Beck, Open book test.

[Vast LWC]

Stimulus bill had (9) cosponsors in House and (17) in Senate. There are bills with over 200 House cosponsors that cant reach the floor and be voted on.

Any proof that members of Congress wrote the bill?

How many members of Congress were involved in writing it?

What role played Apollo Alliance?

No, see, that's not how this works. Glenn Beck and John Boehner made the assertion that no-one had read the bill. Since bills are generally WRITTEN by member of congress and their staffs, it is assumed that they wrote it until someone presentes evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, you need to prove that congress didn't write the bill in order to make that assertion.

The onus of proof is on you, Beck and Boehner and none of you have provided said proof, have you?

But back to the question that you avoided. The one that truly show the BS in Beck's entire argument...

How does Beck's "expert", the black guy who hosts another FoxNews program, make the intuitive leap from the building of debt, to an attempt to centralize power in the Executive Branch?

Because that's what he did, he basically stated that the Executive branch is trying to "take over the government by building up debt".

Beck seemed to agree with the gentleman, and it was part of his presentation (though he conveniently let the other guy actually say the words).

So, how was this conclusion arrived at?

I await your response, eagerly.

 

[Vast LWC]

I've only read a few of the posts after OP and then this last page. Screw how the question is phrased. IMHO, Beck is way too prone to hyperbole and yes, I see undercurrents of appealing to the worst impulses on the far right. With that said, I cannot disagree with his 'charts' or 'facts' that he cites, neither can the left. Therein lies the problem.

He states 'truths' in ways that are couched in a way to appeal to those I'd distance myself from in person, though the basis we agree with. Not the racism, not the other undertones towards anti-intellectual, etc.

Agreed, but, as per my last post, he makes ridiculous leaps to conclusions that have nothing to do with the "charts" and "facts" he presents.

In this particular instance, he used exaggerated data about the national debt to "prove" a point that was not only false, but completely un-related to the data.

He basically said that the debt is being used as a means for the executive branch to gain totalitarian power over the country.

In other words, his logic was

If a = there's a lot of debt
and b = here's a chart of the debt
and x = someone's trying to take over the government

then a + b = x

With absolutely no steps in between.

 

[Zoom-boing]

THEY DIDN'T READ THE BILL!

Says John Boehner, chief of the opposition to the bill, and some conservative columnist.

Wow, that's some proof right there.

The Times article you linked didn't support this argument at all.

Let me ask you something, don't you think that perhaps the members of congress, and their staffs, read what was being written while they were writing it?

Or do you think that when something comes up for a vote, everyone just forgets what was in the bill, and needs to re-read it?

From the CFP article:

The “Stimulus Package” with over 1,100 pages was handed to law makers at 11p.m. on Thursday night and Pelosi wanted their votes the next day, because she was leaving for Rome to consult with the Pope.

From the NYT:

The Senate finally adopted the bill at 10:47 p.m. [Friday]

I provided these articles to show that they did not have what

Obama had promised -- at least 48 hours to read and understand the package bailout plan

Instead of the promised 48 hours to read the bill, they had 24. Thought you'd see that.

So all the different people who worked on this bill read everything as it was being written? Then why would Barry have even bothered to tell them they had 48 hours to "read and understand the package bailout plan"?

They didn't read it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Stimulus bill had (9) cosponsors in House and (17) in Senate. There are bills with over 200 House cosponsors that cant reach the floor and be voted on.

Any proof that members of Congress wrote the bill?

How many members of Congress were involved in writing it?

What role played Apollo Alliance?

No, see, that's not how this works. Glenn Beck and John Boehner made the assertion that no-one had read the bill. Since bills are generally WRITTEN by member of congress and their staffs, it is assumed that they wrote it until someone presentes evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, you need to prove that congress didn't write the bill in order to make that assertion.

The onus of proof is on you, Beck and Boehner and none of you have provided said proof, have you?

