Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Refusal to confront abuse of authority is, for all real-world purposes, the same as blind allegiance to it -- or at least, passive acceptance of anything they choose to do.

I don't know about that.

Originally Posted by BookishXer

In this given situation, I was more concerned with the intent to elicit an emotional response from a large crowd through easily distorted terms such as “honor” and “restoration” than with Beck or Palin’s professional aspirations. We are an increasingly emotionally vulnerable population.

I can't help but remark that Obama used the same technique during the 2008 campaign with words like "hope" and "change". I certainly was moved by his use of them. Many people are now making fun of these words.

As you say, we are very vulnerable, but I think we will be pragmatic in the end. "Do I feel good?" feels like a hangover when "Is it working?" fails.

James50

I remember watching a speech made by Obama, and he did use those words. I can't even remember what the speech was about, and I only watched it for like 20 seconds because it was boring, but I do remember those words. Although I knew he would probably change what should stay the same, and keep the things that should be changed the same. So I never got sucked in by his rhetoric. Of course it seemed like most of his ideas were the opposite of mine.

Originally Posted by BookishXer

Aww, Tone. You keep paying me compliments on my posts and I'll have to send you flowers. Or a gift card.

Smart people are cool.

Originally Posted by James50

I can't help but remark that Obama used the same technique during the 2008 campaign with words like "hope" and "change". I certainly was moved by his use of them. Many people are now making fun of these words.

As you say, we are very vulnerable, but I think we will be pragmatic in the end. "Do I feel good?" feels like a hangover when "Is it working?" fails.

James50

I didn’t intend to sound partisan. You’re right, politicians and personalities of both sides have long used emotional appeal. Any sales pitch, it seems, requires an element of such.

Speaking momentarily only of the Beck rally, what struck me was the connotation. Participants were dressed in elaborate displays of red, white and blue. Beck, a divisive personality who has made a successful living being divisive, organized the rally. Sarah Palin, also a divisive personality who has increasingly promote her own divisive communication style, was one of the speakers. When people of this nature speak of things such as “restoring America” and “bringing honor back to America,” amidst a crowd of people dressed in grand displays of our national colors, it does give me pause. And when the crowd is equally ambiguous about what it is celebrating, deeper concerns are roused.

Are we to deduce that subscribing to what Beck and Palin believe is equal to true patriotism? James, I admit, I’m bothered by that.

To toss this to the other side, I feel similarly when someone such as Jesse Jackson speaks in hyperbole about an incident that might or might not be racially motivated. If I disagree, am I a racist?

Originally Posted by BookishXer

I didn’t intend to sound partisan. You’re right, politicians and personalities of both sides have long used emotional appeal. Any sales pitch, it seems, requires an element of such.

Speaking momentarily only of the Beck rally, what struck me was the connotation. Participants were dressed in elaborate displays of red, white and blue. Beck, a divisive personality who has made a successful living being divisive, organized the rally. Sarah Palin, also a divisive personality who has increasingly promote her own divisive communication style, was one of the speakers. When people of this nature speak of things such as “restoring America” and “bringing honor back to America,” amidst a crowd of people dressed in grand displays of our national colors, it does give me pause. And when the crowd is equally ambiguous about what it is celebrating, deeper concerns are roused.

Are we to deduce that subscribing to what Beck and Palin believe is equal to true patriotism? James, I admit, I’m bothered by that.

To toss this to the other side, I feel similarly when someone such as Jesse Jackson speaks in hyperbole about an incident that might or might not be racially motivated. If I disagree, am I a racist?

Both Beck and Palin are divisive, and I agree that no one should be able to define one's own sense of patriotism. My takeaway from the event was not that Beck and Palin are about to take over. Rather, that the forces of hatred for the ruling class (however defined) in the US are gathering strength. The further down the national mood, the stronger this hatred gets. Our political class seems clueless and has created a vacuum for people like Palin and Beck. Whichever party can graft itself to the anger will win.

Sadly, I think it may be too late for Obama to ride that wave.

James50

If only Palin believed in the consistent life ethic, she would be a really good leader for this country.

Originally Posted by James50

Both Beck and Palin are divisive, and I agree that no one should be able to define one's own sense of patriotism. My takeaway from the event was not that Back and Palin are about to take over. Rather, that the forces of hatred for the ruling class (however defined) in the US are gathering strength. The further down the national mood, the stronger this hatred gets. Our political class seems clueless and have created a vacuum for people like Palin and Beck. Whichever party can graft itself to the anger will win.

Sadly, I think it may be too late for Obama to ride that wave.

