later added, "You know, we are trying to talk to people. But when people don't want to talk, you know, we are going to have the power of people to try to get their attention and use moral suasion and economic power and political power to try to change their behavior."

[Show Me the Wire]

Nobody is required to drive or own a car. But when you do, in most states, you are required to have insurance. Everybody is required to have a body. Therefore, everybody should be required to have insurance for that body, just like for their cars.


You see how backwards your logic is. Owning and driving a car is not a requirement, as you correctly stated. Insurance is required only when you decide to own or drive a car. You decide your action. And the insurance is to fund protection for damage I do to another third party, no insurance is required to fund damage to myself ( which is your position)resulting from an accident.

Having a body is not a desicion, it is a necessity. A decision none of us made. Big difference between a necessity and requirement.

All your other arguments are just as flawed. If I decided to protect my home from flooding, I can't force you to join me in the cost. I either go ahead with the project or not based on my risk analysis and how valuable my property is to me. If someone also the benefit from my improvements, so be it. However, if it was truly a many party problem a voluntary covenant would be entered into by the parties and the obligation would exist in the deed or CCr's.

You desire a subsidy to lower the cost of your personal decision to have health insurance. That is your bottom line. Your desire benefits you and not the entire population.

[NJ Stinks]

Everybody is required to have a body... really? By definition everybody has a body, therefore requiring it would only be prudent if say... you were simply trying to make an inane point where there isn't one.

I usually enjoy your side of things even if I disagree, but you are being a complete dolt with your non-analogous comparisons of things that are "mandated" a la health insurance.

I don't need to maintain property that I don't buy. I don't need to obey traffic laws on roads that I do not drive on. I don't need a withdrawal slip for a bank account that I do not have.

You honestly believe that the answer to dissatisfaction with the government on the one hand demanding that I buy something, and on the other, wanting to provide it - is to encourage people to relinquish their citizenship or set up a barracks?

This is all very cute - "you can just choose to go to jail..."

So then it is okay for me to choose to maim someone as long as I am willing to do the time or pay the fine? You consider a law with punishments an implicit invitation to engage in the criminal conduct for which the punishment is prescribed?

Stop it already and use your well-functioning skills of debate to make a point that holds a little bit of water.

OK John, tell me I'm a dolt too.

I own a house but I don't want to pay most of my real estate tax bill - mainly because I don't have any kids using the local schools and the cost of those schools make up the largest portion of my real estate taxes. And it goes without saying that the liklihood of my family ever using these schools is slim and none. Will my town government allow me to be exempted from paying the school portion of my real estate taxes? After all, my real estate tax computation requires me to pay for something my household doesn't use.

Now let's go to the federal government requiring me to purchase healthcare. I am in perfect health. I don't forsee any benefits for years to come. Why should I have to pay for something I may never use?

In both 'mandated' cases I am required to pay for the greater good of my community or country as a whole. Schools hopefully produce good law-abiding citizens and I benefit by living amongst that type of neighbor. Health coverage for all hopefully spreads the cost of healthcare enough to make adequate coverage affordable to all of us.

I don't see a difference in the reasoning for the two mandates. Do you?

[lsbets]

I don't see a difference in the reasoning for the two mandates. Do you?

That's because you don't understand liberty and don't believe in freedom. Anyone who supports a government tax on living is anti-liberty.

[boxcar]

OK John, tell me I'm a dolt too.

I own a house but I don't want to pay most of my real estate tax bill - mainly because I don't have any kids using the local schools and the cost of those schools make up the largest portion of my real estate taxes. And it goes without saying that the liklihood of my family ever using these schools is slim and none. Will my town government allow me to be exempted from paying the school portion of my real estate taxes? After all, my real estate tax computation requires me to pay for something my household doesn't use.

Now let's go to the federal government requiring me to purchase healthcare. I am in perfect health. I don't forsee any benefits for years to come. Why should I have to pay for something I may never use?

In both 'mandated' cases I am required to pay for the greater good of my community or country as a whole. Schools hopefully produce good law-abiding citizens and I benefit by living amongst that type of neighbor. Health coverage for all hopefully spreads the cost of healthcare enough to make adequate coverage affordable to all of us.

I don't see a difference in the reasoning for the two mandates. Do you?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I don't believe you asked that stupid question at the end. I nearly spilled my hot coffee on me. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. Where did you get your talking point from: DU, Daily KOS? :rolleyes:
John seems like a very capable fella, so I'll let him tackle your dumb analogy.

[Tom]

The only legit gripe with Beck is that he intentionally blurs the line between heartfelt passion and blatant entertainment.

He isn't scary unless you fear what he may reveal.

He has the potential to be the next Edward R. Murrow, but chooses to be the next Goofy.
Too bad - he cold be accomplishing so much more. I have to turn off the radio program most days.......in spite of the wealth of information, I cannot stand the comic book he wraps it in. He tries too hard to be a Rush, but he is not close. Rush's humor is polished and well placed and rationed. Beck is random.

[Tom]

The death panels are in training already.
Female breast cancer screening is going by the wayside.
Kiss your wife good bye - Obama is going to kill her.
After he pulls the plug on grandma.

[johnhannibalsmith]

NJ Stinks...

I regret using names like 'dolt' and shouldn't have, but this skewered logic infuriates me to where I just start pounding at the keys. :)

No, I don't think that your two examples are comparable. You bought a house with a distinct understanding what the expectations and liabilities were. You could have chosen to buy a home in a district with a lower rate of taxation or you could have purchased no home at all. It is the same as purchasing an automobile. You know at the time of that choice what is mandated to legally participate in the priveledge that is using public roads within your private property.

At birth, I have no choice to climb back in the womb and stay there. Nor can I legally kill myself.

I am born, therefore I am mandated to purchase insurance.

That is the difference that I see.

[NJ Stinks]

John, even if you rent instead of buy, your landlord is going to be passing along your portion of his real estate tax bill in rent. So you can run but you can't hide because you have to live somewhere.

But overall I can see your point. It wasn't a great example. (But don't tell Boxcar I said so! :cool: )

[boxcar]

John, even if you rent instead of buy, your landlord is going to be passing along your portion of his real estate tax bill in rent. So you can run but you can't hide because you have to live somewhere.

Just remember what you just said the next time you scream for the state to impose heavier taxation on those "evil" corporations. You guys get it when you want to.

Boxcar