Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[Marie5890]

Beck also said at the rally,

" *Something beyond imagination is happening," he said. “America today begins to turn back to God.”

“For too long, this country has wandered in darkness,” said Beck, a Fox News host. He said it was now time to “concentrate on the good things in America, the things we have accomplished and the things we can do tomorrow”*

We are now a few weeks out from the rally and no offense, but I dont think America is turning back towards God any more than it was a few weeks prior to the rally…

I think people are too worried…and understandably so…about the economy and jobs right now and are not considering their spiritual health…

If 9-11 didn’t shock in the long term the spiritual and religious apathy that this culture is sinking deeper into…just about nothing will…

(sure the houses of worship were fuller right after 9-11…but it didn’t last)

The USA is a country divided against itself…

 

[CMatt25]

The USA is a country divided

I just recently heard someone say we are more divided than we were when the 2000 election went all the way to the SC. And I believe there is some truth in that. I just don’t see Beck and the Tea Party rhetoric as lending itself in any way, shape, or form to compromise or any healing. God bless us all and peace.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I just recently heard someone say we are more divided than we were when the 2000 election went all the way to the SC. And I believe there is some truth in that. I just don’t see Beck and the Tea Party rhetoric as lending itself in any way, shape, or form to compromise or any healing. God bless us all and peace.

Some of us don’t believe the healing can start until the compromising finishes. We are done with compromising with unions, lobbyists, special interest groups, entitlements, wealth redistribution schemes, sending billions of our tax dollars overseas for feel-good-no results programs, wars of American imperialism, and the like.

 

[Ocean52680]

It is. Do a little research. A start:

newsweek.com/2010/07/23/the-new-black-panther-story-light-on-facts-heavy-on-echo.html

Do you think there are enough cases of voter suppression by the New Black Panther Party or black advocacy groups so that the DOJ would have a policy about it? It’s absurd from the start.

Of course not and I didn’t say that. However, this was a clear case of voter suppression. The armed suspects were standing directly in front of the polling entrance. This was all caught on camera. Yet, the case was dropped. Congress should investigate the matter.

 

[CMatt25]

Some of us don’t believe the healing can start until the compromising finishes. We are done with compromising with unions, lobbyists, special interest groups, entitlements, wealth redistribution schemes, sending billions of our tax dollars overseas for feel-good-no results programs, wars of American imperialism, and the like.

Obviously. Because while both sides can be extreme. One side offers no single payer but merely an option compromise. :nope: No can do. Safe legal but policies in place for rare. :nope: No can do. You have to come all our way. No pre-existing conditions for children today to receive healthcare. Again maybe :nope: no can we do that either. Let the private sector simply stop writing children’s policies. Continue tax breaks for 97% of Americans. Again :nope: no we can do unless those 3% making over a quarter million dollars a yr also get to keep their tax cuts. But we’re going to continue crying about the deficit. :yup: And on and on.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Of course not and I didn’t say that. However, this was a clear case of voter suppression. The armed suspects were standing directly in front of the polling entrance. This was all caught on camera. Yet, the case was dropped. Congress should investigate the matter.

They did, and charges were filed. The Attorney General, for reasons which he has yet to divulge, dropped them.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Obviously. Because while both sides can be extreme. One side offers no single payer but merely an option compromise. No can do. Safe legal but policies in place for rare. No can do. You have to come all our way. No pre-existing conditions for children today to receive healthcare. Again maybe no can we do that either. Let the private sector simply stop writing children’s policies. Continue tax breaks for 97% of Americans. Again no we can do unless those 3% making over a quarter million dollars a yr also get to keep their tax cuts. But we’re going to continue crying about the deficit. And on and on.

If we want to reduce the deficit, let’s have 100 percent of income earners pay income tax. Not the top 50%, everyone. If you make $10.00, you pay 15% of it in taxes. Period. Fair is fair, everyone uses the “common access services” that are paid out of tax revenue. How about we start there. First, a balanced budget. No more borrowing money for programs. Any program. Second, if you earn money, you pay taxes. Period. Third, get the federal government out of the social engineering/planning/controlling business altogether. Most of the programs conducted by the federal government can be more effectively run by the state or local governments, or private industry. “Tea Party” people don’t want to see people languishing in the streets, dying of starvation and disease. They just don’t believe that the federal government is the appropriate format for these issues because they are to open for interpretation, corruption, and abuse.

 

[estesbob]

The so-called “Civil War” did not answer the question of secessionist legality. Only that it is acceptable to use violence to force a group of people against their will to be part of a nation that it has expressly declared that it does not want to be part of.

.

Actually the question answered was it was not acceptable to use violence to enslave 4.5 million human beings.

