8.28.10 - Celebrate the Dream, Reject the Nightmare

Constitutional Rights is an issue, not partisanship. Partisanship implies that there is another party, one who expressly says, in your example, that Constitutional rights don't exist.

If someone said that constitutional rights don't exist, that would be a misnomer. Constitutional rights are protected by the law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. They exist. There is no interpretation if they exist or don't exist.

You can interpret how they're read, but you can't interpret if they exist.

Glen Beck has said that Constitutional rights don't exist? I don't watch the man, so I have to take your word for it. I'll try and get somewhere that I can watch him, though, to verify that for myself. If he said it once, he's bound to say it again some time. It would be easier and less time consuming if you could provide a source for that statement, a quote, but I'll do the legwork myself if I have to.

He doesn't have to say it. If he says, though, that he doesn't want a mosque near Ground Zero, then he believes that Muslims, who are Americans, shouldn't have the right to worship where they want.

So he's a bigot now, rather than an interviewer in this circumstance. Might it be that there were questions pertaining to Ellison's loyalty in the minds of many folks, and Beck was seeking an outright statement to refute those questions? No, of course not. Bigots don't help their perceived opposites out that way, do they? I seem to recall a lot of doubts surrounding Ellison's election, as I had to explain to several folks that time would tell, and they were convicting before a trial. Maybe I just misremember...

Like I said before, I've never heard Glenn Beck ask a Christian if they're apart of a Christian terrorist organization, do you?

It's all Muslim-related with Glenn...

reply to post by mothershipzeta


I don't like the guy either, and I didn't personally like the religious message of his rally.. but a few points..

first.. blacks don't own the day, nor the spot. Get over it.

Second, free speech and right to assembly, if you don't like the message, do what I did ....... don't watch it, grow up, and get the ef over it.

Third, Rev. King also had a closet full of skeletons including being a womanizer.. comparing King to the likes of a corporate stooge serves no purpose, and only brings down your own image.

And lastly, I have to give props to Beck and *sigh* Palin for literally sticking to their word and not being political. Even if it did get the lefts panties in a bunch and some racist black power idiots held a "counter rally" under the guise of "civil rights"

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Constitutional Rights is an issue, not partisanship. Partisanship implies that there is another party, one who expressly says, in your example, that Constitutional rights don't exist.

If someone said that constitutional rights don't exist, that would be a misnomer. Constitutional rights are protected by the law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. They exist. There is no interpretation if they exist or don't exist.

You can interpret how they're read, but you can't interpret if they exist.

Agreed. Maybe the partisanship is in the interpretation, then? I'm just trying to get a handle on your thinking here. It's alien to me.

You said:

Constitutional rights is real partisanship. Supporting those rights for all Americans is real partisanship.

and I'm trying to relate that statement to what you've just said, and find what you think is partisan about Constitutional rights. We both agree they exist, as apparently Mr. Beck does, so I'm trying to figure out what you see as partisan about them.

He doesn't have to say it. If he says, though, that he doesn't want a mosque near Ground Zero, then he believes that Muslims, who are Americans, shouldn't have the right to worship where they want.

Oh, but he DOES have to say it in order to have it attributed as having come "right out of his own mouth", per your assertion.

On the subject of Muslims having the RIGHT to worship wherever they want, I believe they do. Do you? If so, are you willing to extend those same rights to Christians, Hindus, Jains, et al?

Like I said before, I've never heard Glenn Beck ask a Christian if they're apart of a Christian terrorist organization, do you?

It's all Muslim-related with Glenn...

Well, in the public perception, it wasn't Sikhs or Pagans or Christians who bombed the WTC, or are suicide bombing markets in the middle east daily, so they generally aren't questioned about such things. You believe then, in the interest of "fairness", that Beck should question all religions as to their loyalties?

Getting all that out of the way would make for some fairly long TV shows, wouldn't it?


[edit on 2010/8/28 by nenothtu]

If anyone actually thinks that Beck cares about the constitution over his own ego is beyond any help at all.

This guy doesn't give two about the constitution above his paycheck.

This is a publicity stunt in order to artificially create controversy. That controversy gives him higher ratings more money from his sponsors, and more ink and E Ink fueling his already overinflated ego.

reply to post by whatukno


Seems like a lot of folks took his bait, swallowed the controversy and ran with it then. He starts a rip, and they finish shredding it?