But back to the question that you avoided. The one that truly show the BS in Beck's entire argument...

There is no place for assumations. Assumations makes ASS of U and ME. Let's talk facts.


Bill was introduced in House late at night on Jan 26. 2009 and passed on Jan 28. 2009. Is that enough tiime to read it, I assume you will say - YES.

If Congress wrote the entire bill, there wouldn't be need to read it nor to vote on it. But they did vote on it on the party line. Republicans says they didnt have time to read so they voted against. Since Democrats voted for it, they all must have redd the entire bill.

What question I avoided?

 

[Vast LWC]

From the CFP article:

From the NYT:

The Senate finally adopted the bill at 10:47 p.m. [Friday]

I provided these articles to show that they did not have what

Obama had promised -- at least 48 hours to read and understand the package bailout plan

Instead of the promised 48 hours to read the bill, they had 24. Thought you'd see that.

So all the different people who worked on this bill read everything as it was being written? Then why would Barry have even bothered to tell them they had 48 hours to "read and understand the package bailout plan"?

They didn't read it.

The Bill was deliberated over for days while it was being written. That is how these things work.

Perhaps the "48 Hours" was for Republicans to read the bill, because I frankly doubt that anyone cared what they thought, at that point, seeing as how they had made it perfectly clear that they wouldn't vote for it no matter what it said.

And

There is no place for assumations. Assumations makes ASS of U and ME. Let's talk facts.


Bill was introduced in House late at night on Jan 26. 2009 and passed on Jan 28. 2009. Is that enough tiime to read it, I assume you will say - YES.

If Congress wrote the entire bill, there wouldn't be need to read it nor to vote on it. But they did vote on it on the party line. Republicans says they didnt have time to read so they voted against. Since Democrats voted for it, they all must have redd the entire bill.

What question I avoided?

Which doesn't include any time spent in WRITING the bill. You do understand that in order to introduce a bill, people need to write it first, right?

And as for the Republicans voting "No" as I said above, they had made it perfectly clear that that would be their answer no matter what. Why would anyone care if they got a chance to read it or not?

 

[Ame®icano]

There is no place for assumations. Assumations makes ASS of U and ME. Let's talk facts.


Bill was introduced in House late at night on Jan 26. 2009 and passed on Jan 28. 2009. Is that enough tiime to read it, I assume you will say - YES.

If Congress wrote the entire bill, there wouldn't be need to read it nor to vote on it. But they did vote on it on the party line. Republicans says they didnt have time to read so they voted against. Since Democrats voted for it, they all must have redd the entire bill.

What question I avoided?

Which doesn't include any time spent in WRITING the bill. You do understand that in order to introduce a bill, people need to write it first, right?

And as for the Republicans voting "No" as I said above, they had made it perfectly clear that that would be their answer no matter what. Why would anyone care if they got a chance to read it or not?

As I noted above, bill had one sponsor David Obey (D) and (9) co-sponsors, all (D). I could agree to some point that they red it as it was written. What about rest of the Congress?

Lets go little bit back to 2001 and Patriot Act. That bill had one (1) co-sponsor. Do you think that every member of Congress red that bill? Intorduced on Oct 23, passed on Oct 24 in the House. Introduced and passed in the Senate on the Oct 25. 2001 (same day).

 

[midcan5]

I watched Beck tonight (longer than usual) and I will only need one small change in my assessment of him and that is while it is still nonsense, it is a paranoid, conspiratorial nonsense that labels everyone a Marxist, a communist, or a radical. I realize now you would never be able to answer my question above, as there is no substance in the show. He gathers a few like minded people who see in every action, or in every person, of this administration a threat against whatever or however he defines government. That definition isn't clear, nor is what he means by Marxist etc.

He must be feeling a bit of the criticism as he now attempts to cajole, as any charlatan does the audience of democrats and independents in his paranoia. He brings up all the names wingnuts use to label Obama as if they meant anything.