James50

I'm starting to think he's going to get swamped by it in 2012.

Originally Posted by Adina

If only Palin believed in the consistent life ethic, she would be a really good leader for this country.

Adina, what in god's name are you talking about?

Originally Posted by TnT

Adina, what in god's name are you talking about?

I mean that if she was against the death penalty and stuff, then I think that she would be a great president, because she has some good ideas, and it would be cool if she symbolized the United States.

Originally Posted by Adina

I mean that if she was against the death penalty and stuff, then I think that she would be a great president, because she has some good ideas, and it would be cool if she symbolized the United States.

Adina, what do you think are her good ideas?

Originally Posted by Wes84

Adina, what do you think are her good ideas?

Like being opposed to abortion and stuff. So she has good values. And she's a down to earth, real person. She's also nice, and rarely makes huge gaffs, like GWB.

Originally Posted by Adina

Like being opposed to abortion and stuff. So she has good values. And she's a down to earth, real person. She's also nice, and rarely makes huge gaffs, like GWB.

I'm afraid, dear, that she is not being truthful about her beliefs. She is an extremely calculating individual. Like most of this type she ends up believing her own lies. It can be hard to spot until you've seen it a few times.

Originally Posted by Tone70

I'm afraid, dear, that she is not being truthful about her beliefs. She is an extremely calculating individual. Like most of this type she ends up believing her own lies. It can be hard to spot until you've seen it a few times.

What is she lying about? What does she really believe?

Originally Posted by Adina

What is she lying about? What does she really believe?

The one thing I can say that she believes with surety is that money is good and more money is better. Other then that I have discerned no consistent themes other then the general you should listen to and vote for me because I'm just like you. Whoever you are.

Someone who is more interested in her might be able to detail a position for her. But I really don't think she has any permanent ones. Merely reactive statements designed to make an impact. In a way it's brilliant. If you have no consistent positions you can be everything to any person you're talking to. Particularly if those persons are not particularly looking to prove you wrong. After all why would they? They know you're one of them and darn folksy likable too. You betcha!

Well, she did say that she wanted to protect the middle class from being hurt by the government, which is good. And she is a Christian, so at least you know she has good morals for the most part. I just have a good feeling about her. And it's always important to listen to ones feelings.

Originally Posted by James50

Both Beck and Palin are divisive, and I agree that no one should be able to define one's own sense of patriotism. My takeaway from the event was not that Beck and Palin are about to take over. Rather, that the forces of hatred for the ruling class (however defined) in the US are gathering strength. The further down the national mood, the stronger this hatred gets. Our political class seems clueless and has created a vacuum for people like Palin and Beck. Whichever party can graft itself to the anger will win.

Sadly, I think it may be too late for Obama to ride that wave.

James50

Beck and Palin are not divisive. Rather they serve the opposite purpose. Beck and Palin seek to keep upset and rebellious conservatives in the Republican fold. The media and political system have no room for uncontrolled off-shoot groups or parties in the narrative. Beck and Palin simply serve as cowboys to corral the wandering herd and keep them voting for one of the two officially sanctioned teams. Democrats have had these sorts of figureheads for years (though they manifest as different sorts of characters). Republicans have only recently needed them.

Beck and Palin are idiots but idiots are often useful. As the Japanese proverb says: The nail that sticks up must be pounded down.

Originally Posted by TnT

Debol,

I'd be interested in your perspective - you seem to be somewhat conservative, yet rational, as opposed to some on this forum.

What do you think that Beck's message is? Can you sum him up for me in several bullet points? What are the fundamental principles behind his philosophy?

I guess you could consider me pretty conservative, but not in the current "definition".

I don't fit into current party politics at all, and I find more and more Millies like me the older I get.

* End the Wars, and Oversea bases, focus on "defense"
*Abortion: Should be legal, at a point it gets iffy for me, once the child is viable outside the womb you run into problems.
*Gay Marriage, end Govt. sponsored benefits to Marriage, why is there even benefits to it? it is a private matter!
*I think the NEO-con world approach is wrong, And the way they have turned local police forces into law enforcement agencies (important difference) is disgusting
*with the above point : Patriot act, Military Commissions act and Gitmo need to go...now!
* All welfare programs need some serious work, I don't think they are necessarily bad but they don't appear to work well at all, housing projects, food stamps etc. They seem to feed the cycle of poverty more then lift people out of it.
*Government Agencies need to be cut if they are useless or infective. (why is there the NSA, DHS, FBI, and CIA cant the redundancy be fixed?)
*Overall I would prefer a strict adherence to the constitution on the Federal level, with more state power.
* I am not a fan of globalization and it has not helped our economy for the long haul. Who was that guy who warned of that sucking sound? He was surprisingly right!
*Race relations I find to be a zombie issue, something that should be dead and buried but wont die! This is something I'm going to have to wait out, until boomers and early Xer's are moving out of power.
* I am not religious, but I think the rabid attacks on crosses marking roadside memorials, and nativity scenes at schools is ridiculous. It is actually authoritarian, and if someone has a big problem with it, Im sure the school/courthouse would allow anyone to support their holidays with a display.
*Legalize Pot, it is not dangerous, I dont even smoke it! 80% of prisoners are for non-violent drug crimes, and more people are imprisoned here then in china...something is wrong!
*Stop wars on intangible ideas War on Crime, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror. Every one of these has failed miserably. (not really important but...just stop!)

