America and Glenn Beck

[ydoaPs]

Glenn Beck recently went off about Obama's support of the Egyptian people. He was upset because the People created fundamental change in the Government. But, isn't that the basic idea behind the very existence of the USA? Oh, but Obama used the word 'change' in his campaign slogan, so it has to be evil.

 

Why would someone who claims to love America so much hate her founding principle?

[jackson33]

Glenn Beck recently went off about Obama's support of the Egyptian people. He was upset because the People created fundamental change in the Government. But, isn't that the basic idea behind the very existence of the USA? Oh, but Obama used the word 'change' in his campaign slogan, so it has to be evil.

 

Why would someone who claims to love America so much hate her founding principle? [/Quote]

 

ydoaPs; Actually the anger came from a good many people, not all Republicans, including Beck, when he mentioned the "young people of Egypt" and "Change" when referring to his perceived successful overthrow of the Mubarak Government in a speech. Some of us just don't feel campaigning should be part of the everyday routine, by the President. IMO, he did himself more harm than good, in that many people, especially the Independents/Liberals, are not exactly HAPPY with what became the CHANGE, that he campaigned on in 2007-2008.

 

Factually, there is no founding principle, indicating "mob rule", quite the contrary and why we have elections and a Representative form of Governance, with a built in Checks/Balance System. Those first protesters complained only about jobs and food prices, which grew to include Mubarak with a little thrown in Democracy for the World Media covering the story. Even after it was over, some held out (not sure their gone) wanting something in writing and the Egyptian Police tried getting involved over higher wages.

 

Whatever the outcome is, it's not likely to resemble any form of Western Democracy. As of today, Egypt is without a Constitution, under Emergency Law and being ruled by a Military force, which is what the Riots were all about, just no Mubarak...

[ydoaPs]

The very essence of America is the idea that, to quote the fictional character V, "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people!".

 

Factually, there is no founding principle, indicating "mob rule", quite the contrary and why we have elections and a Representative form of Governance, with a built in Checks/Balance System.

You're going to sit there and tell me that America has no factual basis of the People revolting against an oppressive government? So, you slept through history class, then?

 

I'll fill you in a little bit. A long time ago in a land far far away, England decided it wanted to have colonies in a remote land. Eventually, the people of those colonies grew unhappy with the leadership, revolted, and created their own government. They sent England a letter, a Declaration even, telling the King about it. In fact, there was even a war fought over this.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

But, yeah, you're right. There's no founding principle of America about overthrowing unjust rulers......if you completely ignore the history of America.

 

Those first protesters complained only about jobs and food prices

That sounds familiar. You know what they should have done? They should have dumped a bunch of tea in the water during one of the protests!

 

ydoaPs; Actually the anger came from a good many people, not all Republicans, including Beck, when he mentioned the "young people of Egypt" and "Change" when referring to his perceived successful overthrow of the Mubarak Government in a speech. Some of us just don't feel campaigning should be part of the everyday routine, by the President. IMO, he did himself more harm than good, in that many people, especially the Independents/Liberals, are not exactly HAPPY with what became the CHANGE, that he campaigned on in 2007-2008.

So, should the president have lied and said the majority of the protesters were elderly people and the protests were to keep things exactly the same? Or is he just not allowed to talk about change since it was part of his campaign?

 

Oh, you're not happy with the change that didn't actually happen because the Obama administration bent over backwards compromising with the Republican children in Congress? That's a bit odd.

Edited February 15, 2011 by ydoaPs

[jackson33]

You're going to sit there and tell me that America has no factual basis of the People revolting against an oppressive government? So, you slept through history class, then?[/Quote]

 

ydoaPs; I think you understand exactly what I'm saying, but the US Constitution was established to lay out HOW change was to be handled and mob rule is just not a principle of America. We were not wanting to change our Government, which is what is going on in Egypt. Then if you wish to go pre-revolution, their is still a major difference, in the DoI you mention. All Colonies were represented during its formation and there was hope a peaceful solution could be had. A good many Nations of the old British Empire, have peacefully resolved their differences, including Canada and Australia, relatively.

 

The Boston Tea Party, was over Taxes (Stamp Act) brewing for years and not food prices. It also happened in 1773, well before the DoI or revolution. I know a couple may have been tarred and feathered, but am not sure anyone was killed.

 

So, should the president have lied and said the majority of the protesters were elderly people and the protests were to keep things exactly the same? Or is he just not allowed to talk about change since it was part of his campaign?[/Quote]

 

I'm not sure he should have said anything and there's basically no change as of today. I sincerely hope change does come and acceptable to a majority of those folks, but there are today a good many people, in a good many places that somehow think America will back them over any little grievance they might have, not to mention friendly Nations (Israel) wondering if this Administration will throw them under the bus, in the name of change.