If that's the case, I suppose it IS a left-handed sort of cooperation...

OR...

Beck gained a tactical victory.

and I'm trying to relate that statement to what you've just said, and find what you think is partisan about Constitutional rights. We both agree they exist, as apparently Mr. Beck does, so I'm trying to figure out what you see as partisan about them.

Glenn Beck may SAY they exist, but he certainly doesn't believe in constitutional rights for all Americans.

Oh, but he DOES have to say it in order to have it attributed as having come "right out of his own mouth", per your assertion.

On the subject of Muslims having the RIGHT to worship wherever they want, I believe they do. Do you? If so, are you willing to extend those same rights to Christians, Hindus, Jains, et al?

And he's said it out of his mouth. He's said he doesn't want that mosque built near ground zero. The first amendment allows them freedom of religion.

And I don't care where anyone worships, BUT GLENN BECK DOES. He has a problem with this mosque, man.

Well, in the public perception, it wasn't Sikhs or Pagans or Christians who bombed the WTC, or are suicide bombing markets in the middle east daily, so they generally aren't questioned about such things. You believe then, in the interest of "fairness", that Beck should question all religions as to their loyalties? Getting all that out of the way would make for some fairly long TV shows, wouldn't it?

If Glenn Beck is going to ask every Muslim politician if they're associated with terrorism, then do so to every religion, because Christianity has it terrorists. Judaism has its terrorists. Every religion has it's terrorists.

I see the diffrence MLK got murderd for his contobution

Glenn Beck get paid 10mil a year for his

Originally posted by An_Alien

Originally posted by Bugman82
In 28 years, I've never remembered MLK day, so I think it seems highly likely.

Would it be outrageous if Beck honored MLK on that day at that rally? Along with ALL OTHERS who helped change the history and course of the country? Is Sharpton upset because whitey is trying to pursue something outside of his agenda? MLK day is supposed to be a day for tolerance and unification. Unfortunately, it seems to be driving us apart...


[edit on 27-8-2010 by An_Alien]

Very interesting though that the tea party sent out e-mails to people planning to attend on how to avoid all the "dangerous" parts of Washington D.C. Translation: the areas with the most blacks. Civil rights my...never mind.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Glenn Beck may SAY they exist, but he certainly doesn't believe in constitutional rights for all Americans.

Personally, I'm pretty hard pressed to decide for another what they believe, without having a direct quote from them as to their beliefs. I just can't get inside folks' heads like that. I have to listen to what THEY say they believe.

Oh, but he DOES have to say it in order to have it attributed as having come "right out of his own mouth", per your assertion.

On the subject of Muslims having the RIGHT to worship wherever they want, I believe they do. Do you? If so, are you willing to extend those same rights to Christians, Hindus, Jains, et al?

And he's said it out of his mouth. He's said he doesn't want that mosque built near ground zero. The first amendment allows them freedom of religion.

No, the First amendment denies congress the right to pass any laws concerning religion or an establishment thereof. Not quite the same thing as guaranteeing that they can do anything, any where, as long as it's 'religious'.

So, it's not really a Constitutional question unless Congress gets involved. "Shall pass no laws" means neither for nor against. Certainly, it doesn't bar Beck from speaking his mind on the matter... and I'm still curious as to what he specifically said that has folks up in arms. Seems a strange thing to me that he has that much power over his opposition to the point that they will say that he has denied Constitutional rights where none are in danger.

And I don't care where anyone worships, BUT GLENN BECK DOES. He has a problem with this mosque, man.

There's a Baptist guy in the next town over who has been just acheing to put the 10 Commandments in the court house lobby. I can tell him you support that, then?

Well, in the public perception, it wasn't Sikhs or Pagans or Christians who bombed the WTC, or are suicide bombing markets in the middle east daily, so they generally aren't questioned about such things. You believe then, in the interest of "fairness", that Beck should question all religions as to their loyalties? Getting all that out of the way would make for some fairly long TV shows, wouldn't it?

If Glenn Beck is going to ask every Muslim politician if they're associated with terrorism, then do so to every religion, because Christianity has it terrorists. Judaism has its terrorists. Every religion has it's terrorists.

