I find it highly doubtful that Feodor has ever listened closely to anything Beck has ever said. He certainly acts like the typical lefty who attacks the speaker without ever addressing the points the speaker makes. So here's the challenge if Feodor is man enough to take it: Watch Beck for a week. Write down some "facts", accusations or questions that he raises, about any policy or appointment of Obama, and then show us all why Beck is off his rocker. I think Feodor lacks both the balls as well as the intelligence to to take up such a challenge. Until Feo can do that, he's only releasing more gaseous emissions, which is OK considering Marshall Art's is equipped with numerous air fresheners, scented candles and a kickass ventilation system for jsut that very reason.
Beck doesn't demand a "close" listen, just a roll of the eyes:
Beck: "The President is a Marxist."
Feodor: "1) No, he is not calling for workers to unite and overthrow the European powers.
2) He is not alling for the erasure of all private property and combining into one mass social ownership of the means of production and the labor in that production.
3) He is not calling for the erasure of any private property except those who volunteered to throw away their old gas guzzlers.
4) No, the President does not believe surplus labor is undeserved money in the pocket of the owners of production.
5) He does not hold that laws and powers are grounded in a subversive cover up of the materialist ground of being.
6) I don't even thing the President knows what these last two mean, much less any of you bums.
Beck is a liar, an ignorant, irresponsibly inflammatory liar. Therefore, Beck is a danger to the common good.
Like a herpes, Feodor returns. He's been gone for a while, but it feels like only moments. It leaves one to wonder if it is Christian to be annoying just because it brings so much joy to be absent.
So, to respond:
1) Just as it would spoil things for Satan should he prove his own existence, no one will announce they are Marxist or engage in any overtly Marxist activities. Such things are always done in small increments. But it does give one pause to realize all the people with whom Barry has surrounded himself, both before and after his election. So many people with so many wacky ideas and we're to believe Barry is unlike them all. I guess that makes sense for those who consider him the messiah. Christ spent time with sinners, after all.
2) Yet he has stuck his nose into private businesses making demands of all sorts. Small increments, dude.
3) Again, he won't do anything overtly. But every move he makes suggests the same ends to anyone who will put aside their Obama worship and think logically. For those like yourself, simply ask a grownup.
4) I'll believe that when he no longer looks to the wealthy to fund even more than they do through taxation.
5) He holds that the Constitution lacks any help for the common man, when the whole purpose of it was to restrain gov't from interfering in the lives of the governed.
6) I don't think you know much of anything, but it's always comical to to see you try to show otherwise.
"Beck is a liar, an ignorant, irresponsibly inflammatory liar. Therefore, Beck is a danger to the common good."
That's just your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions: Opinions are like assholes, and you're an asshole. But all seriousness aside, Beck provides actual footage and quotes of the people he exposes as potential trouble. You've provided nothing but baseless allegations about his truthfulness. Thus, your opinion, on it's own, is worthless here. As my challenge stated, take something he's said and prove it wrong. YOUR saying it's wrong isn't the same thing and I would expect an allegedly educated boy like yourself to understand the distinction.
"That was easy."
Indeed. Simply saying, "he's wrong" is easy. Proving he's wrong requires more effort than you're capable of bringing to bear.
"Marshall, you want to defend the "Death Panels" canard?"
Except to lefty buffoons like yourself, "death panels" is a term used to describe the logical result of HR3200, not that it contains any reference to an actual "DEATH PANEL". It is believed by those who actually use common sense that the expense of this folly would eventually result in a determination of who gets what in terms of treatments. It is also likely that private companies will find it harder and harder to compete with a gov't entity that can mandate prices and payments for services, so that there will be fewer options in the long run. This means rationing will occur, whether they say otherwise at this point or not.
"You really think there were golden tablets old Joe Smith found with the Angel Moroni's help?"
Of course not. That's total bullshit, just like it's bullshit that you have a point other than what protrudes from the top of your head. But if you think that such a belief, assuming Beck holds it, matters one iota as to whether or not he's on to something regarding the Barry Obrother! administration, then you're a far bigger idiot than you think Beck is, which really goes without saying. You are aware, I would imagine, that there are many who accuse any believer in deity to be foolish.
I find it unfortunate the Beck is a Mormon. I find it unfortunate that Christopher Hitchens is an atheist. I also find it unfortunate that some might see YOU as an example of a typcial Christian, a poor an example as you are. One's personal faith does not reflect all aspects of one's intelligence. How stupid of you to make such an assumption about anyone.
God, Marshall, you can't even live up to your own expectations. All you've done is spread baseless accusations, stacking fallacious ad hominem after ad hominem (as Bubba perfers), with one, and only one real issue named: raising taxes on the rich - something backed by Bloomberg, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.
But then, you are probably one those flakes who think taxing is a Marxist policy per se, which would necessarily damn both parties much less the American people.
You're just a propaganda whore, Marshall, who cannot care for reasonable arguments. You're too busy trying to scare people into "believing" (your words not mine) lies about "Death Panels" along with your bedmate: the guy who believes in the Angel Moroni.
If you can believe big lies, like Beck and yourself, it's not hard at all to throw a whole bunch of little lies.
Goodness. As I would have guessed, Feodor, the false priest, can only take the Lord's name in vain, rather than to answer the simple challenge. The effect of his name-calling toward me is as a small child's attempt to harm me with a punch, that is, insignificant.
I've spread no allegations, baseless or otherwise, but only insisted you respond to charges leveled by Beck, a man who's intelligence you question (a laughable proposition considering the your lack of same). As I've read and heard the words of those he features on his show, I find it appalling, if not the least bit surprising, that lefty loons like Feodor aren't the least bit concerned with those who surround and advise the president and the likely direction he will take the nation as a result.
Imagine your own self, Feodor, in a position of authority and responsibility (allow me a moment to laugh aloud at the mere suggestion), and to advise you, you appoint sluts, masturbators, smack freaks and smelly slobs. Do you not suppose that people of character would then wonder at what might result?