Some of the things he says border on treasonous, for example when he says that the democratically elected government is destroying 'our country.' What does that mean? And if out of context quotations, weird associates, and bizarre speculation are your cup of tea go for it.

I did laugh when the first ad was for Gold investment and Gordon Liddy was the spokesmen, the irony of that should come out of a Don DeLillo novel. lol

I've read Cass Sunstein who came in for special vitriol, and while he may be defined as left wing, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. The old adage, the proof is in the pudding holds here, let's see if any of his paranoid nonsense ever, ever comes about. It won't, but hey you guys would be lost with Obama to fantasize over.


Cass R. Sunstein: The Obama I Know

 

[Zoom-boing]

From the CFP article:

From the NYT:

The Senate finally adopted the bill at 10:47 p.m. [Friday]

I provided these articles to show that they did not have what
Instead of the promised 48 hours to read the bill, they had 24. Thought you'd see that.

So all the different people who worked on this bill read everything as it was being written? Then why would Barry have even bothered to tell them they had 48 hours to "read and understand the package bailout plan"?

They didn't read it.

The Bill was deliberated over for days while it was being written. That is how these things work.

Perhaps the "48 Hours" was for Republicans to read the bill, because I frankly doubt that anyone cared what they thought, at that point, seeing as how they had made it perfectly clear that they wouldn't vote for it no matter what it said.

So you're 'perhapsing' that the Repubs didn't bother to read it but that the Dems read and understood the entire 1,100 pages? So the Dems knew the AIG bonus shit was in there and just . . . . ignored it?

They didn't read the bill.

I'm done w/this particular topic. Nice diversion. Back to Beck.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

So, since my prior lists of points were "ignored" for whatever reason. Perhaps you can answer me one simple question.

How does Beck's "expert", the black guy who hosts another FoxNews program, make the intuitive leap from the building of debt, to an attempt to centralize power in the Executive Branch?

Because that's what he did, he basically stated that the Executive branch is trying to "take over the government by building up debt".

Beck seemed to agree with the gentleman, and it was part of his presentation (though he conveniently let the other guy actually say the words).

So, how was this conclusion arrived at?

What video what time?

 

[PixieStix]

What is this civilian force going to cost, and how do you plan to pay for it?

What does Obama mean when he says: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."?

What are "the national security objectives we've set" that we need a new security force to achieve?

To make the world safe for Islam.

Of course

This man is a great American

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oMHCGWbkwA]YouTube - Glenn Beck & Pastor Broden: "We Are Losing Our Freedom"[/ame]

 

[PixieStix]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkRWs6RsEIY"]YouTube - Glenn Beck: August 31, 2/7[/ame]

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What is this civilian force going to cost, and how do you plan to pay for it?

What does Obama mean when he says: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."?

What are "the national security objectives we've set" that we need a new security force to achieve?

To make the world safe for Islam.

Of course

This man is a great American

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oMHCGWbkwA]YouTube - Glenn Beck & Pastor Broden: "We Are Losing Our Freedom"[/ame]

Yeah you can really see in that video why they hate him.

 

[PixieStix]

To make the world safe for Islam.

Of course

This man is a great American

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oMHCGWbkwA"]YouTube - Glenn Beck & Pastor Broden: "We Are Losing Our Freedom"[/ame]

Yeah you can really see in that video why they hate him.

