Posted on 08/17/2010 10:06:19 AM PDT by Rashputin
Glenn Beck may hate socialism and communism, but he showed he shares a materialistic worldview with Marx, Engels and Saul Alinksy in a recent conversation with Bill O'Reilly.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You’re just making up stories. Go to DU, that’s their job.
I consider myslef to be a “conservative conservationist”, mel. I am a lover of the outdoors. I appreciate the natural beauty of this earth so much. I also believe that man is a part of the environment, and should not be looked upon as an interloper so long as he makes an effort to respect and care for it.
The greens not only have gone way too far, they don’t care about the environment, they care about the power the issue can provide. I believe that if they did care about the environment, then they would realize that entrusting its protection to the federal government is worthless. The government only cares about power, same as the greens.
I am also “liberal” on the subject of the legalization of MJ and only MJ, but there is no point in discussing that at this time. I know that by saying this, I leave myself open to attack, but there is no point in not being honest.
We will be there.
You’re the half truth.
Don’t come here, to a conservative site, and start attacking one of the few sites that actually reports news and allows opinions.
You are doing the bad thing here, not WND.
LOL. I know Farah is what he is but I think his article is an interesting take on Beck's reaction. Beck did exactly the same thing Clinton did when Clinton answered a question with, "it depends on what the meaning of is is". I'm thinking that Beck is being protective of his viewership numbers and avoiding the issue in order to drive off as few viewers as possible. That, in turn, sort of makes Farah's point whether Farah is a nutcase or not.
I didn't realize so many people just jumped to the defense of Beck without looking at various aspects of what his thinking is and what he puts a priority on. As for defending WND or Farah, their stature really makes no difference to me one way or another. A broken clock is still correct twice a day, as they say.
I wouldn't even suspect you're exaggerating something said at WND by Farah so your word is good enough link or no link.
Regards
You’re a troll.
WND is an excellent site.
LOL
I picked up on that, too. I'm not sure too many will get it though, it's a little esoteric.
Comparing Beck's materialism with that of Marx, Engels and Alinsky is absurd.
Esoteric, but there is a huge difference.
I completely agree. 100%
Agreed.
Who am I, Doug from Upland? Call my agent.
Now, that's a good point others have made as well. It's not like pregnancy, you can be a little materialistic or even a lot materialistic without buying in to a stupid theory of historical analysis. Maybe Farah thinks you have to poke people in the eye with a dialectic stick to make your point. I do think that taking the materialistic worldview as a given hurts the conservative side of many an argument, particularly when that view is inadequate so often.
Regards
LOL. It is customary to ping those whom you mention (psst: do you think he’ll do it for free, without an agent?)
Who would benefit from the mainstreaming of Mormonism as just another "Christian" denomination by a conservative voice, yet at the same time is lost on the social conservative issues?
GLENN BECK: "I have to tell you that Mitt Romney could be the only guy that could win, and I don’t know if he could because I think that Americans are going to be I mean, this country is going to be in deep trouble by 2012, and the next term, if it’s not decided this term, the next term will decide our fate. Then I hope that Americans are ready for an adult and are ready for hard news."
You got THAT right. And its been more than a couple of years. Try January 30, 2003:
I think the totality of Becks show gives a different tone then the short blip on O’Reilly. I was watching the show and did wonder what Beck really meant but put it in the context of the rest of what he says. I’m thinkin he addresses the issue in a future show.
Yes ma'am...you're right.
Hmmm, don't steal his own thunder. Yeah, that makes sense and he can appear to have given it additional thought since BOR time. I think he's shrewd about his audience and staying where he is ratings wise and that sometimes that seems to dictate his stopping himself short unless it's an issue he knows will add to his viewership or stir the opposition into a frenzy and thereby get additional viewers. I'm not saying that's evil or anything, shoot, Rush is even worse about keeping the focus on stuff he won't fragment his listeners with, that's the Biz I guess. It's just worth noticing and keeping in mind sometimes.
Like I said, I was just surprised that the way he often will put a whole series of events into his thoughts on some things he didn't go right to what the precedent could be and why the court should butt out rather than just asking why they were involved.
Regards
“I will trust my own opinion of Beck much more than anything WND has to say.” ~ Tex-Con-Man
Agree in spades (except for _a few_ of the writers on WND).
I do think that Beck understands what Rush pointed out in early 2008 - there are three legs of Conservatism. Right-wing radical extremists (the flip-side of the left-wing extremist coin) don’t accept the fact that the three legs won’t necessarily agree with each other on everything.
But the fact is that there are only two viable political parties. None of the three legs of Conservatism have any voice at all in the ‘RAT Party. There is only one political party in which they have any semblance of a chance of having their voices heard. Because of that reality, all three legs need to stop the in-fighting and stick together if we want to have any prayer at all of taking over the Republican Party and getting it back to its Conservative (classical liberal) roots.
Rush: ...The Three Legs of Conservatism
February 4, 2008
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020408/content/01125109.guest.html.guest.html
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I want to clarify something that I said in the last hour. I had a caller who was talking about the three legs of the conservative stool, and I said that one of the reasons why voters on our side are going to three or four different candidates is because not one candidate embodies all three legs of the stool. The more accurate way to have stated that was that at the outset of our campaign, there wasn’t one who had all three legs. Well, there was one. Fred Thompson did, but he was never really a factor, for reasons we can only guess about. But after that, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Ron Paul; each one of these guys had a strength on one of those legs of the stool, and so our guys, our side, went off on their single-issue preferences.
... The three stools or the three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives are the cultural people. The fiscal conservatives are the economic crowd: low taxes, smaller government, get out of the way.
Of course, the foreign policy crowd is obviously what it is. I don’t think there’s anybody on our side who doesn’t care about national security, which is why I found it amazing that McCain gets the bulk of those, because the idea that Romney or Huckabee are going to punt national security? In Huckabee’s case, you might just say the things he’s saying about it represent an ignorance born of inexperience in the subject. I don’t think Huckabee has any deleterious intentions about the country. When it comes to the fiscal side, you cannot say — you just cannot say — that John McCain is interested. He’s even admitted he’s not interested in the social side. He’s not interested in the economic side. He said this, and when he has spoken up about it, he sides more often with liberal Democrats on fiscal issues than he does with his own side. That’s problematic. This is why I think — and why I have said — that the Republican Party, not conservatism, but the Republican Party is in big trouble if it is empowered and gets elected by attracting people who also hold liberal Democrat views simply because they like McCain because of his character, his honor, his prisoner of war story, and they don’t like Hillary or Obama.
Now, I’m going to just tell you, folks. If the Republican Party grows and spans by attracting liberals as liberals — and if we grow and expand because we have a candidate who’s going out trying to attract liberals by being like them — then the party’s going to be around, but you won’t recognize it. It’s going to be over as it exists now, if that becomes the reality. “Look at how McCain won. Why, he got liberals and liberal independents!” Yeah, look at how he won! He ran as a liberal and won as a liberal. That’s really great for the Republican Party, right? So my take is, speaking for myself, I’m being honest here. All I do is tell you what I think. What you do with it is up to you. You are not mind-numbed robots, as you know. I’m not a Svengali, I’m not a pied piper, and you’re not lemmings running off the cliff. If I look at this roster of three candidates — if I look at Hillary-Obama, about whom there’s not a dime’s worth of difference, because they’re so far left it doesn’t matter which one of them wins. If McCain adopts economic policies that sound very much like what you’d get from Hillary-Obama, and if I think those policies are going to take the country down the tubes I’d just as soon the Democrats take the hit for it, not us. Plain and simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.