You and I agree on pretty much everything else but in discussing secession and/or the Civil War you cannot ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room-slavery.

 

[estesbob]

If we want to reduce the deficit, let’s have 100 percent of income earners pay income tax. .

Agreed. The problem is not that the rich don’t pay enough ,rather that nearly 50% don’t pay anything

 

[Good_News_1]

Of course not and I didn’t say that. However, this was a clear case of voter suppression. The armed suspects were standing directly in front of the polling entrance. This was all caught on camera. Yet, the case was dropped. Congress should investigate the matter.

I realize you have no regard for facts, but I will finish up here.

First, the case was brought by the Bush administration as a criminal case, but was downgraded by the administration to a civil case. The Obama administration didn’t drop it, but obtained an injunction.

It is currently being investigated by the Commission on Civil Rights.

It isn’t a crime to drop a case that someone thinks is a good case. There is some doubt about whether it was a good case or that they handled it incorrectly - what else could they do other than get an injunction against the man with the club, after the Bush administration dropped the criminal aspect, anyway? The only wrongdoing that could be alleged is if the DOJ made its decision for a racial motive.

There is one disgruntled former employee who says there was a racial motive. Of course, he alleges no memo, and no one else supports his theory, and there is no pattern shown of disparate treatment of these cases based on race.

Unless someone admits a racial motive under oath, there isn’t much of a case.

It doesn’t make any sense anyway. The idea that these lawyers would officially adopt a policy of not prosecuting black offenders, and then openly state it is fairly absurd. Even if there were racial sympathies or sensitivities in play, any halfway intelligent person would realize that the DOJ couldn’t get away with declining prosecuting egregious cases, no matter who was involved. Hence, it would be dumb to have a policy of not prosecuting any group, and doubly dumb because they are lawyers who work with civil rights laws every day and know the policy is illegal.

I felt the same way about the Plame allegations - I understood the motive of political payback, but it seemed such an odd, useless way to carry it out.

Partisanship makes people believe all sorts of dumb things.

 

[Good_News_1]

The right to secede is found in natural law. Any positive law that contradicts natural law is invalid and only serves to legitimize either oppression or immorality. Try reading the Declaration of Independence and the various exposes on natural law by St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, et al…

Or try this: take your Texas hypothetical, and insert “Los Angeles” or “Tulsa” for Texas. It works the same, as far as I can see.

If there is a natural law right for Texas to secede from the United States, there is a natural right of Tulsa to secede from Oklahoma.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Or try this: take your Texas hypothetical, and insert “Los Angeles” or “Tulsa” for Texas. It works the same, as far as I can see.

If there is a natural law right for Texas to secede from the United States, there is a natural right of Tulsa to secede from Oklahoma.

Exactly.

 

[Ocean52680]

But when he talked pragmatism and trying to strive for bipartisanship, he meant it. I don’t know if somewhere deep down in his heart he is more liberal or not. But he governs from the center, center-left. Not as a liberal. He took single payer off the table from the get go. Has said while if we were starting from scratch, he might look at it as an option, we are not starting from scratch he has repeatedly said. And a public option which he neither demanded nor pushed all that strongly for, was not even considered a compromise for conservatives and some centrists. And of course for bipartisanship it would have taken 2 to tango. That’s the “bi” part.

PPACA is a product of governing from the center? The absurdity of that statement makes me blush. Are you not interested in reading the actual policy that was signed into law? Your fellow voters are asking questions, you should too.

As I mentioned earlier:
When PPACA is fully implemented in 2014, the insurance industry will function as a regulated utility. As a regulated utility, the government will set the levels of coverage and service. It will set the prices for premiums and medical reimbursements. The government will also socialize risk and pass those costs to the young and healthy. Now, there maybe several insurance companies still in existence (surviving only through the insurance mandate and annual subsidies paid to obligated customers). But make no mistake, the federal government will be everyone’s insurer.

When Congress decides it can no longer afford annual subsidies to prop up health insurers and healthcare providers, you’ll get your public option. I prefer to call it the British healthcare system. The left got everything it wanted. But the final product works like a decongestion - delayed time release.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Actually the question answered was it was not acceptable to use violence to enslave 4.5 million human beings.

You and I agree on pretty much everything else but in discussing secession and/or the Civil War you cannot ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room-slavery.

Slavery wasn’t the issue that started the war. It was background noise and was being chanted mostly by Northern abolitionists. The issue that started the war was the Morrill Tariff. Slavery eventually became the central cause, and rightly so, although Lincoln was no lover of the colored man, in fact he was a notorious racist who did not believe that white and black people could live together in peace. There is more that I could go on about this, probably best for another thread.

