AWESOME. You Glenn Beck'ers sit down for some REAL education. I should have my own 40 day challenge: 40 days of real debate instead of asking your imaginary friend to talk to you.

Health insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana and CoventryOne will stop writing policies for all children. Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children.

That sounds compassionate, but -- in case Obamacare fanatics haven't noticed -- sick children need more medical care. Insurance is about risk, and already sick children are 100 percent certain to be sick when their coverage begins. So if the government mandates that insurance companies cover sick children at the lower well-children price, insurers will quit the market rather than sandbag their shareholders. This is not callousness -- it's fiduciary responsibility. Insurance companies are not charities. So, thanks to the compassionate Congress and president, parents of sick children will be saved from expensive insurance -- by being unable to obtain any insurance! That's how government compassion works.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...07445.html

Obamacare is the single boat anchor around the neck of Democrats. Dems failed the people, the country and themselves. I remember the Slaughter resolution, Stupac, Pelosi, Reid and Obama. It's disgusting. This highlights how stupid progressivism is.

(10-06-2010 10:14 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  AWESOME. You Glenn Beck'ers sit down for some REAL education. I should have my own 40 day challenge: 40 days of real debate instead of asking your imaginary friend to talk to you.

Health insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana and CoventryOne will stop writing policies for all children. Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children.

That sounds compassionate, but -- in case Obamacare fanatics haven't noticed -- sick children need more medical care. Insurance is about risk, and already sick children are 100 percent certain to be sick when their coverage begins. So if the government mandates that insurance companies cover sick children at the lower well-children price, insurers will quit the market rather than sandbag their shareholders. This is not callousness -- it's fiduciary responsibility. Insurance companies are not charities. So, thanks to the compassionate Congress and president, parents of sick children will be saved from expensive insurance -- by being unable to obtain any insurance! That's how government compassion works.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...07445.html

don't beck and stossel have basically the same views or am i way off?

(10-06-2010 10:14 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  AWESOME. You Glenn Beck'ers sit down for some REAL education. I should have my own 40 day challenge: 40 days of real debate instead of asking your imaginary friend to talk to you.

So you want to start a real substantial debate by taking shots at peoples beliefs. Yea nice..

I'm still something of the FNG here but you know I am 'down' for a debate any time and I'll do it without insulting your personnel beliefs.

(10-06-2010 10:23 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Obamacare is the single boat anchor around the neck of Democrats. Dems failed the people, the country and themselves. I remember the Slaughter resolution, Stupac, Pelosi, Reid and Obama. It's disgusting. This highlights how stupid progressivism is.

This is what happens when you "don't waste a crisis" which was the mantra of the Obama Administration until people figured out what it actually meant.

Rather than fixing the crisis you try to force change on society and that never ends well.

(10-06-2010 10:27 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(10-06-2010 10:14 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  AWESOME. You Glenn Beck'ers sit down for some REAL education. I should have my own 40 day challenge: 40 days of real debate instead of asking your imaginary friend to talk to you.

Health insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana and CoventryOne will stop writing policies for all children. Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children.

That sounds compassionate, but -- in case Obamacare fanatics haven't noticed -- sick children need more medical care. Insurance is about risk, and already sick children are 100 percent certain to be sick when their coverage begins. So if the government mandates that insurance companies cover sick children at the lower well-children price, insurers will quit the market rather than sandbag their shareholders. This is not callousness -- it's fiduciary responsibility. Insurance companies are not charities. So, thanks to the compassionate Congress and president, parents of sick children will be saved from expensive insurance -- by being unable to obtain any insurance! That's how government compassion works.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...07445.html

don't beck and stossel have basically the same views or am i way off?

Way way WAY off.

Glenn Beck is slowly turning into a modern Jerry Falwell. Glenn occasionally brings up valid historical points ... but that boat is awash in a sea of faith based social conservatism and poor reasoning. If he has something he wants to slam .... he finds a way to connect it financially to something almost universally hated. The majority of Glenn's arguments are guilt by association. I got news for you -- in politics it's really damn easy to do that. Just give a neo-nazi $5,000 and have him give $2,000 to (insert guy you wanna slam here) and tell him to keep the other $3K and shut up. But more galling than that shallow ass reasoning is how he's gone off a cliff on the right socially. He literally says, ON AIR, "we can only solve our problems through faith and with God's help". That is DEEPLY alarming on so many levels ....