The same is true now, as Americans wonder at the effect radicals will have on the direction of this nation, radicals appointed, not elected, who have at best a dubious history and track record. Only a fool (and that is redundant to say considering to whom I now speak) would feel at ease and suppose nothing untoward would result. To see such people in the embrace of a US president should give everyone pause to say the very least.
So you have the challenge yet before you: how has Beck erred in his concern? Where has he gone wrong in his assessment of the people appointed by Barry Omygoodness? What has Beck said of these people that is untrue and how can you support that counterpoint with something more meaningful than your worthless opinion?
First you wanted me to take on the Mormon Beck regarding any "'facts', accusations or questions that he raises, about any policy or appointment of Obama"
I did. And didn't need to watch another minute to show how outlandishly stupid he is on that issue. That you cannot follow up because you, too, don't understand the facts and policies of Marxism is your problem.
That Beck carries on so far on something he doesn't understand, and doesn't really care to, should not be surprising to any of us who find the Mormon faith to have incredulous tendencies.
And you follow him faithfully.
Now, having lost at your first challenge, you want to shift and challenge me to refute these "facts":
[Obama] "appoint sluts, masturbators, smack freaks and smelly slobs."
And you say I'm name calling?
As Bubba might say, ad hominem like yours are unimpeachable... because they are so irrational, so baseless, and meant to be so misdirecting from normal discourse as to suggest that you are already flying high with the Angel Moroni (professed regret notwithstanding).
Who can follow you who does not have your unreason... or Beck's Book of Mormon.
You're drunk, aren't you, Feo? What else but mid-morning drunkeness or blatant stupidity can explain the inane responses that show no understanding of simple English? I've shifted nothing as I'm still trying to get you to support your trashing of Beck's statements, which you haven't done. All you have done is express your opinion that you don't agree. I get that. What I want to know is why. Why do you think Beck is wrong about the points he makes regarding Obama and his appointees? This is the same question I asked in the beginning even if it's worded differently. Your answer amounts to no more than "because". Apparently you, like a one or two others who visit here, believe that because Obama never states outright, "I am a Marxist and intended to govern as one until America is totally a Marxist state", he'll never act with Marxist leanings. What a naive putz. Yet strangely, you think that Beck's faith should be of some concern. In typical lefty sheep fashion, you have determined that those on the right are incapable of separating themselves from their personal infuences, but your political messiahs can be neck deep in radical associations without themselves being radical. What an idiot you are!
And speaking of idiots, that is, you, it was not Obama that I said appointed sluts and the like. Really read my comments, you buffoon, or don't waste my time trying to dispute them.
So I haven't lost anything with you yet, my false priest and psuedo-intellectual fool. I can't lose while you refuse to even step up to the plate.
Marshall, how could you forget. It's so much easier to trash Beck for his religion. Because it is so obvious that adherence to certain religions automatically makes one an idiot and unworthy of expressing themselves.
Indeed, Craig. Too bad it's a one-way street. The left bristled when JFK's Catholicism was held against him. But Bush as an Evangelical or Beck/Romney as a Mormon? Perish the thought. Well fine. Trash their faith, I say. But first tell me where the man's wrong on policy or other positions. Feodor has so far shown no ability to do this. No surprise to me.
It seems as though ones faith or lack thereof (with the exception of the real loons perhaps) should not be an issue in these types of discussions. For example, Keith Ellison's Muslim faith is not and should not be a bar to his service in the house. Nor should it disqualify him from the public square.
But it's so much easier to bash someone for their faith, than anything substantive.
"It's so much easier to trash Beck for his religion. Because it is so obvious that adherence to certain religions automatically makes one an idiot and unworthy of expressing themselves."
"Indeed, Craig. Too bad it's a one-way street. The left bristled when JFK's Catholicism was held against him."
JFK?
Marshall tries to act innocent.
Jeremiah Wright. ______________
And painting Bush as representative of evangelicalism begs the question.
There are more kinds of evangelicals than Bush and Ashcroft.
Jimmy Carter, Jim Wallis, etc. etc. etc.
_______________
But we are not talking about Catholicism, large enough to contain many different political ideologies and not just in America.
We are not talking about Evangelicalism, large enough to contain many different political ideologies, and not just in America.
We are talking about a hermetic, almost entirely mono-cultural, cult with its own security force and a machinery geared toward youth indoctrination and which only recanted polygamy in order to survive it's host country and only very recently - within my lifetime - "drew back" a philosophy that considered those of African descent to be naturally inferior.
All this and the golden tablets as pointed out by the Angel Moroni are in a completely different class from all the Christian denominations that consider Jesus Christ to be pointed to fully and sufficiently in the New Testament.
And the cocooned, apocalyptic life of Mormon faith joins in with Beck's horrific early traumas and his addiction issues and cooks up an entertainer who presents the Rockefeller Center, a proudly Art Deco project from the Progressive Era aesthetics of the 1930s as a subversive Communist piece of architecture influencing...
This is now two things on which Beck's positions and/or policy or, really, inflammatory and baseless propaganda are empty, vain, and corrupt:
1. That we have a Marxist/Socialist adminstration because it wants to provide affordable health care for those who are poor and/or struggling to keep from being poor. This President? Whose administration has opted to keep Wall Street intact enough to drive recovery, AIG, despite its many huge, huge sins, alive so that insurance companies the world over wont collapse. And floats the automakers, ready to let some die, but only as triage to keep the "fittest" alive. Marxist, yeah...
2. The Rockefeller Center is a subliminal communist beacon. Rockefeller! The guy who owned Standard Oil, right? And who shot all those miners for striking? Communist, yeah...
Who's "Anonymous"? Must be the frog in Feodor's pocket.
Feodor,
Try and understand simple English. I asked for your evidence to overturn the charges and positions Beck has presented. I did NOT ask for your dissertation on what Obama SAYS or THINKS he's doing for America. Consider that both parties often speak of the same destination but part on the roads to take there.
So Obama isn't socialist BECAUSE he wants everyone to have health care, he's socialist because of the means by which he thinks it should be provided. He certainly isn't promoting free market initiatives to get the job done, any more than he has to "fix" the other areas you've listed.