My stance on a lot of welfare programs is hard to place, mostly I find myself cynical. In the words of George Carlin "they dont give a f**k about you". He is right, they (meaning the gov-ment) does not care about you. If that is true welfare programs are not meant to help, but to coerce, and considering the track record of the War on Poverty, and the War on Drugs, they don't help. If you want to help people elevate to the middle class, I think it is better to support a charity (or volunteer like i do!) rather than force others to pay up because you feel like they should do something. I find that notion wrong, selfish, and immature.

Glen Beck is libertarian (economically) but with socially conservative views because he is religious. As you can see with my points above, I can sometimes agree with him....but a lot of times I can't! I think some on the left don't like him mostly cause he is religious and they find it threatening (I couldn't tell you why). He is also Mormon, and a lot of people do not like Mormon's. In Arizona their are many, and they are very very nice people, yet I have had to correct people because they believe falsehoods about the Mormon faith.

Many people get uncomfortable when he shows the founding fathers in a religious light. Which is stupid, because they are placing modern values on 1770's British citizens.

The founding fathers were religious it is not a problem (Jefferson was Deist probably because he was Jewish and couldn't practice it and maintain his place in the aristocracy), they used there belief in a higher power to assert inalienable rights. The point of all the god talk is to say "no mortal can ever take these away" because they are given to you by something more then any human could be. We forget that people perceived the king as a step below God, so the rights had to come from above the King. If you remove the idea of a higher power you then open the idea that rights are given by man, and thus, can be taken away by man.

Now, I don't believe in god...I dont think, Im still young and deciding, but im certainly not a religious person, and at most I think of religious texts as stories to have people lead good lives. (and guidelines on how not to die from pork!)

Glen Beck and Sarah Palin let the religion play too much into their platform for the mainstream. It really doesn't matter though because neither will run for office, the are more effective as punching bags, and rainmakers for republican candidates. The democratic party would be wise to stop focusing on these two, because they are only meant to draw the fire!

Originally Posted by Debol1990

I guess you could consider me pretty conservative, but not in the current "definition".

Pretty much everything you said falls within the realm of libertarianism. I would say that describes your views pretty well.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

I guess you could consider me pretty conservative, but not in the current "definition".

I don't fit into current party politics at all, and I find more and more Millies like me the older I get.

* End the Wars, and Oversea bases, focus on "defense"
*Abortion: Should be legal, at a point it gets iffy for me, once the child is viable outside the womb you run into problems.
*Gay Marriage, end Govt. sponsored benefits to Marriage, why is there even benefits to it? it is a private matter!
*I think the NEO-con world approach is wrong, And the way they have turned local police forces into law enforcement agencies (important difference) is disgusting
*with the above point : Patriot act, Military Commissions act and Gitmo need to go...now!
* All welfare programs need some serious work, I don't think they are necessarily bad but they don't appear to work well at all, housing projects, food stamps etc. They seem to feed the cycle of poverty more then lift people out of it.
*Government Agencies need to be cut if they are useless or infective. (why is there the NSA, DHS, FBI, and CIA cant the redundancy be fixed?)
*Overall I would prefer a strict adherence to the constitution on the Federal level, with more state power.
* I am not a fan of globalization and it has not helped our economy for the long haul. Who was that guy who warned of that sucking sound? He was surprisingly right!
*Race relations I find to be a zombie issue, something that should be dead and buried but wont die! This is something I'm going to have to wait out, until boomers and early Xer's are moving out of power.
* I am not religious, but I think the rabid attacks on crosses marking roadside memorials, and nativity scenes at schools is ridiculous. It is actually authoritarian, and if someone has a big problem with it, Im sure the school/courthouse would allow anyone to support their holidays with a display.
*Legalize Pot, it is not dangerous, I dont even smoke it! 80% of prisoners are for non-violent drug crimes, and more people are imprisoned here then in china...something is wrong!
*Stop wars on intangible ideas War on Crime, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror. Every one of these has failed miserably. (not really important but...just stop!)