Stossel on the other hand is a libertarian (very conservative fiscally ... very liberal socially). He universally wants government out of the lives of the people as much as possible. And he furthers this view with debate. He has people on from both sides and asks them both the hard questions. He doesn't just ask the liberal "where do you get the right to give my tax dollars to bailout billionaire's banks?" ... he asks the conservative "how are you going to finance government if we really make all these cuts we're talking about?"

You're under the assumption you can't have faith and talk about your faith while being a Libertarian? How did you come up with that? I've yet to hear Beck say anything that would be deemed unconstitutional as it pertains to faith. He talks more about inner reflection.

Beck promotes a reassertion of the Constitution. He promotes that the Constitution does not change. That principals do not change. That faith is key to the founding fathers plans for this country. There are many ways to smear Beck, think how he would be smeared if his message was anything but Faith, Hope and Charity.

(10-06-2010 10:37 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-06-2010 10:27 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(10-06-2010 10:14 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  AWESOME. You Glenn Beck'ers sit down for some REAL education. I should have my own 40 day challenge: 40 days of real debate instead of asking your imaginary friend to talk to you.

Health insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana and CoventryOne will stop writing policies for all children. Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children.

That sounds compassionate, but -- in case Obamacare fanatics haven't noticed -- sick children need more medical care. Insurance is about risk, and already sick children are 100 percent certain to be sick when their coverage begins. So if the government mandates that insurance companies cover sick children at the lower well-children price, insurers will quit the market rather than sandbag their shareholders. This is not callousness -- it's fiduciary responsibility. Insurance companies are not charities. So, thanks to the compassionate Congress and president, parents of sick children will be saved from expensive insurance -- by being unable to obtain any insurance! That's how government compassion works.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...07445.html

don't beck and stossel have basically the same views or am i way off?

Way way WAY off.

Glenn Beck is slowly turning into a modern Jerry Falwell. Glenn occasionally brings up valid historical points ... but that boat is awash in a sea of faith based social conservatism and poor reasoning. If he has something he wants to slam .... he finds a way to connect it financially to something almost universally hated. The majority of Glenn's arguments are guilt by association. I got news for you -- in politics it's really damn easy to do that. Just give a neo-nazi $5,000 and have him give $2,000 to (insert guy you wanna slam here) and tell him to keep the other $3K and shut up. But more galling than that shallow ass reasoning is how he's gone off a cliff on the right socially. He literally says, ON AIR, "we can only solve our problems through faith and with God's help". That is DEEPLY alarming on so many levels ....

Stossel on the other hand is a libertarian (very conservative fiscally ... very liberal socially). He universally wants government out of the lives of the people as much as possible. And he furthers this view with debate. He has people on from both sides and asks them both the hard questions. He doesn't just ask the liberal "where do you get the right to give my tax dollars to bailout billionaire's banks?" ... he asks the conservative "how are you going to finance government if we really make all these cuts we're talking about?"

who the hell cares about these stupid social issues? abortion, gay marriage, etc., are so unimportant right now. my question is mostly, aren't beck and stossel similar when it comes to fiscal views?

(10-06-2010 11:08 AM)Rebel Wrote:  You're under the assumption you can't have faith and talk about your faith while being a Libertarian? How did you come up with that? I've yet to hear Beck say anything that would be deemed unconstitutional as it pertains to faith. He talks more about inner reflection.

Not at all. It's just that for libertarians, faith isn't even part of the equation when it comes to government, so it is never brought into the argument.

(10-06-2010 11:21 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  who the hell cares about these stupid social issues? abortion, gay marriage, etc., are so unimportant right now. my question is mostly, aren't beck and stossel similar when it comes to fiscal views?