So once again, Beck's religion or alcoholism has NOTHING to do with this discussion, unless you can draw a definitive connection between either and his perspectives regarding Obama and his many czars and appointees. I doubt you can, because you don't even see a problem with appointing someone who sees forced sterilization as a real consideration in the future, or someone who thinks pets are entitled to lawyers, or someone who thinks free speech is overblown, or the myriad other freak show escapees with whom Obama surrounds himself. Beck's personal history has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of any of these claims. They are public knowledge. He sees their presence within our government as a problem. THAT'S the issue. Try to address it for a change or save your otherwise tedious commentary for some other blog.
Can the non sequiturs. Even if you could prove his mental status, it would still have nothing to do with the truthfulness of his claims, which, as I have stated, are public knowledge. That's how Beck came to know them as well, fool. He played the clips of their words, printed exerpts of their books and articles. There's nothing he has said that others couldn't say had they taken to the time to look at Obama's appointees as he has. So cut the crap and respond to the charges he makes. I don't care what his religion is. I don't care if he's an alcoholic. I don't care what he's said about other things. I believe what he says because what he's said is true and factual. Dispute it if you can or hold your forked tongue.
Marshall, you just don't get it. My point, to boil it down to your level is that you are not asking me to refute his positions - which are ludicrous to the most casual, independent, observer.
You are asking me to refute your belief in him. That I cannot do while your attention to reasonable thinking is hat checked at the door of your spurious and self-serving religious crust.
When he says the President is a socialist, he has abandoned any rational use of the word, socialist. When he says the Rockefeller Center is lavished with veiled and subversive communistic art, he demonstrates that he has yet to take an art history course, and he abandons all common sense understanding of communism.
He is simply the Barnum version of McCarthy; the Bailey version of the father of hate radio: Father Charles Coughlin (Roman Catholic, by the way, just to be balanced).
Part and parcel with these grandiose irrationalities is the fact that Beck is a member, not just of a religion, as you put it, but of a incredibly fanciful one that has a history of bizarre social and martial behavior.
That you cannot admit any of that - all of which conflicts with your vaunted but now absent Christian fundamentalism - is testimony that you are not requesting any such thing as thinking.
You are asking to be deprogrammed from the cult of Beck belief.
It is inconceivable that someone so stupid can be so pride-filled as to assume he possesses the capacity for divining the true heart of another. Considering how far off base your statement is, you sorry representation of American education, I find it hard to believe you can function normally in everyday life. Such is the vast stupidity of your words.
I believe in Beck? Are you just purposely saying crap for lack of intelligent alternatives? I want you to read the words to come slowly, sounding them out with dictionary nearby, a five-year old child beside you to help with the tough parts. Ready? Here it is then:
I do not believe in Beck. I am asking you to show why his words about Obama and our government are not true.
I don't care what you think of him personally. I don't care about what hangs in the Rockefeller Center. I don't care what you think I'm REALLY asking you. I want you to either answer that question, or take a freakin' hike.
Poor Feo. He feels I suffer from fearful fascism. But my true malady is weariness. I'm tired of comments that have nothing to do with the point or the questions asked. I guess it's my fault for letting the troll take us off course, but I can re-direct as I choose. He'll need to respond as requested before I'll let his droll commentary stand. Read them while you can if you care to. Until he complies, his keystrokes will prove wasted.
If I were you, I'd check your post again. It seems to be a pointless Blues Clues cover that does nothing so much as raise the question whether Tim Hawkins is Joe Wilson's (R-SC) son-in-law.
You fail to respond on the points regarding Beck's unoriginal lunatic painting of the President as a Marxist/Socialist.
Because you cherish the lunacy.
You fail to respond on the points regarding Beck's psychotic presentation of the Rockefeller Center as a subliminal Communist message.
Because you cherish the lunacy.
Can't talk you out of your well-worn rubbing of fallacy, Marshall.
I'm leaving Feo's last, just cuz I feel like pointing out the obvious, which is that he's an idiot.
"It seems to be a pointless Blues Clues cover that does nothing so much as raise the question whether Tim Hawkins is Joe Wilson's (R-SC) son-in-law."
What's this? Humor? Another attempt at cleverness? Ah, I know. It's another example of how Feo is too stupid/cowardly/braindead to argue any point of the parody, but instead, just maligns the artist, and at the same time, Joe Wilson, who told it like it is, even though he unfortunately did it like a lefty. (I saw an example of numerous Dems openly criticizing Bush 43 in the same venue--not just one of them, like Wilson, but a crowd of them vocalizing their dislike of Bush's words during a speech--I hate it when right-wingers act like lefties.)
"You fail to respond on the points regarding Beck's unoriginal lunatic painting of the President as a Marxist/Socialist."
Try reading my comments in their entirety for a change. Already responded, and quite well. Find someone to help you understand them. More importantly, I call the shots here regarding what points are addressed. You like to think that you can redirect as you please, especially when you are unable to answer to the real point being made, but you need your own blog to do that, or, in your case, permission to do it here.
"Because you cherish the lunacy."
I cherish answers to the questions Beck raises about the state of this administration. Questions to which you apparently are incapable of providing any explanation.
"You fail to respond on the points regarding Beck's psychotic presentation of the Rockefeller Center as a subliminal Communist message."
Again, you don't call the shots. But if you are going to try to make a point, provide a link so that I can at least know what the hell you're talking about. I'm sure you've missed Beck's point about the artwork in the RC, because you're an idiot.
"Can't talk you out of your well-worn rubbing of fallacy, Marshall."
Not by your simply saying something isn't true. You've no credibility, shown no proof you know anything about the issues Beck raises. Why would I take the word of a fool and false priest like yourself? Lies and falsehood are the basis of your worldview. So it's not enough for you to day that Beck is goofy. You'll need, anyone will need, to show why he's wrong after he has provided clear evidence to support his charges. He's provided film of the words of these people who Obama has appointed to over 30 posts. He's provided exerpts of their books and articles. You've provided only your stupid comments void of any substance.
The funny part is you think I'm somehow afraid of "taking you on". What a pathetic notion. It's as if I declined a challenge to go five rounds with a four year old and the kid's calling me a coward for blowing him off.
