Beck, Open book test.

[Mr.Fitnah]

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 majority party and passed wiithout public debate. Since they don't need R votes, it matters not whether Rs read the bill; or a few RINOs only. Is this how we want law written?

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

update
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1475529-post194.html

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

How is that different from any bill written in the past 50 years?

I didn't see Beck complaining about the Patriot Act, which was much the same.

No, you know what? I'm done arguing about Beck. The man has nothing to say but BS propaganda and negativity.

I'll tell you what, if Beck actually has a new innovative positive idea for government, rather than just bashing everyone, then I'll comment. Until then, "peace".

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Don't care. At all.

Beck's a liar and a propagandist, and I am done with him.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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.

How is that different from any bill written in the past 50 years?

I didn't see Beck complaining about the Patriot Act, which was much the same.

No, you know what? I'm done arguing about Beck. The man has nothing to say but BS propaganda and negativity.

I'll tell you what, if Beck actually has a new innovative positive idea for government, rather than just bashing everyone, then I'll comment. Until then, "peace".

GLENN: We were talking about global warming and I was talking about the PATRIOT Act and said that I don't have a problem with the PATRIOT Act because it has a Sunset. If it didn't have a Sunset, I would have a real problem with the PATRIOT Act. I mean, I have a real problem

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - First time caller Jeff in Philly

I'll tell you what, if Beck actually has a new innovative positive idea for government, rather than just bashing everyone, then I'll comment. Until then, "peace".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...or-right-do-you-support-these-five-ideas.html

 

[Vast LWC]

GLENN: We were talking about global warming and I was talking about the PATRIOT Act and said that I don't have a problem with the PATRIOT Act because it has a Sunset. If it didn't have a Sunset, I would have a real problem with the PATRIOT Act. I mean, I have a real problem

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - First time caller Jeff in Philly

Yeah, that would be a relevant point, except that when it came time to extend the Patriot Act, BECK SUPPORTED IT.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...or-right-do-you-support-these-five-ideas.html

The only one of those points that could even be considered a "new, innovative, positive idea" is the nuclear energy portion of point 3. The rest of point 3 is already being done.

Points 1 and 2 are opposition to spending plans, which is simply part of a plan to stop your political opposition from spending money, so they cannot carry out any of their plans.

Number 4 and 5 are just OPPOSITION to other people's actions.

These are NOT "new, innovative, positive ideas". They are old, rehashed criticisms of other people's ideas.

But what would we expect from the "G-NO-P", except more of the same?

 

[American Horse]

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 synthesis 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 without public debate on the floor. 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.

How is that different from any bill written[?] in the past 50 years?

I didn't see Beck complaining about the Patriot Act, which was much the same.

No, you know what? I'm done arguing about Beck. The man has nothing to say but BS propaganda and negativity.

I'll tell you what, if Beck actually has a new innovative positive idea for government, rather than just bashing everyone, then I'll comment. Until then, "peace".

Actually I wasn't arguing with you about Beck. I was pointing out your implication that “Congress” wrote the bill. That might have been true if the Rs had read and been able to add anything to or amend the bill. That is not the case. The bill was written entirely by the Ds and their staff, but mostly by their staff; therefore congress did not write the bill - The Ds and their agents wrote the bill. There is also little doubt that the staff are more experts and more the authors of bills like these than the congress. That ought to concern you. It probably did when you thought "energy" companies were writing energy bills under Bush/Cheney.

As for the Patriot Act, in the vote to extend the Patriot Act December 14, 2005 (it was set to expire Dec 31, 2005), The House voted 251 (44-D & 207-R) to 174 (144-D & 18-R).

On the vote for the first Patriot Act both houses voted overwhelmingly FOR it, and it was actually debated unlike some of the recent bills from the House.

What I’m saying is the P.A. got a whole heck of a lot of debate in the House, twice, the Stimulus Bill did not, and that’s how the P.A. was different from some of these critically important recent bills.

propaganda[?] Comes from government/agencies; informed opinion comes from individual citizens, fosters debate, and prompts people to become better informed, to substantiate or to refute; eiither is a valuable function of in "informed" citizenry.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JQAluQVYlM]YouTube - Chaos for Glory: My Time With ACORN 1[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2ACtj26KHo]YouTube - Chaos for Glory: My Time With ACORN 2[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgkWUeRIBF8]YouTube - Chaos for Glory: My Time With ACORN 3[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPjDviKYXP0]YouTube - Chaos for Glory: My Time With ACORN 4[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebegCosS4F0]YouTube - Chaos for Glory: My Time With ACORN 5[/ame]

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu2fDQ3SToM]YouTube - The connecting the Dots 101 1[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAMl572jypY]YouTube - The connecting the Dots 101 2[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBzl6UC6dYo]YouTube - child[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIzdy2n6mj8]YouTube - child 2[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1R0wFuhibU]YouTube - The connecting the Dots 101 5[/ame]

 

[xotoxi]

Glen Beck rebuts his own, "question government" better than anyone else can.

YouTube - Glenn Beck: "I hate 9/11 victims families for asking questions"

It took an entire year for him to start hating the 9/11 victims???

He's slow on the uptake.

 

[xotoxi]

And the Closed minded, kool aid drinking, sheep arrive. LMAO

Why do you say that?

Don't you think that before an individual like Glennbeck should be taken as an authority, his credibility should be assessed?