An alarmingly large # of Republicans, sadly. They're similar. I don't know if Beck would go as far as to End The Fed, go with a Fair Tax, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck
Political beliefs

Beck has described himself as a conservative with libertarian leanings.[4][27] Among his core values Beck lists personal responsibility, private charity, the right to life, freedom of religion, limited government, and family as the cornerstone of society.[28] Beck also believes in low national debt, and has said "A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence."[29] Beck supports individual gun ownership rights and is against gun control legislation.[30]

Beck believes that there is a lack of evidence that human activity is the main cause of global warming.[31] He also says there’s a legitimate case that global warming has, at least in part, been caused by mankind, and has tried to do his part by buying a home with a "green" design.[32] He also views the American Clean Energy and Security Act as a form of wealth redistribution, and has promoted a petition rejecting the Kyoto Protocol.[33]

In a 2010 interview in Forbes, Beck asserted that his business was not political, but is an entertainment company: "I could give a flying crap about the political process," continuing on to say that Mercury Radio Arts, his production company, is "an entertainment company".[1] In a follow-up story, Beck said, while explaining why Tyler Perry is his hero, “[Perry] has the luxury of not doing the political stuff, which is really where I want to be as a company. I just happen to believe the Republic is on fire and it wouldn’t be as effective if I had Pluto come out with a cartoon fire hose to put it out."[34]
Religious beliefs

Beck and his wife joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in October 1999. Spiritually, Beck has credited God for saving him from drug and alcohol abuse, professional obscurity and friendlessness.[35] In 2006, Beck performed a short inspirational monologue In Salt Lake City, Utah,[36] detailing how he was transformed by the "healing power of Jesus Christ," which was released as a CD two years later by the publishing company owned by the Mormon Church.[37]

"It is likely that Beck owes his brand of Founding Father-worship to Mormonism, where reverence for the founders and the United States Constitution as divinely inspired are often-declared elements of orthodox belief ... Many Mormons also believe that Joseph Smith prophesied in 1843 that the US Constitution would one day 'hang by a thread' and be saved by faithful Mormons." (See White Horse Prophecy.)
— Joanna Brooks, religious scholar [38]

Religious scholar Joanna Brooks contends that Beck developed his "amalgation of anti-communism" and "connect-the-dots conspiracy theorizing" only after his entree into the "deeply insular world of Mormon thought and culture."[38] Brooks theorizes that Beck's calls to fasting and prayer are rooted in Mormon collective fasts to address spiritual challenges, while Beck's "overt sentimentality" and penchant for weeping represent the hallmark of a "distinctly Mormon mode of masculinity" where "appropriately-timed displays of tender emotion are displays of power" and spirituality.[38] Philip Barlow, the Arrington chair of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University, has said that Beck's belief that the U.S. Constitution was an "inspired document," his calls for limited government and for not exiling God from the public sphere, "have considerable sympathy in Mormonism."[39]

Beck has acknowledged that the Mormon "doctrine is different" from traditional Christianity, but said that this was what attracted him to it, stating that "for me some of the things in traditional doctrine just doesn't work."[40] Aware however of the theological tensions, Beck announced to Chris Wallace on the August 29, 2010 edition of Fox News Sunday: "Look, I'm Mormon, and most Christians don't recognize me as a Christian."[41] Religion has been a central part of Beck's message, although primarily referenced in broad terms, and not specifically to his Mormon faith.[39]

Countering progressivism

"What’s the difference between a communist or socialist and a progressive? Revolution or evolution? One requires a gun and the other eats away slowly."
—Glenn Beck, keynote address to the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference, February 20, 2010 [45][55]

During his 2010 keynote speech to CPAC, Beck wrote the word "progressivism" on a chalkboard and declared, "This is the disease. This is the disease in America", adding "progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution!"[45][55] According to Beck, the progressive ideas of men such as John Dewey, Herbert Croly, and Walter Lippmann, influenced the Presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson; eventually becoming the foundation for President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.[45] Beck believes that such progressivism infects both main political parties and threatens to "destroy America as it was originally conceived."[45] In Beck’s book Common Sense, he argues that "progressivism has less to do with the parties and more to do with individuals who seek to redefine, reshape, and rebuild America into a country where individual liberties and personal property mean nothing if they conflict with the plans and goals of the State."[45]