The reality is you are a stupid man and a coward yourself for continually dodging the issue and the simple challenge I put before you, a challenge your own goofy comments about Beck have provoked. I get that you don't like the guy. I get that clearly. He's shown far more smarts than you have ever shown in any blog where I've seen you post. His questions are sound and important and worthy questions to ask about this president, this administration and this government in general. If you can't answer them, I've no use for you at all and your comments only foul my blog for their lack of substance.
Give it up, Feo, ya loser. You've called nothing but attention to your own inanity. Get a life and a clue. Will you ever offer anything in support of your charges, or simply claim "fallacy"? If the latter, comment deletion will result. Clown.
"Joe Wilson, who told it like it is, even though he unfortunately did it like a lefty."
Yeah...Code Pink style...
Looks like it raised him some support too, but the Iraq Vet running against him is raising even more suppport. Should be an interesting race. One I'm keeping my eye on.
Try some honesty for a change. Just admit you are incapable of responding to the question and call it a day. Your lame attempts to dodge don't cut it. Beck supports his contentions with the words of those he has scrutinized. You defend them by saying Beck is a Mormon. You're an idiot with nothing to offer but psuedo-intellectual crapola.
Call me any names you like, Feo. Coming from you it's meaningless. But as I said, I'm not going to let you re-direct the conversation everytime you don't like the question posed to you. I don't care about dialectical materialism as it is irrelevant to the point. I don't care about the artwork in the Rockefeller Center, which, by the way, could have been done to Rocky's specifications, so the artist's previous work doesn't support whatever case you think you've made. (Artists do that, you know)
No. Instead, I insist you stick to the point, which you brought up initially, you putz. You mock Beck for his past struggles and his choice of religion (like a good American and a good Christian priest---NOT) and ignore the points he makes, which are the supported by the words of the people Beck is exposing. His conclusions, therefor, are logical and worthy of consideration by every American, media person and member of Congress. You are too stupid and cowardly to understand that, OR worse, you agree with these radical people who would lead us away from the principles upon which this country is based, which of course is stupid, too.
You think me cowardly for deleting your comments. Hardly. I graciously let you turn the conversation from Tim Hawkins' right-on-the-money parody, which BTW, you, as with Beck, mocked without any substantial argument, to Beck, and then, without substantial argument to support your disparagement of his work, you again try to change the subject. That makes YOU the coward and makes me just a host trying to maintain control of the direction of the conversation on MY blog, tired of your lame diversionary tactics and your sorry attempts to appear thoughtful and intelligent. You are neither. What you are and insist on being gives you no rights here and your presence itself is granted out of my own sense of giving even a pathetic soul like yourself "just one more chance".
Insist on doing things your way and I will continue to delete your comments. It's up to you.
"Marshall, you have yet to pose a question that has any basis of reason in it."
That you are incapable of divining the reason is on you. Perhaps an adult can help you with that.
"So, we already know that you're not interested in thought from the start."
Who's "we"? You and the lice in your hair? The truth is I'm not interested in what passes for thought in your fevered mind. REAL thought is another matter.
"If you ask about Marxism, I'll tell you. In fact, I have."
I didn't, and you didn't either. You simply said it wasn't true. Not good enough.
"If you ask about Progressive Era art, I'll tell you. In fact, I have."
I didn't and likely won't. But you didn't actually respond to your own attacks on Beck's alleged questioning of Rockefeller Center artwork. You again simply attacked the messenger without ever addressing his message. Listing other works of the artist doesn't do it, as I've said.
I don't care about your book review, especially considering you didn't provide either the book being reviewed or the person doing the reviewing. (Don't waste your time responding---I'm not interested) If the book being reviewed is Beck's, the review doesn't contain anything more than simply trashing the messenger without addressing the message. Sorta like you. Just because a reviewer is as cowardly as you in avoiding the essence of that message and addressing that essence directly, doesn't give your own cowardice any more credibility. It only means there are other fools in existence like yourself. I already knew that.
Anytime you feel like staying on point and discussing the topics at hand, I'll be more than happy to explain why your position is stupid. Until then, I'll continue to delete your nonsensical and irrelevant comments. Buh-bye now.
Yes, I do have unanswered questions. They refer to the unsupported negative attitude regarding Glen Beck. They refer to his positions regarding the current administration and the state of our gov't, positions he has supported with the actual words of the people with whom he's concerned. YOU, however, have only crapped on the guy because of his faith and struggles with alcohol. Even your goofy crap about the Rockefeller Center has gone without a proper argument.
Further, you've charged me again with some notion of prejudice and, as always, done so without evidence. And the video upon which this thread is based, you've also trashed without so much as one single counter argument or the slightest piece of evidence or support to refute it.
Here's the thing, false priest: There's little doubt as to your dislike of things supported by this blog. I get that entirely. If all you're going to do is type out that you disagree, then you're a redundant fool on top of all else. Others who disagree tend to explain why. That's kinda the point of this whole blog thing. From someone who pretends to be educated and sophisticated, I'd expect a bit better than "no-it-isn't-yes-it-is-no-it-isn't". But that's pretty much the extent of your alleged intellect, then, isn't it? Take it somewhere else. I'm sure there are blogs where children like yourself can engage in such back and forths.
47 comments:
Something new?
Isn't that Herbert Hoover's great grandson?
Old, old lies.
Feodor is typical of what is happening on the left.
Instead of providing valid counter-points to an argument (which he cant even do for a comedic jingle) he just applies a label to it.
You should get a job on MSNBC
Counter points to what argument?
If you think you've heard any points in an argument (like "Death Panel"), then should run Fox, where points don't get in the door.
The dry drunk, Mormon Beck cannot make a point to save his life.
I find it highly doubtful that Feodor has ever listened closely to anything Beck has ever said. He certainly acts like the typical lefty who attacks the speaker without ever addressing the points the speaker makes. So here's the challenge if Feodor is man enough to take it: Watch Beck for a week. Write down some "facts", accusations or questions that he raises, about any policy or appointment of Obama, and then show us all why Beck is off his rocker. I think Feodor lacks both the balls as well as the intelligence to to take up such a challenge. Until Feo can do that, he's only releasing more gaseous emissions, which is OK considering Marshall Art's is equipped with numerous air fresheners, scented candles and a kickass ventilation system for jsut that very reason.