 

[Marie5890]

Some of us don’t believe the healing can start until the compromising finishes. We are done with compromising with unions, lobbyists, special interest groups, entitlements, wealth redistribution schemes, sending billions of our tax dollars overseas for feel-good-no results programs, wars of American imperialism, and the like.

I dont think it’s the compromising that is preventing us all from healing…On the contrary I think its the arrogance and pride that fuels so much of your above stated issues.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I dont think it’s the compromising that is preventing us all from healing…On the contrary I think its the arrogance and pride that fuels so much of your above stated issues.

Arrogance and pride on who’s part? How can you have healing when there is still cancer growing in the body?

 

[Good_News_1]

Arrogance and pride on who’s part? How can you have healing when there is still cancer growing in the body?

The Tumor of Federal Encroachment growing in the Lung of the Body Politic! Apply the Libertarian Fantasy Radiation Gun!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The Tumor of Federal Encroachment growing in the Lung of the Body Politic! Apply the Libertarian Fantasy Radiation Gun!

Good idea, but it is more aptly called “Austrian School Economics” or anarcho-capitalism. Since central economic planning and Keynesian economics has proven to be such a smashing success at ensuring enduring and ubiquitous prosperity, lets just have MORE AND BIGGER!

 

[Ocean52680]

I realize you have no regard for facts, but I will finish up here.

First, the case was brought by the Bush administration as a criminal case, but was downgraded by the administration to a civil case. The Obama administration didn’t drop it, but obtained an injunction.

It is currently being investigated by the Commission on Civil Rights.

It isn’t a crime to drop a case that someone thinks is a good case. There is some doubt about whether it was a good case or that they handled it incorrectly - what else could they do other than get an injunction against the man with the club, after the Bush administration dropped the criminal aspect, anyway? The only wrongdoing that could be alleged is if the DOJ made its decision for a racial motive.

Two articles from the National Review address a number of your points.

Hans A. von Spakovsky, National Review:

"First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division’s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts.

The focus for the Civil Rights Division is always on the best way to get the remedy that is needed to stop and prevent the recurrence of the voter intimidation or other wrongful behavior as soon as possible. In this particular case, when the decision was being made in January of 2009, the division knew there was going to be another election in May in Philadelphia. The fastest to way to make sure there would be no thugs in paramilitary uniforms and jackboots smacking batons into their fists at polling places in the upcoming election was to file a civil complaint and obtain a restraining order against the individual defendants and the New Black Panther Party. In fact, one of the defendants dismissed from the case was once again credentialed as a Democratic poll watcher in the May election.

Once the division obtained a judgment and an injunction in the civil case, they could have decided to further pursue a criminal prosecution against the individual New Black Panthers, but the number one priority had to be getting a civil injunction as expeditiously as possible before the next election.". However, the Obama Administration dismissed the case before the judgment or future criminal prosecution could occur.

National Review: nationalreview.com/corner/233143/downgrading-voter-intimidation-hans-von-spakovsky

Andrew McCarthy, National Review:

“This is not a situation in which a mere investigation straddled two different administrations and the second decided to drop it. Charges were filed here. Team Obama did not merely abandon an investigation; they abandoned a formal complaint that had been brought in court by career prosecutors in the name of the American people. Further, the Panthers had ignored that complaint, and thus there had been a legal default. A U.S. judge was poised to enter judgment in favor of the United States. Only then, having prevailed, having reached a point in the litigation where the Panthers had intentionally forfeited their right to litigate the legal standards did Holder’s minions order the line prosecutors to dismiss the case.”

nationalreview.com/articles/243504/case-against-new-black-panthers-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=2

Perhaps, you need to get your facts straight.

 

[Good_News_1]

Two articles from the National Review address a number of your points.

Yes, but they are wrong, factually.

The case was not dropped. There was an injunction obtained.

The only question was whether they should have obtained an injunction against the organization or just the individual. That would have required investigation into whether the organization was engaging in suppression, or whether these individuals were acting on their own. I haven’t seen the evidence as to that - but to presume it exists is certainly unjustified.

But that isn’t even the point. The point isn’t whether someone, in hindsight, believes the DOJ made a bad decision. The only wrongdoing would occur if there was a proven racial motive for not going after the organization.

And it is absurd to think that the DOJ would have a policy of not prosecuting black defendants and especially absurd to think they would admit it if they did. And that is what an “investigation” would be seeking. Let me ask you: do you believe that the DOJ is engaging in pro-black racial discrimination and are so stupid that the civil rights attorneys talk about it openly?

Do you realize that National Review isn’t a journalistic enterprise, but an opinion journal? What is your standard for calling for an investigation?