A collection of progressives whom Beck has referred to as "Crime Inc", comprise what Beck contends is a clandestine conspiracy to take over and transform America.[56][57][58] Some of these individuals include Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, Andy Stern, John Podesta, Wade Rathke, Joel Rogers and Francis Fox Piven.[56][59] Other figures tied to Beck's "Crime Inc" accusation include Al Gore, Franklin Raines,[60] Maurice Strong, George Soros,[61] John Holdren and President Barack Obama.[57] According to Beck, these individuals already have or are surreptitiously working in unison with an array of organizations and corporations such as Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, ACORN, Apollo Alliance, Tides Center, Chicago Climate Exchange, Generation Investment Management, Enterprise Community Partners, Petrobras, Center for American Progress, and the SEIU; to fulfill their progressive agenda.[57][

(10-06-2010 11:42 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-06-2010 11:08 AM)Rebel Wrote:  You're under the assumption you can't have faith and talk about your faith while being a Libertarian? How did you come up with that? I've yet to hear Beck say anything that would be deemed unconstitutional as it pertains to faith. He talks more about inner reflection.

Not at all. It's just that for libertarians, faith isn't even part of the equation when it comes to government, so it is never brought into the argument.

(10-06-2010 11:21 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  who the hell cares about these stupid social issues? abortion, gay marriage, etc., are so unimportant right now. my question is mostly, aren't beck and stossel similar when it comes to fiscal views?

An alarmingly large # of Republicans, sadly. They're similar. I don't know if Beck would go as far as to End The Fed, go with a Fair Tax, etc.

I'm with you on gay marriage GTS but Abortion is as much a real issue as free speech.

(10-06-2010 10:14 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Health insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana and CoventryOne will stop writing policies for all children. Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children.

You mean there wasn't something in this:



that prevented insurers from dropping coverage to children altogether? (BTW, that's just 1 copy of the bill, not 2.)

I work for one of those companies listed. It is true that we will no longer write Child Only Policies, we will write a child with a pre-existing condition only on the condition that it is a family policy, meaning a parent has to be on the policy. We will also rate the child as high as the law allows to keep the price of the policy where it should be. We are going to take a bath on these policies.

(10-06-2010 11:42 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-06-2010 11:21 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  who the hell cares about these stupid social issues? abortion, gay marriage, etc., are so unimportant right now. my question is mostly, aren't beck and stossel similar when it comes to fiscal views?

An alarmingly large # of Republicans, sadly. They're similar. I don't know if Beck would go as far as to End The Fed, go with a Fair Tax, etc.

Why is it an alarmingly large #? Because they don't agree with you? You don't like the religious right because they force their values on you, but you have no problem doing the same thing. Seems kinda hypocritical.

I don't recall anyone here bashing you for your atheistic views, but there are countless threads where you have taken the opportunity to bash Christians.

(10-06-2010 09:00 PM)blah Wrote:  Why is it an alarmingly large #? Because they don't agree with you? You don't like the religious right because they force their values on you, but you have no problem doing the same thing. Seems kinda hypocritical.

I don't recall anyone here bashing you for your atheistic views, but there are countless threads where you have taken the opportunity to bash Christians.

I've been to Tea Party rallies. For something that was born from the Ron Paul campaign -- it has become infested with values voters. I'd say the values voters are well north of 1/3 of the Tea Party ... probably closer to half.

I don't force my views on them -- but I do openly attack them in debate for all the same reasons I attack fiscal liberalism, in the hopes of bringing about a change in public opinion, even if one person at a time. Religion has caused, spawned, and justified such a huge amount of hatred, violence, lunacy, death, and destruction... and I feel for that it is worthwhile to publicly debate against it. I would like to do away with this precept we have that religion is somehow bulletproof from criticism and not subject to rational debate. THAT SAID, religious discussions have no context in government, aside from keeping government secular. Period. Also, THAT SAID, some religions are better than others. Islam, even when peaceful in nature, is abhorrent for its treatment of women. I don't buy the liberal relative morality bull****. Morality is about improving ALL of mankind, and extends naturally from social contract. Christianity is no real enemy these days, but there are areas within it just as abhorrent as Islam. The organized pedophilia activity and cover up from the Catholic church. The radical Christian groups out there (see Jesus Camp if you don't know what I'm talking about). Granted, that's a very small minority within Christianity ... but it's still there, and you don't see mainstream Christianity doing anything to moderate it. And of course Christianity has its own abhorrent history of burning scientists at the stake and religious warfare.