Beck doesn't demand a "close" listen, just a roll of the eyes:
Beck: "The President is a Marxist."
Feodor: "1) No, he is not calling for workers to unite and overthrow the European powers.
2) He is not alling for the erasure of all private property and combining into one mass social ownership of the means of production and the labor in that production.
3) He is not calling for the erasure of any private property except those who volunteered to throw away their old gas guzzlers.
4) No, the President does not believe surplus labor is undeserved money in the pocket of the owners of production.
5) He does not hold that laws and powers are grounded in a subversive cover up of the materialist ground of being.
6) I don't even thing the President knows what these last two mean, much less any of you bums.
Beck is a liar, an ignorant, irresponsibly inflammatory liar. Therefore, Beck is a danger to the common good.
That was easy.
Marshall, you want to defend the "Death Panels" canard? How true Red are you? Does it go as far as making stuff up?
Of course it does.
MA,
You really think there were golden tablets old Joe Smith found with the Angel Moroni's help?
You don't think that's made up do you?
Like a herpes, Feodor returns. He's been gone for a while, but it feels like only moments. It leaves one to wonder if it is Christian to be annoying just because it brings so much joy to be absent.
So, to respond:
1) Just as it would spoil things for Satan should he prove his own existence, no one will announce they are Marxist or engage in any overtly Marxist activities. Such things are always done in small increments. But it does give one pause to realize all the people with whom Barry has surrounded himself, both before and after his election. So many people with so many wacky ideas and we're to believe Barry is unlike them all. I guess that makes sense for those who consider him the messiah. Christ spent time with sinners, after all.
2) Yet he has stuck his nose into private businesses making demands of all sorts. Small increments, dude.
3) Again, he won't do anything overtly. But every move he makes suggests the same ends to anyone who will put aside their Obama worship and think logically. For those like yourself, simply ask a grownup.
4) I'll believe that when he no longer looks to the wealthy to fund even more than they do through taxation.
5) He holds that the Constitution lacks any help for the common man, when the whole purpose of it was to restrain gov't from interfering in the lives of the governed.
6) I don't think you know much of anything, but it's always comical to to see you try to show otherwise.
"Beck is a liar, an ignorant, irresponsibly inflammatory liar. Therefore, Beck is a danger to the common good."
That's just your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions: Opinions are like assholes, and you're an asshole. But all seriousness aside, Beck provides actual footage and quotes of the people he exposes as potential trouble. You've provided nothing but baseless allegations about his truthfulness. Thus, your opinion, on it's own, is worthless here. As my challenge stated, take something he's said and prove it wrong. YOUR saying it's wrong isn't the same thing and I would expect an allegedly educated boy like yourself to understand the distinction.
"That was easy."
Indeed. Simply saying, "he's wrong" is easy. Proving he's wrong requires more effort than you're capable of bringing to bear.
continued---
continuing---
"Marshall, you want to defend the "Death Panels" canard?"
Except to lefty buffoons like yourself, "death panels" is a term used to describe the logical result of HR3200, not that it contains any reference to an actual "DEATH PANEL". It is believed by those who actually use common sense that the expense of this folly would eventually result in a determination of who gets what in terms of treatments. It is also likely that private companies will find it harder and harder to compete with a gov't entity that can mandate prices and payments for services, so that there will be fewer options in the long run. This means rationing will occur, whether they say otherwise at this point or not.
"You really think there were golden tablets old Joe Smith found with the Angel Moroni's help?"
Of course not. That's total bullshit, just like it's bullshit that you have a point other than what protrudes from the top of your head. But if you think that such a belief, assuming Beck holds it, matters one iota as to whether or not he's on to something regarding the Barry Obrother! administration, then you're a far bigger idiot than you think Beck is, which really goes without saying. You are aware, I would imagine, that there are many who accuse any believer in deity to be foolish.
I find it unfortunate the Beck is a Mormon. I find it unfortunate that Christopher Hitchens is an atheist. I also find it unfortunate that some might see YOU as an example of a typcial Christian, a poor an example as you are. One's personal faith does not reflect all aspects of one's intelligence. How stupid of you to make such an assumption about anyone.
God, Marshall, you can't even live up to your own expectations. All you've done is spread baseless accusations, stacking fallacious ad hominem after ad hominem (as Bubba perfers), with one, and only one real issue named: raising taxes on the rich - something backed by Bloomberg, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.
But then, you are probably one those flakes who think taxing is a Marxist policy per se, which would necessarily damn both parties much less the American people.
You're just a propaganda whore, Marshall, who cannot care for reasonable arguments. You're too busy trying to scare people into "believing" (your words not mine) lies about "Death Panels" along with your bedmate: the guy who believes in the Angel Moroni.
If you can believe big lies, like Beck and yourself, it's not hard at all to throw a whole bunch of little lies.
And slime yourself right beyond facts.
LIe lover.
Goodness. As I would have guessed, Feodor, the false priest, can only take the Lord's name in vain, rather than to answer the simple challenge. The effect of his name-calling toward me is as a small child's attempt to harm me with a punch, that is, insignificant.
I've spread no allegations, baseless or otherwise, but only insisted you respond to charges leveled by Beck, a man who's intelligence you question (a laughable proposition considering the your lack of same). As I've read and heard the words of those he features on his show, I find it appalling, if not the least bit surprising, that lefty loons like Feodor aren't the least bit concerned with those who surround and advise the president and the likely direction he will take the nation as a result.
Imagine your own self, Feodor, in a position of authority and responsibility (allow me a moment to laugh aloud at the mere suggestion), and to advise you, you appoint sluts, masturbators, smack freaks and smelly slobs. Do you not suppose that people of character would then wonder at what might result?