Yeah, Marc Lloyd and Cass Sunstein needs to watch this guy, before he makes Americans remember what being American is

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Achievements

In 2009, the Apollo Alliance marked these achievements:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
In February 2009 Congress approved and President Barack Obama signed the breakthrough clean energy and green-collar jobs provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The $787 billion stimulus legislation that President Obama signed in a Denver museum partially powered by a rooftop solar array contains $86 billion in clean energy and green-collar job programs, plus $27.5 billion in road and highway construction funds, much of which state transportation departments will use to repair infrastructure and not on building new highways. As Apollo noted since the package was introduced on January 15, the provisions that formed a big part of the foundation of the stimulus was funding to build new transit and high speed rail lines, weatherize homes, develop next generation batteries for clean vehicles, scale up wind and solar power, build a modern electric grid, and train a new generation of green-collar workers. In every way, the clean energy provisions of the stimulus bill are a surpassing achievement. The magnitude of the investment and the bill’s comprehensive sweep reflect the unleashing of a pent-up demand for a new way to power and employ America — $17.7 billion for rail development, $34 billion for energy efficiency, $7.9 billion for renewable energy, $10.9 billion for a smart electric grid, $3.3 billion for next generation batteries and alternative fuel vehicles, $4.5 billion for energy research. The clean energy focus of the stimulus was inspired by the Apollo Alliance’s vision, and the specific content of many of the bill’s provisions was influenced by policy proposals that the Apollo Alliance made last year in The New Apollo Program and the Apollo Economic Recovery Act. “The recovery bill represents the focused work of labor, business, environmental and social justice organizations who developed a clear strategy about where the nation needed to go, and worked together to achieve it,” said Phil Angelides, former California treasurer and chairman of the Apollo Alliance. As Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, noted in a statement. “We’ve talked about moving forward on these ideas for decades. The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them.”

Achievements : Apollo Alliance

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It just keeps getting worse for the obama zombies
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8K-6fjaLD0]YouTube - tues1[/ame]

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7m4p5-vtBc]YouTube - Van Jones the hits just keep coming[/ame]

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Are you paying attention now?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQkeUUr8JtA]YouTube - Van Jones the hits just keep coming 3[/ame]

 

[Zoom-boing]

I cannot believe that the Obama zombies are fine with these czars.

Hey leftists, what say you about the last three videos?

Your silence is deafening. Cowards.

 

[American Horse]

Stimulus bill had (9) cosponsors in House and (17) in Senate. There are bills with over 200 House cosponsors that cant reach the floor and be voted on.

Any proof that members of Congress wrote the bill?

How many members of Congress were involved in writing it?

What role played Apollo Alliance?

No, see, that's not how this works. Glenn Beck and John Boehner made the assertion that no-one had read the bill. Since bills are generally WRITTEN by member of congress and their staffs, it is assumed that they wrote it until someone presentes evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, you need to prove that congress didn't write the bill in order to make that assertion.

The onus of proof is on you, Beck and Boehner and none of you have provided said proof, have you?

But back to the question that you avoided. The one that truly show the BS in Beck's entire argument...

There is no place for assumations. Assumations makes ASS of U and ME. Let's talk facts.


Bill was introduced in House late at night on Jan 26. 2009 and passed on Jan 28. 2009. Is that enough tiime to read it, I assume you will say - YES.

If Congress wrote the entire bill, there wouldn't be need to read it nor to vote on it. But they did vote on it on the party line. Republicans says they didnt have time to read so they voted against. Since Democrats voted for it, they all must have redd the entire bill.

What question I avoided?

It is not completely accurate to say that "Congress" wrote and the members have read the bill: the professional staffers of the Democratic Caucus wrote these huge bills. Each caucus has it's own staffers. The leaders of the D Caucus relied on their professional staff to write the bill, each Dem dropping by with things they wanted added into the bill. There was no discipline of it being formulated by opposing sides. When did the Republicans get the bill? They say they got it the night before the vote, and had no chance to offer changes or amendments even if they had had time to have their staff break down the bill into component parts, read it to get a systhesis and an understanding of the bill.

We are getting bills passed by our congress that have only been read by the staff of majority party and passed wiithout public debate on the floorr. Since they don't need R votes, it matters not whether Rs read the bill; perhaps only a few RINOs have. Is this how we want law written?

It's too bad we don't have a MSM to report on this situation the way they would've reported it had the Rs done anything like it.