"Faith is making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. Those who preach faith and enable it and elevate it are our intellectual slaveholders. Keeping mankind in a bondage of fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. ... Religion is dangerous because it allows humans without all the answers to think that they do. ... The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that is what man needs to be because human history is just a litany of getting sh*t dead wrong. This is why anti-religionists need to end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. Those who consider themselves only moderately religious need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort religion offers you actually comes at a terrible price."
--- Religulous

And if you want to see me being bashed for atheistic views ... fund a very modest campaign for me to run in the GOP primary for US House SC-4. Asheville, NC is a very liberal place, relative to its surroundings. Their atheist city councilman ended up hiring private security after getting death threats for being elected as an atheist. Then the values voters proceeded to attempt to have him removed from office over a flagrantly prejudice clause in the NC state constitution preventing anybody who doesn't profess a belief in a higher power from holding office. I catch **** *ALL THE TIME* IRL for being an atheist. I can be minding my own business at the bar talking about Hitchens with a friend and I'll get the usual ******* "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!" diatribe from some random **** who doesn't even know me, but felt by listening in on my conversation they were privy to render the ultimate verdict as some sort of ultimate authority. Atheists catch just as much **** down here in the South as gays. And polling has clearly shown the public at large is prejudice against atheist. Last Gallup polled things that people would automatically not consider a person for public office ... atheism was in the 70+ percent range. Being gay was only in the 40+ percent range.

With the Tea Party groups I know, I say the "Social Conservatives" are maybe 10% at the most, or these infiltrators are pretty good at keeping their mouths shut.

But you can spot them a mile away.. they have "104.7 The Fish" bumper stickers on their car.

Look out for anyone with a bumper sticker on their car that describes a Radio Station as being "Safe for the Whole Family"... you have a "Fundie" on your hands.

(10-06-2010 11:07 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  With the Tea Party groups I know, I say the "Social Conservatives" are maybe 10% at the most, or these infiltrators are pretty good at keeping their mouths shut.

But you can spot them a mile away.. they have "104.7 The Fish" bumper stickers on their car.

Look out for anyone with a bumper sticker on their car that describes a Radio Station as being "Safe for the Whole Family"... you have a "Fundie" on your hands.

Depends on the Tea Party. My truly local tea party group had a debate for US House SC-4 featuring GOP, Libertarian, and Constitution Party candidates. It was nice. Ratio was much lighter there -- maybe 15 to 20%. However at one just 10 mins away they featured Alan Keyes as keynote. Need I say more.

GTS's posts regarding morality are a case study on those who advocate the Macro-Darwinian naturalistic worldview. And how they must step out of it to make sense of their everyday world.
There is no what we traditionally think of as objectively "good" or "bad" with respect to human behavior. Natural Selection only cares about traits that are "beneficial"; not if a given trait is "good" or "bad". Pedophilia must confer an evolutionary advantage, or else it would have been weeded out long ago. This is not my opinion. The field of Evolutionary Psychology is devoted to studying human behavior through this lens. Additionally, we are told over and over again that human behavior is determined by one's genes and environment. That the homosexual is born that way. Well, I was born religious. Isn't asking me to pro-actively change my religious behavior akin to asking a homosexual to change theirs? Also, if the totality of my behavior is a result of my genes and environment, why must you insult and torment me GTS?
After all, I received my genes from my decendants. I could not pick them. Neither could I pick the environment in which I was raised.

(10-06-2010 11:07 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  With the Tea Party groups I know, I say the "Social Conservatives" are maybe 10% at the most, or these infiltrators are pretty good at keeping their mouths shut.

But you can spot them a mile away.. they have "104.7 The Fish" bumper stickers on their car.

Look out for anyone with a bumper sticker on their car that describes a Radio Station as being "Safe for the Whole Family"... you have a "Fundie" on your hands.

I resent that.

I am as much a "Fundie" christian as anyone here and I aside from Abortion I don't think there is a constitutional/legal issue where I disagree with the 'real libertarian' clique.

Don't fall into the media trap of equating Fundamentalist Christians (particularly in the US) with violence or a desire to force their faith on you.

All of this clever funny back biting is not befitting a group of people who want smaller government, it's more befitting the nanny state enthusiast.