The same is true now, as Americans wonder at the effect radicals will have on the direction of this nation, radicals appointed, not elected, who have at best a dubious history and track record. Only a fool (and that is redundant to say considering to whom I now speak) would feel at ease and suppose nothing untoward would result. To see such people in the embrace of a US president should give everyone pause to say the very least.
So you have the challenge yet before you: how has Beck erred in his concern? Where has he gone wrong in his assessment of the people appointed by Barry Omygoodness? What has Beck said of these people that is untrue and how can you support that counterpoint with something more meaningful than your worthless opinion?
You and your shifting, ever shifting lies.
First you wanted me to take on the Mormon Beck regarding any "'facts', accusations or questions that he raises, about any policy or appointment of Obama"
I did. And didn't need to watch another minute to show how outlandishly stupid he is on that issue. That you cannot follow up because you, too, don't understand the facts and policies of Marxism is your problem.
That Beck carries on so far on something he doesn't understand, and doesn't really care to, should not be surprising to any of us who find the Mormon faith to have incredulous tendencies.
And you follow him faithfully.
Now, having lost at your first challenge, you want to shift and challenge me to refute these "facts":
[Obama] "appoint sluts, masturbators, smack freaks and smelly slobs."
And you say I'm name calling?
As Bubba might say, ad hominem like yours are unimpeachable... because they are so irrational, so baseless, and meant to be so misdirecting from normal discourse as to suggest that you are already flying high with the Angel Moroni (professed regret notwithstanding).
Who can follow you who does not have your unreason... or Beck's Book of Mormon.
You've become a lover of lies.
You're drunk, aren't you, Feo? What else but mid-morning drunkeness or blatant stupidity can explain the inane responses that show no understanding of simple English? I've shifted nothing as I'm still trying to get you to support your trashing of Beck's statements, which you haven't done. All you have done is express your opinion that you don't agree. I get that. What I want to know is why. Why do you think Beck is wrong about the points he makes regarding Obama and his appointees? This is the same question I asked in the beginning even if it's worded differently. Your answer amounts to no more than "because". Apparently you, like a one or two others who visit here, believe that because Obama never states outright, "I am a Marxist and intended to govern as one until America is totally a Marxist state", he'll never act with Marxist leanings. What a naive putz. Yet strangely, you think that Beck's faith should be of some concern. In typical lefty sheep fashion, you have determined that those on the right are incapable of separating themselves from their personal infuences, but your political messiahs can be neck deep in radical associations without themselves being radical. What an idiot you are!
And speaking of idiots, that is, you, it was not Obama that I said appointed sluts and the like. Really read my comments, you buffoon, or don't waste my time trying to dispute them.
So I haven't lost anything with you yet, my false priest and psuedo-intellectual fool. I can't lose while you refuse to even step up to the plate.
Marshall, how could you forget. It's so much easier to trash Beck for his religion. Because it is so obvious that adherence to certain religions automatically makes one an idiot and unworthy of expressing themselves.
Indeed, Craig. Too bad it's a one-way street. The left bristled when JFK's Catholicism was held against him. But Bush as an Evangelical or Beck/Romney as a Mormon? Perish the thought. Well fine. Trash their faith, I say. But first tell me where the man's wrong on policy or other positions. Feodor has so far shown no ability to do this. No surprise to me.
It seems as though ones faith or lack thereof (with the exception of the real loons perhaps) should not be an issue in these types of discussions. For example, Keith Ellison's Muslim faith is not and should not be a bar to his service in the house. Nor should it disqualify him from the public square.
But it's so much easier to bash someone for their faith, than anything substantive.
BTW I'm not a Beck fan or listener/viewer.
"It's so much easier to trash Beck for his religion. Because it is so obvious that adherence to certain religions automatically makes one an idiot and unworthy of expressing themselves."
"Indeed, Craig. Too bad it's a one-way street. The left bristled when JFK's Catholicism was held against him."
JFK?
Marshall tries to act innocent.
Jeremiah Wright.
______________
And painting Bush as representative of evangelicalism begs the question.
There are more kinds of evangelicals than Bush and Ashcroft.
Jimmy Carter, Jim Wallis, etc. etc. etc.
_______________
But we are not talking about Catholicism, large enough to contain many different political ideologies and not just in America.
We are not talking about Evangelicalism, large enough to contain many different political ideologies, and not just in America.
We are talking about a hermetic, almost entirely mono-cultural, cult with its own security force and a machinery geared toward youth indoctrination and which only recanted polygamy in order to survive it's host country and only very recently - within my lifetime - "drew back" a philosophy that considered those of African descent to be naturally inferior.
All this and the golden tablets as pointed out by the Angel Moroni are in a completely different class from all the Christian denominations that consider Jesus Christ to be pointed to fully and sufficiently in the New Testament.
And the cocooned, apocalyptic life of Mormon faith joins in with Beck's horrific early traumas and his addiction issues and cooks up an entertainer who presents the Rockefeller Center, a proudly Art Deco project from the Progressive Era aesthetics of the 1930s as a subversive Communist piece of architecture influencing...
... who does it influence again?
God, what a flim flam man, a snake oil salesman!
Marshall can't count, much less read very well.
This is now two things on which Beck's positions and/or policy or, really, inflammatory and baseless propaganda are empty, vain, and corrupt:
1. That we have a Marxist/Socialist adminstration because it wants to provide affordable health care for those who are poor and/or struggling to keep from being poor. This President? Whose administration has opted to keep Wall Street intact enough to drive recovery, AIG, despite its many huge, huge sins, alive so that insurance companies the world over wont collapse. And floats the automakers, ready to let some die, but only as triage to keep the "fittest" alive. Marxist, yeah...
2. The Rockefeller Center is a subliminal communist beacon. Rockefeller! The guy who owned Standard Oil, right? And who shot all those miners for striking? Communist, yeah...
Beck's all there. 100%.
Loon.
Feo shoots!! He scores!!
Who's "Anonymous"? Must be the frog in Feodor's pocket.
Feodor,
Try and understand simple English. I asked for your evidence to overturn the charges and positions Beck has presented. I did NOT ask for your dissertation on what Obama SAYS or THINKS he's doing for America. Consider that both parties often speak of the same destination but part on the roads to take there.