Fair enough. I'll make sure I run all my associates through the routine from here on out, in the interests of fairness. The Buddhists are pretty laid back, so I don't think they'll mind... But I bet they look at me sort of funny, since their religion isn't generally perceived by the public as a purveyor of violence and so there are no fears to be quelled. Still, though, it is only FAIR to do so.

In the same vein, I think the cops around here should pull EVERYONE over at random, and not wait for them to weave or anything like that. It unfairly singles out folks to do otherwise.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
first.. blacks don't own the day, nor the spot.

I am yet to hear where anybody in this thread or outside has stated that Dr King is 'theirs'. Iv heard Glenn Beck fans and tea parties make that argument in order to shut of criticism or questioning of Glenn's agenda.

I certainly believe MLK is an american patriot and one that fought for all of our rights. At the same time I believe Glenn Beck's followers/tea partiers are hypocrites for waving his name around and preaching against hate or division, especially following the fact many of these same folks rallied against the mosque and participated in the shouting fest at the town halls last year.

Second, free speech and right to assembly,

Nobody made that argument. Its another out of the blue argument that is meant to dismiss any criticism. Likewise you are entitled to freedom of speech as well as I am. You can say what you feel and I can criticise you. Great, now that we agree that we both have that freedom, lets move along.

if you don't like the message, do what I did ....... don't watch it, grow up, and get the ef over it.

Oh ok, so Glenn beck fans have the freedom of speech to say what they want, but to anybody who criticizes them or says anything in opposition, they should just not practice that right as well. Ok, I see where you are coming from!

Third, Rev. King also had a closet full of skeletons including being a womanizer..

Im not really concerned about his 'immoral' personal life. He was one of the very few who stood up for the rights of americans that day.

And lastly, I have to give props to Beck and *sigh* Palin for literally sticking to their word

Ah yes... theres a *sigh* right there to indicate to the rest of us just how reluctant you were for praising Palin. Yep, more credibility points to you.

and not being political.

Glenn Beck and Palin were not being political in this move? I will agree Glenn beck makes a living out of this, but to argue there was no political motivation, well I think you're dead wrong. If this was not political Glenn beck and Palin would not have needed to have their own little movement. There were plenty of neutral gatherings that tea partiers could have participated in to celebrate this day.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by Mak Manto
My examples come FROM THE MOUTH of Glenn Beck. He says these things that makes me not take him serious.

Thank you, you took the words right out of my mouth. My problem is with the message, and the fact the messenger(s) demonize anyone who disagrees with them. If pointing out blatant mistruths and disinformation constitutes an attack, then we're in trouble. I totally support their right to say what they think, I just reserve the right to point it out when they can be proved wrong.

Originally posted by nenothtu
No, the First amendment denies congress the right to pass any laws concerning religion or an establishment thereof. Not quite the same thing as guaranteeing that they can do anything, any where, as long as it's 'religious'.

That is correct. Just because we are allowed freedom of religion does not mean we can just build it anywhere. A mosque would not be allowed to be built in a middle of a park or on a natural/tribal reserve. At the same time people cannot dictate where a religious center can be built either. If there is a private property transaction going on between two partiers, neither the government nor a mob of people can interfere in that transaction going on.

There's a Baptist guy in the next town over who has been just acheing to put the 10 Commandments in the court house lobby. I can tell him you support that, then?

Nope. The court house lobby is still part of the state and is still owned by the public. Just as you had argued that we cannot build a religious center just anywhere, this fact goes especially in the case of public/ government centers. This islamic center involves two private individuals, the issue with the baptist involves public property. It should not be hard to distinguish that the two cases are different.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]

How anyone can not only listen to, but accept and embrace the ideas put forth by a man who puts whipped cream on his Eucharist, is so beyond me that I will never understand it. Yes yes. GB is nothing but an overweight Bible thumping terrorist.

(See, it's easy to do what he does)

[edit on 28-8-2010 by spinalremain]

Let's not make the mistake of assuming that the million over folks who supported the rally actively supports Glen Black or Paulin.

There are million of americans suffering, and they want their voices heard. Someone came along and provocatively spoke the words that these millions wanted to hear.

They went to the rally to support the message. Restore US back to its former glory and honour, not the corruption and manipulations by the Corporations.

Would they have voted for Glen or Paulin? Needless to say, its a forgone conclusion. For Glen or Paulin to presume that they both are leading the masses are only delusions of granduer.