My stance on a lot of welfare programs is hard to place, mostly I find myself cynical. In the words of George Carlin "they dont give a f**k about you". He is right, they (meaning the gov-ment) does not care about you. If that is true welfare programs are not meant to help, but to coerce, and considering the track record of the War on Poverty, and the War on Drugs, they don't help. If you want to help people elevate to the middle class, I think it is better to support a charity (or volunteer like i do!) rather than force others to pay up because you feel like they should do something. I find that notion wrong, selfish, and immature.

Glen Beck is libertarian (economically) but with socially conservative views because he is religious. As you can see with my points above, I can sometimes agree with him....but a lot of times I can't! I think some on the left don't like him mostly cause he is religious and they find it threatening (I couldn't tell you why). He is also Mormon, and a lot of people do not like Mormon's. In Arizona their are many, and they are very very nice people, yet I have had to correct people because they believe falsehoods about the Mormon faith.

Many people get uncomfortable when he shows the founding fathers in a religious light. Which is stupid, because they are placing modern values on 1770's British citizens.

The founding fathers were religious it is not a problem (Jefferson was Deist probably because he was Jewish and couldn't practice it and maintain his place in the aristocracy), they used there belief in a higher power to assert inalienable rights. The point of all the god talk is to say "no mortal can ever take these away" because they are given to you by something more then any human could be. We forget that people perceived the king as a step below God, so the rights had to come from above the King. If you remove the idea of a higher power you then open the idea that rights are given by man, and thus, can be taken away by man.

Now, I don't believe in god...I dont think, Im still young and deciding, but im certainly not a religious person, and at most I think of religious texts as stories to have people lead good lives. (and guidelines on how not to die from pork!)

Glen Beck and Sarah Palin let the religion play too much into their platform for the mainstream. It really doesn't matter though because neither will run for office, the are more effective as punching bags, and rainmakers for republican candidates. The democratic party would be wise to stop focusing on these two, because they are only meant to draw the fire!

Your flippant remark of Jefferson made me do some individual research:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-02-2...-sally-hemings

&

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/475/w...-jewish-genes/

And for the record, I agree with the majority of the points you make in your post.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by BookishXer

If so, it's not surprising. "Honor" is a very positive word that carries very positive connotations. Generally, people want to posess honor (and receive honor.) It's a term that can be used to manipulate a group of people who are otherwise feeling vulnerable, disenfranchised and undervalued.

Many people define "honor" as "face" and "face" as something lost if anyone is allowed to show you disrespect.

"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. Guard your honor and let your reputation fall where it will." Aral Vorkosigan.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Many people define "honor" as "face" and "face" as something lost if anyone is allowed to show you disrespect.

"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. Guard your honor and let your reputation fall where it will." Aral Vorkosigan.

Oh, what do those neo-barbarians know? ™

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Oh, what do those neo-barbarians know? ™

How do you define them?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Pretty much everything you said falls within the realm of libertarianism. I would say that describes your views pretty well.

Yes, I do rely on libertarian thought a lot because the other two political parties have a tyrannical approach to everything!

My bias mostly stems from the mid 2000's

I guess as a Kid and watching disaster movies of the mid 90's I assumed no matter what crazy event happened, there would be someone their to help you.

Katrina basically ruined that for me, which is why I hold it as the catalyst. When we can get water too Pakistani's in a matter of hours, but can't get it to the Super-dome in 5 days, their is a fundamental problem in our system.

Combined with Katrina, was the obvious reality that the government had sent us to war with no reason and no plan. THey bungled the entire process and let Bin Laden slip away. Rumsfeld telling the troops they just have to deal with no body Armour? disgusting! I could understand if it were WWII and they couldn't make it fast enough, but Rumsfeld wanted to prove a point.

The only time they appeared to be competent was hiding their own bullshit, like the WMD debacle. Or secret prisons across the globe.

I live in AZ so Tillman was a big deal here, but after all of the shit during that time, the one thing the government did well, was drum up a fake story about a man who died in vain, so they could get fake support for a bullshit war! And the Tillman story went straight to the top! The worst part was, nobody cared that he died of friendly fire in the end, It was war, shit happens, it was the cover-up. They used the legacy of a good man to reach their own terrible goal; that about did me in.

