“There you have it. Beck doesn't care about one of the most blatant and despicable examples of judicial tyranny in the history of our country.”
You, sir, are an idiot. Had O’reilly asked him about the case, I'm quite sure the answer would have been different. However, he did not.
He asked him if he thought gay marriage would harm the country. Beck gave his honest opinion.
Show me in the article, related to the question, that Beck does not see this as a blatant assault on the judiciary of this country. I dare you.
Absolutely right.
And the unfortunate thing is that nobody can see
the ‘issue’ objectively because it’s already evolved
beyond the issue and into judicial activism, which is
the partisan playing field we’re all invited to suit up for. Some might argue, of course, that where it
is NOW, in this polarized situation, is exactly where it should be. There’s no putting the toothpaste back into the tube, I guess.
Holy Moose Poop, I didn't know you were related to Beck.
I think it's interesting that Beck didn't utter a word about the courts being involved other than, "why are they involved". The precedents this issue creates are very important longer term whether you only care about you money and your wallet or about the culture.
I didn't say I thought Beck should be taken out and shot, I said his choice of how to respond was interesting and it is. The author of the article is correct, Beck is showing a totally materialist streak and saying in the interview that different folks cover different aspects of things is either a dodge on Becks' part, symptom of his shallow thinking on this issue, or an example of Beck not being really interested in talking to BOR and so not caring how he comes across.
Regards