So Obama isn't socialist BECAUSE he wants everyone to have health care, he's socialist because of the means by which he thinks it should be provided. He certainly isn't promoting free market initiatives to get the job done, any more than he has to "fix" the other areas you've listed.
So once again, Beck's religion or alcoholism has NOTHING to do with this discussion, unless you can draw a definitive connection between either and his perspectives regarding Obama and his many czars and appointees. I doubt you can, because you don't even see a problem with appointing someone who sees forced sterilization as a real consideration in the future, or someone who thinks pets are entitled to lawyers, or someone who thinks free speech is overblown, or the myriad other freak show escapees with whom Obama surrounds himself. Beck's personal history has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of any of these claims. They are public knowledge. He sees their presence within our government as a problem. THAT'S the issue. Try to address it for a change or save your otherwise tedious commentary for some other blog.
Because you believe him, Marshall, is not an argument for his sanity.
Can the non sequiturs. Even if you could prove his mental status, it would still have nothing to do with the truthfulness of his claims, which, as I have stated, are public knowledge. That's how Beck came to know them as well, fool. He played the clips of their words, printed exerpts of their books and articles. There's nothing he has said that others couldn't say had they taken to the time to look at Obama's appointees as he has. So cut the crap and respond to the charges he makes. I don't care what his religion is. I don't care if he's an alcoholic. I don't care what he's said about other things. I believe what he says because what he's said is true and factual. Dispute it if you can or hold your forked tongue.
Marshall, you just don't get it. My point, to boil it down to your level is that you are not asking me to refute his positions - which are ludicrous to the most casual, independent, observer.
You are asking me to refute your belief in him. That I cannot do while your attention to reasonable thinking is hat checked at the door of your spurious and self-serving religious crust.
When he says the President is a socialist, he has abandoned any rational use of the word, socialist. When he says the Rockefeller Center is lavished with veiled and subversive communistic art, he demonstrates that he has yet to take an art history course, and he abandons all common sense understanding of communism.
He is simply the Barnum version of McCarthy; the Bailey version of the father of hate radio: Father Charles Coughlin (Roman Catholic, by the way, just to be balanced).
Part and parcel with these grandiose irrationalities is the fact that Beck is a member, not just of a religion, as you put it, but of a incredibly fanciful one that has a history of bizarre social and martial behavior.
That you cannot admit any of that - all of which conflicts with your vaunted but now absent Christian fundamentalism - is testimony that you are not requesting any such thing as thinking.
You are asking to be deprogrammed from the cult of Beck belief.
That's not my area of expertise
"You are asking me to refute your belief in him."
It is inconceivable that someone so stupid can be so pride-filled as to assume he possesses the capacity for divining the true heart of another. Considering how far off base your statement is, you sorry representation of American education, I find it hard to believe you can function normally in everyday life. Such is the vast stupidity of your words.
I believe in Beck? Are you just purposely saying crap for lack of intelligent alternatives? I want you to read the words to come slowly, sounding them out with dictionary nearby, a five-year old child beside you to help with the tough parts. Ready? Here it is then:
I do not believe in Beck. I am asking you to show why his words about Obama and our government are not true.
I don't care what you think of him personally. I don't care about what hangs in the Rockefeller Center. I don't care what you think I'm REALLY asking you. I want you to either answer that question, or take a freakin' hike.
Sorry Feo,
Your lame attempt at cleverness (apparently the only thing on which I can count from you) did not answer the question.
Poor Feo. He feels I suffer from fearful fascism. But my true malady is weariness. I'm tired of comments that have nothing to do with the point or the questions asked. I guess it's my fault for letting the troll take us off course, but I can re-direct as I choose. He'll need to respond as requested before I'll let his droll commentary stand. Read them while you can if you care to. Until he complies, his keystrokes will prove wasted.
If I were you, I'd check your post again. It seems to be a pointless Blues Clues cover that does nothing so much as raise the question whether Tim Hawkins is Joe Wilson's (R-SC) son-in-law.
You fail to respond on the points regarding Beck's unoriginal lunatic painting of the President as a Marxist/Socialist.
Because you cherish the lunacy.
You fail to respond on the points regarding Beck's psychotic presentation of the Rockefeller Center as a subliminal Communist message.
Because you cherish the lunacy.
Can't talk you out of your well-worn rubbing of fallacy, Marshall.
I'm leaving Feo's last, just cuz I feel like pointing out the obvious, which is that he's an idiot.
"It seems to be a pointless Blues Clues cover that does nothing so much as raise the question whether Tim Hawkins is Joe Wilson's (R-SC) son-in-law."
What's this? Humor? Another attempt at cleverness? Ah, I know. It's another example of how Feo is too stupid/cowardly/braindead to argue any point of the parody, but instead, just maligns the artist, and at the same time, Joe Wilson, who told it like it is, even though he unfortunately did it like a lefty. (I saw an example of numerous Dems openly criticizing Bush 43 in the same venue--not just one of them, like Wilson, but a crowd of them vocalizing their dislike of Bush's words during a speech--I hate it when right-wingers act like lefties.)
"You fail to respond on the points regarding Beck's unoriginal lunatic painting of the President as a Marxist/Socialist."
Try reading my comments in their entirety for a change. Already responded, and quite well. Find someone to help you understand them. More importantly, I call the shots here regarding what points are addressed. You like to think that you can redirect as you please, especially when you are unable to answer to the real point being made, but you need your own blog to do that, or, in your case, permission to do it here.
"Because you cherish the lunacy."
I cherish answers to the questions Beck raises about the state of this administration. Questions to which you apparently are incapable of providing any explanation.
"You fail to respond on the points regarding Beck's psychotic presentation of the Rockefeller Center as a subliminal Communist message."
Again, you don't call the shots. But if you are going to try to make a point, provide a link so that I can at least know what the hell you're talking about. I'm sure you've missed Beck's point about the artwork in the RC, because you're an idiot.
"Can't talk you out of your well-worn rubbing of fallacy, Marshall."