Maybe someone who says that they hate the 9/11 victims and that they hate the scumbag Hurricane Katrina victims, should not be held in the highest regards, and therefore, his statements in general should be ignored.

He has the right to say crazy shit...but for someone to be recognized as a credible individual, the controversial crazy shit that they say should be considered.

 

[Missourian]

Glen Beck rebuts his own, "question government" better than anyone else can.

YouTube - Glenn Beck: "I hate 9/11 victims families for asking questions"

It took an entire year for him to start hating the 9/11 victims???

He's slow on the uptake.

C'mon X, did you read the comments?

Every third one said "Not in context"..."Don't be misled".

This is a game the libs love to play.

Show me the unedited transcript, not the lib cut reduced edition.

 

[Modbert]

C'mon X, did you read the comments?

Every third one said "Not in context"..."Don't be misled".

This is a game the libs love to play.

Show me the unedited transcript, not the lib cut reduced edition.

Alternative Tulsa: Hypocrite Update: Colbert Takes on Glenn Beck's Two Faces

Video: Glenn Beck's Operation | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

CNN.com - Transcripts

"The “REAL STORY” is the $700 billion that you`re hearing about now is not only, I believe, necessary, it is also not nearly enough, and all of the weasels in Washington know it."

Your welcome!

 

[xotoxi]

It took an entire year for him to start hating the 9/11 victims???

He's slow on the uptake.

C'mon X, did you read the comments?

Every third one said "Not in context"..."Don't be misled".

This is a game the libs love to play.

Show me the unedited transcript, not the lib cut reduced edition.

I didn't read the comments...generally the comment on youtube are bullshit.

Quotes taken out of context are one thing...a single line of text may be misinterpreted.

However, I listened to 1:58 of Glennbeck repeatedly saying that he hates 9/11 survivor families and he hates the scumbag Katrina survivors in NO.

I'm not sure how much out of context I could have taken nearly two minutes of continuous talking.

I suppose if he was trying to be a shock jock, that's one thing. That's fine.

But if you are going to be a shock jock, you lose all credibility when you are trying to be one of the inspirational leaders of a movement.

 

[Missourian]

It took an entire year for him to start hating the 9/11 victims???

He's slow on the uptake.

C'mon X, did you read the comments?

Every third one said "Not in context"..."Don't be misled".

This is a game the libs love to play.

Show me the unedited transcript, not the lib cut reduced edition.

I didn't read the comments...generally the comment on youtube are bullshit.

Quotes taken out of context are one thing...a single line of text may be misinterpreted.

However, I listened to 1:58 of Glennbeck repeatedly saying that he hates 9/11 survivor families and he hates the scumbag Katrina survivors in NO.

I'm not sure how much out of context I could have taken nearly two minutes of continuous talking.

I suppose if he was trying to be a shock jock, that's one thing. That's fine.

But if you are going to be a shock jock, you lose all credibility when you are trying to be one of the inspirational leaders of a movement.

I get ya, but it turns out what he was talking about was the 10 people who were complaining that a couple million dollars wasn't enough compensation.

The radio show was from 2005. It had nothing to do with "asking the government questions" and you don't hear one word about that in the 2 minute edit.

That audio is from 2005. It was like two weeks after Katrina, when FEMA was handing out the ATM cards at the AstroDome. That was in September of 2005.

So, now, 4 years later, it finally bothers this guy enough to write this hit piece. Taking everything out of context and omitting the biggest part of Glenn’s explanation.

This guy over there at the Examiner does hate Glenn Beck. He’s written 16 hit pieces on Glenn Beck (so far). But he didn’t actually discover that he hated Glenn Beck until July 29 of this year. That’s the date on his first hit piece.

And now, after discovering that he hates Glenn Beck a little over a month ago, he digs up 4 year old audio from the weeks after Katrina, and he takes a few short lines completely out of context. If he hates Beck so much, why go out of his way to listen to 4 year old audio?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

There is little doubt as to why the left hates Beck now.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY_0NL2m0UQ]YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohPnpXc5Xeg]YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 2[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7xfv4cQKIw]YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 3[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTj2hZ14gLM]YouTube - How many radicals is it going to take 4[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkT_V2J9H4s]YouTube - video 5[/ame]

 

[Zoom-boing]

Chirp, chirp.

 

[Neser Boha]

C'mon X, did you read the comments?

Every third one said "Not in context"..."Don't be misled".

This is a game the libs love to play.

Show me the unedited transcript, not the lib cut reduced edition.

Alternative Tulsa: Hypocrite Update: Colbert Takes on Glenn Beck's Two Faces

Video: Glenn Beck's Operation | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

CNN.com - Transcripts

"The “REAL STORY” is the $700 billion that you`re hearing about now is not only, I believe, necessary, it is also not nearly enough, and all of the weasels in Washington know it."

Your welcome!

Thank you for posting the links ... I laughed my ass off

 

[Neser Boha]

Beck needs to be Welched...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CTrRfGt0TI&feature=related]YouTube - McCarthy vs. Welch: "Have you no decency?" (Part 2 of 2)[/ame]

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Typical they can only make there point with creative editing.

 

[California Girl]

Is there not one liberal who can actually take the facts that Beck presents during his program and find reasoned, evidence proof that it is not true?

As predicted, they attack the messanger. Where is the liberal that can actually argue on the content and not the character?