Haha, no, it doesn't matter.

Learning to spell won't suddenly make him a journalist who is required to have at least a passing relationship with truth or sanity.

Why is OUR President surrounding himself with Communists and Marxist advisors? This to me is VERY frightning. I hve been seeing and hearing this on Beck's program. If this is not true, I will stand corrected!

Please, let them NOT change our Constitution.

There you have it, the typical leftist attitude that if anyone isn't in lock step with them it is just because they aren't as "learned" as them.  Democrats and leftists don't watch TV?  Ha!  Why on Earth would every network other than Fox just totally cater to the left then?  I think that people who tune in to Fox are looking for something other than the Democratic talking points and snarky Republican bashing that is a constant on the other networks.

I'll put my husband's reading and radio listening experience up against anyone on the left's. 

This is why I watch FOX. They report, YOU decide!

Don't get hung up on this. That's one guy, not the perspective of the average progressive. Fact is books are expensive, no one I know except my uncle who works for the LA times and gets sent books for free actually reads even 200 bucks worth of books a month, liberal or democrat. Basically all new books cost 20-40 bucks since they're almost always hardback at first, and I think most people can polish off a book in 4 days or so, so clearly someone whose sole news source would be finishing them every 1-3 days. That means we're at what, 30 bucks every say two days, aka 15 books a month, aka about 450 bucks a month ignoring sales tax? That doesn't represent the majority of any political consituency, and the guy who made that statement doesn't reflect my perspective on liberals or conservatives, and I'm a liberal.

This is kind of a funny statement though. Fox News gets more viewership than the majority of the other news networks combined, does it not? Who's to say those other networks aren't the counterpoint to Fox's right-wing talking points and democrat bashing?

The truth is that they're all owned by massive corporations and they report whatever will make money, which seems very much in line with the republican's perspective of the free market, aka it's fair game and it shouldn't be complained about.

I'm sure he reads a lot, my family is generally very catholic and fairly wealthy, so we have a lot of conservatives in our clan and some of them do read a lot. That being said, listening to the radio is pretty much just a good way to double up on your fox news intake if you're listening to Beck, O'Reily and Limbaugh (yes I realize he doesn't have a show on Fox), unless you're listening to radio stations with distinctly different approaches, like NPR.

Obama doesn't have Communist or Marxist advisors. But Fox&Friends say so.  And they WANT you to be frightened because frightened people don't think but follow the herd. And leading the herd are those that scream loudest, not those that think and act calmly.

 

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt

First off that's now how changing the constitution works. The president has no direct role in the process of accepting an amendment. It needs to either be proposed by Congress or a collection of state legislatures, and regardless of how it's proposed, it must be passed by the state legislatures.

When I look at the in-fighting and lack of cohesion when it comes to health care I just can't see the democrats getting a radical constitutional amendment through Congress and it then surviving at the state level.

The only real way for a president to change the constitution is by manipulating the supreme court through the seating of judges aligned to his political perspective, and when you look at the history of the supreme court you can see that's a very long and unpredictable process. Until just recently with Alito and Roberts, the republicans have had very poor luck getting the judges they appoint to follow the party line, why would it be easier for the democrats, especially when Obama picked a moderate like Sotomayor? Even Alito and Roberts can't be trusted to vote conservative forever, judges tend to gravitate towards the center over time.

As for whether Obama's Czars are radicals, bear in mind the first Czar was appointed by Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes had theirs too. Critiques of the history of specific czars are fair game and I'd love to read honest reviews of them, but the stuff I pulled up on a cursory google search of the issue (including a link to Beck's site) were very slanted and didn't really seem that compelling to me.

 

Slanted because of where you found the info..?  Why is it if a specific piece of information comes from a particular source it is automatically slanted. The quotes and videos and audio he plays isnt him slanting it. He isn't putting the words in their mouths.

It is them.. saying it.

 

As far as Czar history goes, No communist or 'former' self proclaimed communist's or Marxxist's really spring to mind.

The problem isn't the Czars, it is who they are and what they believe.

Here's the glenn beck list of czars btw, I only see one on there that's even remotely objectionable:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/

 

There's 32 of them from my cursory examination (I have to leave for class in about 5 minutes) it looks like Beck doesn't even object to at least 30 of them.

The fact that there's 32 of those people kind of undermines the notion of them being czars, as the original definition is of a person who claims the same rank as a roman emporer. I never heard of 32 emporers ruling rome together.

Also the term "surrounding" seems to imply a much more personal level of interaction than Obama's likely to have with 32 of these people in addition to his own cabinet, vice president, and other lawmakers. They're important cogs, but they're still just cogs nonetheless.

Lastly when you have to find 32 people who have ideas which are workable with your own to direct major national issues it's highly likely that the pool you can draw from is so narrow that some will have said some questionable things in their past, and it's also probable with 32 of them that one or two will be a mistake, which some of them may very well be. Pointing those out is fair game too.

However, claiming Obama is intentionally surrounding himself with communists in an implied attempt to overthrow democracy is not a legitimate argument.

Cass Sunstein

Yeah there is obviously nothing objectionable about this guy as long as your between 2 and 60,

If animals could vote, this guy would be a shoe in.

They believe we are too stupid to make our own choices. news flash... a lot of us aren't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhgvJfPRkG8

 

John Holdren

In his own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F29t52MQBrQ&feature=fvw

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyp2iw0qu9E&feature=related

 

What is it you don't find objectionable about this?

 

Theres plenty more and personally I think 'surrounding' is a perfectly acceptable way to describe the Czar - Obama relationship. Much the same way he surrounded himself with racist preachers, radicals, homegrown terrorists, 'typical white people' and the like on his way up.

 

Its..... a.... pattern... of ... behaviour.

 

Funny you mention that. Beck's faith started out under the ideology that all money should go to the church and then be redistributed so everyone was equal. When it fell apart because no one wanted to share their money, they imposed a compulsory 10% tax on it's members. So they have gone from a communist ideology to a Marxist ideology when it comes to their members money.

Watch out..Van Jones might join the Mormons next.

Sure, I agree with that, however Mormons have their own issues, have no bearing on my existence and irrelevant to this discussion.

Just a minor point - DrJBHL mentioned USA having an Advanced Democracy; in fact representative democracy shouldn't even have the d-word there, because its more akin to oligarchy than anything to do with the rule of the people.

When each voter gets a unique ID token which can be used from a home computer to vote on day-to-day matters, then you can talk about democracy. As it stands, no country in the world can claim to be a democratic one.

Of course, the current system is in place because while an individual may be competent, smart and informed, masses are dumb, fearful and violent. Best not to let them express their opinion too often, eh.

P.S. You guys have some first-class nutter entertainers over there... our guys here in the Balkans are nothing compared to yours!

I would like to make a comment on universal healthcare.  There is a massive debate in the USA about creating  government involvement  in healthcare.  I understand why americann`s would be tentative about a change like this.

 

I`m going to reference my own experience as a canadian with universal healthcare.  It`s exspensive, Every paycheck 33% is paid in provincial and federal income tax.  A large portion of that goes to fund the healthcare system.  I wouldn`t trade it for anything in the world.  If I`m sick, If I need help for anything it`s there.  There are problems with it, Wait time`s to see a specialist as the number one.  Overall, I feel it is well worth the investment. 

 

I couldn`t imagine going through life knowing that a significant injury could backrupt me.  I couldn`t imagine walking around uninsured knowing an illness could kill me because my wallet wasn`t large enough to be considered worthy of treating.

 

IMO, Healthcare should not be a for profit industry.  Healthcare should be focused on the patient, Not the bottom line.