When the time comes to vote, it will be the serious electable representatives messages that will be considered, not what the 2 clowns are hypocritically mouthing.

As mentioned, the great MLK had a dream, while these 2 hypocrite clowns had only schemes.

And the blacks should stop mouthing its a racists crowd at the rally. There is nothing racists in that crowd, no racism threats or hatred for blacks or demand for blacks to be shipped to africa.

The only racism displayed are unfortunately by those who played up that it was a white right march, and refused to support it, not out of objectivity that would have done MLK proud, but by subjectivities of racism that would have made MLK weep.

Peace.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


Glenn Beck was not aware that he scheduled this event and his speech on the same day and month and in the same place as MLK Jr's "I Have A Dream" Speech?!?!?!?

i find that plausible.

www.thedailyshow.com...


[edit on 28-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

How low will he go to make a buck? Take a whiz on Abe's shoes and a dump on the Civil Rights movement and then ask (with a tear in his eye) if anyone is offended by the smell???

This guy would be funnier than Jon Stewart... if he wasn't so dangerous.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I don't like the guy either, and I didn't personally like the religious message of his rally.. but a few points..

first.. blacks don't own the day, nor the spot. Get over it.

Who here said Blacks own the day?
That spot was there before King walked up to it.

Second, free speech and right to assembly, if you don't like the message, do what I did ....... don't watch it, grow up, and get the ef over it.

Again...is anyone in this thread attempting to stop them?

It sounds like you either want to get these points in here somehow, or you actually are listening to hard righters talk about how "they" are out to stop Palin and Beck.

I think people are criticizing the two of them legitimately and this whole MLK thing is an obvious thinly veiled publicity stunt.

It's shallow.

Third, Rev. King also had a closet full of skeletons including being a womanizer..

What does this have to do with anything?

He's human and flawed just like Ghandi, Mother Teresa, The Dali Lama, The Founding Fathers or any average American you want to put up in the spotlight. It certainly doesn't take away the good work he did.

And lastly, I have to give props to Beck and *sigh* Palin for literally sticking to their word and not being political. Even if it did get the lefts panties in a bunch and some racist black power idiots held a "counter rally" under the guise of "civil rights"

Leftist Black-power idiots?
Polarize much?

You are race-bating, ranting, and playing right into the hands of these two nutcases.

You sure you aren't a fan of Palin or Beck?
The mentality seems to scream that you just might be.

- Lee

Glenn Beck's a retarded gorilla. Get over it people. Just ignore him and toss a banana.

"Apolitical" my bum...

Why did he go on and on about this in relation to his event? Because he wanted to work with a charity and the charity cannot be affiliated with any political event...also good PR for the new king of spin...he likes to think of his "movement" as above politics when really everything he thinks you should be doing or thinking is right and all else is evil/bad/wrong. If you're not with him, you're against America. Same useless garbage message we've heard so much in the past decade but just wrapped up differently.

And hiring Freedomworks to run the show? Come on now, I can smell the aroma of tea from here.

Why did he go on and on about telling people not to bring signs? I believe its because he knows they completely discredit what hes trying to portray....its hard for people to give you good press or take you seriously when you have a bunch of tea party signs with stupid ignorant crap poking up in the air like becons of ignorance.....

1) Glenn did not say he was against building the mausc at ground zero. He actually said they have the right to build it there.
What he questioned was the funding for it. He knows, like many people who will research the matter, that SOME Muslim groups use the building of a mausc as a monument at or near the site of a great victory. If this is the case then of course it should not be built there.
2) Who cares how much money he is making? Instead let us look at how much the fed is spending!
I hope this next statement will not apply to many but I feel from the post I have read that it will.
If you are jealous over how much money he is making maybe you should try putting down the joint, leaving mommy's cellar/attic/house and do something with your life.
3) The man put together a great event, period. He and those with him helped raise millions for a worthy and noble cause.
Pull your heads out of the sand (sand= media matters and the daily show) come back down to earth, join r-e-a-l-i-t-y and look at the state of this country.
Use a little foresight.
For any of you with children (if mommy will let you have some one of the opposite sex in your room) think of the debt that will be hanging over their heads.
I would gladly and would rather tackle this problem now instead of passing it onto them!
To keep them from becoming slaves to the system.