And nothing that has happened in the last 5 years makes me believe things are better, I actually think they are worse, and a Katrina sized disaster would have us even less prepared. I don't ask for the government to improve anymore, because I don't think they can, unless the system falls a part and we can get some new people in DC.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

I guess you could consider me pretty conservative, but not in the current "definition".

I don't fit into current party politics at all, and I find more and more Millies like me the older I get.

* End the Wars, and Oversea bases, focus on "defense"
*Abortion: Should be legal, at a point it gets iffy for me, once the child is viable outside the womb you run into problems.
*Gay Marriage, end Govt. sponsored benefits to Marriage, why is there even benefits to it? it is a private matter!
*I think the NEO-con world approach is wrong, And the way they have turned local police forces into law enforcement agencies (important difference) is disgusting
*with the above point : Patriot act, Military Commissions act and Gitmo need to go...now!
* All welfare programs need some serious work, I don't think they are necessarily bad but they don't appear to work well at all, housing projects, food stamps etc. They seem to feed the cycle of poverty more then lift people out of it.
*Government Agencies need to be cut if they are useless or infective. (why is there the NSA, DHS, FBI, and CIA cant the redundancy be fixed?)
*Overall I would prefer a strict adherence to the constitution on the Federal level, with more state power.
* I am not a fan of globalization and it has not helped our economy for the long haul. Who was that guy who warned of that sucking sound? He was surprisingly right!
*Race relations I find to be a zombie issue, something that should be dead and buried but wont die! This is something I'm going to have to wait out, until boomers and early Xer's are moving out of power.
* I am not religious, but I think the rabid attacks on crosses marking roadside memorials, and nativity scenes at schools is ridiculous. It is actually authoritarian, and if someone has a big problem with it, Im sure the school/courthouse would allow anyone to support their holidays with a display.
*Legalize Pot, it is not dangerous, I dont even smoke it! 80% of prisoners are for non-violent drug crimes, and more people are imprisoned here then in china...something is wrong!
*Stop wars on intangible ideas War on Crime, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror. Every one of these has failed miserably. (not really important but...just stop!)

My stance on a lot of welfare programs is hard to place, mostly I find myself cynical. In the words of George Carlin "they dont give a f**k about you". He is right, they (meaning the gov-ment) does not care about you. If that is true welfare programs are not meant to help, but to coerce, and considering the track record of the War on Poverty, and the War on Drugs, they don't help. If you want to help people elevate to the middle class, I think it is better to support a charity (or volunteer like i do!) rather than force others to pay up because you feel like they should do something. I find that notion wrong, selfish, and immature.

Glen Beck is libertarian (economically) but with socially conservative views because he is religious. As you can see with my points above, I can sometimes agree with him....but a lot of times I can't! I think some on the left don't like him mostly cause he is religious and they find it threatening (I couldn't tell you why). He is also Mormon, and a lot of people do not like Mormon's. In Arizona their are many, and they are very very nice people, yet I have had to correct people because they believe falsehoods about the Mormon faith.

Many people get uncomfortable when he shows the founding fathers in a religious light. Which is stupid, because they are placing modern values on 1770's British citizens.

The founding fathers were religious it is not a problem (Jefferson was Deist probably because he was Jewish and couldn't practice it and maintain his place in the aristocracy), they used there belief in a higher power to assert inalienable rights. The point of all the god talk is to say "no mortal can ever take these away" because they are given to you by something more then any human could be. We forget that people perceived the king as a step below God, so the rights had to come from above the King. If you remove the idea of a higher power you then open the idea that rights are given by man, and thus, can be taken away by man.

Now, I don't believe in god...I dont think, Im still young and deciding, but im certainly not a religious person, and at most I think of religious texts as stories to have people lead good lives. (and guidelines on how not to die from pork!)

Glen Beck and Sarah Palin let the religion play too much into their platform for the mainstream. It really doesn't matter though because neither will run for office, the are more effective as punching bags, and rainmakers for republican candidates. The democratic party would be wise to stop focusing on these two, because they are only meant to draw the fire!

Thanks! I enjoyed reading your analysis of your own philosophy. Interestingly, though I think of myself as a "flaming liberal with a room-full of guns," I find congenial many of your views. As a native Rocky Mountain westerner, my form of "liberalism" may lean to the individual liberty sort. I'm definitely one who wants to be simply left alone if I'm not bothering anyone else.

For myself, I can't listen to Beck for more than a few minutes, and I find Palin to be willfully ignorant. The anti-intellectual aspect that I see from many of the self-styled conservatives bothers me. That's one reason I like this site - "our" conservatives can hold up a train of thought and make one examine more closely one's own beliefs.