 

Oh, you're not happy with the change that didn't actually happen because the Obama administration bent over backwards compromising with the Republican children in Congress? That's a bit odd. [/Quote]

 

I'm not sure where you want to go with this, but the Administration completely ignored those children, before the 2010 elections, compromising with SOME of them before the new House was seated. IMO and what the DNC was saying, they really felt the people were behind their policy and the means used to get enacted. Come to think of that means used to cause change, really did work....

[ydoaPs]

ydoaPs; I think you understand exactly what I'm saying, but the US Constitution was established to lay out HOW change was to be handled and mob rule is just not a principle of America.

The US Constitution outlined how THIS government will willingly change, not how it became what it is.

 

The DoI clearly states in the same passage detailing the inalienable rights that we also have the right to overthrow corrupt governments. I quoted it. It was giving a reason for what they did. How did they do it? Mob rule and guerilla warfare. That it is the People who control how they are governed is the very basis of our existence as Americans. To object to the Egyptians rights to do the same is blatantly anti-American.

 

The TEA Party could have used this revolution as a great tool, but one of their prophets(Glenn Beck) would rather make up baseless conspiracy theories. Sorry TEA Party. Then again, it's not really their style of revolution.

 

All Colonies were represented during its formation and there was hope a peaceful solution could be had.

That's bull. They were committing treason and they knew it. They knew when signing it that the DoI was their death warrant should they not win freedom.

 

A good many Nations of the old British Empire, have peacefully resolved their differences, including Canada and Australia, relatively.

Was that before they got whipped by a bunch of guerilla farmers?

 

The Boston Tea Party, was over Taxes (Stamp Act) brewing for years and not food prices.

And the Stamp Act affected the price of what? That's right, food!

 

I'm not sure where you want to go with this, but the Administration completely ignored those children

 

So, the Democrats went and willingly of their own accord without any help from the Republicans changed their awesome healthcare plan to make it what the Republicans wanted for years? THAT makes sense.

Edited February 15, 2011 by ydoaPs

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Could you be slightly less condescending when debating? I'd prefer this thread not degenerate while on its first page.

[Moontanman]

I'd like to see a less condescending debate too, sadly that is jackson33's style of debate, he misleads, misrepresents, misdirects and it is very difficult to debate someone who uses such disingenuous tactics... jackson33 is so sure everyone else is stupid he thinks he can say anything and that makes it true just because he said it, much like most extremists his arguments are all hot air with very little basis in reality.

 

His reality is in a galaxy far far away, It's impossible to debate him in any way except his own, smear the extremist BS on thick and hope no one else will have the nerve to question him... personally i think extremist politics is doomed, the Internet is the source of the nails for the lid of the coffin of extremism. people are tiring of extremism, people are tired of hearing how one side is going to fix everything and all they really do is pander to special interests, each side has them but one thing is sure people are beginning to wake up....

 

Right now it is much like the free for all of any community as it starts out, lots of snake oil salesmen, BS artists, sycophants of power and cults of personality, but the same way the developing young nation of the USA evolved to become a more enlightened society so shall the Internet, the truth will win, if it does not which ever group of extremists that do win will change history to make them look good no matter how big a lie it is.

 

The truth is just a search engine away, a diet of lies leaves you starving for the truth, eventually extremists like Glen Beck will either whither on the vine of lies or lead us all to our doom.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Moontanman

[A Tripolation]

I'd like to see a less condescending debate too, sadly that is jackson33's style of debate...

 

Funny... I thought he was talking about ydoaPs.

 

I think ydoaPs is mostly right, but I don't think he should speak to people like that and think that a civil discourse of ideas will ensue.

Edited February 15, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Moontanman]

Funny... I thought he was talking about ydoaPs.

 

I think ydoaPs is mostly right, but I don't think he should speak to people like that and think that a civil discourse of ideas will ensue.

 

 

So you approve of using disingenuous debate tactics to the point of allowing someone to use them with out calling them on it? I thought ydoaPs remarks were the height of restraint... Hell I remember American History classes, any decent Conservative should, how would they know how to be Conservative if they don't how things were done in the beginning where they all say they want to take us???

Edited February 15, 2011 by Moontanman

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Please leave the critiques of debating style to the staff, and focus on the content. If someone's style is a problem because it breaks the rules (e.g. using fallacies), then the proper course of action is to report it and let the staff take care of it.

FWIW, Cap'n Refsmmat's post was not actually addressed to any one individual.