Not by your simply saying something isn't true. You've no credibility, shown no proof you know anything about the issues Beck raises. Why would I take the word of a fool and false priest like yourself? Lies and falsehood are the basis of your worldview. So it's not enough for you to day that Beck is goofy. You'll need, anyone will need, to show why he's wrong after he has provided clear evidence to support his charges. He's provided film of the words of these people who Obama has appointed to over 30 posts. He's provided exerpts of their books and articles. You've provided only your stupid comments void of any substance.
The funny part is you think I'm somehow afraid of "taking you on". What a pathetic notion. It's as if I declined a challenge to go five rounds with a four year old and the kid's calling me a coward for blowing him off.
The reality is you are a stupid man and a coward yourself for continually dodging the issue and the simple challenge I put before you, a challenge your own goofy comments about Beck have provoked. I get that you don't like the guy. I get that clearly. He's shown far more smarts than you have ever shown in any blog where I've seen you post. His questions are sound and important and worthy questions to ask about this president, this administration and this government in general. If you can't answer them, I've no use for you at all and your comments only foul my blog for their lack of substance.
Give it up, Feo, ya loser. You've called nothing but attention to your own inanity. Get a life and a clue. Will you ever offer anything in support of your charges, or simply claim "fallacy"? If the latter, comment deletion will result. Clown.
"Joe Wilson, who told it like it is, even though he unfortunately did it like a lefty."
Yeah...Code Pink style...
Looks like it raised him some support too, but the Iraq Vet running against him is raising even more suppport. Should be an interesting race. One I'm keeping my eye on.
Blah, blah, blah, Feo.
Try some honesty for a change. Just admit you are incapable of responding to the question and call it a day. Your lame attempts to dodge don't cut it. Beck supports his contentions with the words of those he has scrutinized. You defend them by saying Beck is a Mormon. You're an idiot with nothing to offer but psuedo-intellectual crapola.
Hey, I called that shot, too!
Damn, I'm good.
Call me any names you like, Feo. Coming from you it's meaningless. But as I said, I'm not going to let you re-direct the conversation everytime you don't like the question posed to you. I don't care about dialectical materialism as it is irrelevant to the point. I don't care about the artwork in the Rockefeller Center, which, by the way, could have been done to Rocky's specifications, so the artist's previous work doesn't support whatever case you think you've made. (Artists do that, you know)
No. Instead, I insist you stick to the point, which you brought up initially, you putz. You mock Beck for his past struggles and his choice of religion (like a good American and a good Christian priest---NOT) and ignore the points he makes, which are the supported by the words of the people Beck is exposing. His conclusions, therefor, are logical and worthy of consideration by every American, media person and member of Congress. You are too stupid and cowardly to understand that, OR worse, you agree with these radical people who would lead us away from the principles upon which this country is based, which of course is stupid, too.
You think me cowardly for deleting your comments. Hardly. I graciously let you turn the conversation from Tim Hawkins' right-on-the-money parody, which BTW, you, as with Beck, mocked without any substantial argument, to Beck, and then, without substantial argument to support your disparagement of his work, you again try to change the subject. That makes YOU the coward and makes me just a host trying to maintain control of the direction of the conversation on MY blog, tired of your lame diversionary tactics and your sorry attempts to appear thoughtful and intelligent. You are neither. What you are and insist on being gives you no rights here and your presence itself is granted out of my own sense of giving even a pathetic soul like yourself "just one more chance".
Insist on doing things your way and I will continue to delete your comments. It's up to you.
Some exerpts from Feo's last deleted comment:
"Marshall, you have yet to pose a question that has any basis of reason in it."
That you are incapable of divining the reason is on you. Perhaps an adult can help you with that.
"So, we already know that you're not interested in thought from the start."
Who's "we"? You and the lice in your hair? The truth is I'm not interested in what passes for thought in your fevered mind. REAL thought is another matter.
"If you ask about Marxism, I'll tell you. In fact, I have."
I didn't, and you didn't either. You simply said it wasn't true. Not good enough.
"If you ask about Progressive Era art, I'll tell you. In fact, I have."
I didn't and likely won't. But you didn't actually respond to your own attacks on Beck's alleged questioning of Rockefeller Center artwork. You again simply attacked the messenger without ever addressing his message. Listing other works of the artist doesn't do it, as I've said.
I don't care about your book review, especially considering you didn't provide either the book being reviewed or the person doing the reviewing. (Don't waste your time responding---I'm not interested) If the book being reviewed is Beck's, the review doesn't contain anything more than simply trashing the messenger without addressing the message. Sorta like you. Just because a reviewer is as cowardly as you in avoiding the essence of that message and addressing that essence directly, doesn't give your own cowardice any more credibility. It only means there are other fools in existence like yourself. I already knew that.
Anytime you feel like staying on point and discussing the topics at hand, I'll be more than happy to explain why your position is stupid. Until then, I'll continue to delete your nonsensical and irrelevant comments. Buh-bye now.
Feo has returned once again to not answer the question. Buh-bye now.
For the troll, Feodor,
Yes, I do have unanswered questions. They refer to the unsupported negative attitude regarding Glen Beck. They refer to his positions regarding the current administration and the state of our gov't, positions he has supported with the actual words of the people with whom he's concerned. YOU, however, have only crapped on the guy because of his faith and struggles with alcohol. Even your goofy crap about the Rockefeller Center has gone without a proper argument.
Further, you've charged me again with some notion of prejudice and, as always, done so without evidence. And the video upon which this thread is based, you've also trashed without so much as one single counter argument or the slightest piece of evidence or support to refute it.
Here's the thing, false priest: There's little doubt as to your dislike of things supported by this blog. I get that entirely. If all you're going to do is type out that you disagree, then you're a redundant fool on top of all else. Others who disagree tend to explain why. That's kinda the point of this whole blog thing. From someone who pretends to be educated and sophisticated, I'd expect a bit better than "no-it-isn't-yes-it-is-no-it-isn't". But that's pretty much the extent of your alleged intellect, then, isn't it? Take it somewhere else. I'm sure there are blogs where children like yourself can engage in such back and forths.
Post a Comment