Glenn Beck is not fooling around anymore, he is attempting to incite violence

[DiveCon]

DiveCon...I can understand why you wouldn't want to assoiate yourself with such scum, but the truth of the matter is you guys are all self-proclaimed conservatives.

As such, you share many of the same political beliefs and attitudes.

That puts you square on their side.

I didn't ask you if you voted for them, nor did I imply or suggest that. Unless you're in their state or jurisdiction that would be impossible...don't play silly childish games now...lets be real.

whatever you say, Comrade Stalin.

OK Tru Amerikkkan...U rule.

DiveCon...I can understand why you wouldn't want to assoiate yourself with such scum, but the truth of the matter is you guys are all self-proclaimed conservatives.

As such, you share many of the same political beliefs and attitudes.

That puts you square on their side.

I didn't ask you if you voted for them, nor did I imply or suggest that. Unless you're in their state or jurisdiction that would be impossible...don't play silly childish games now...lets be real.

gotta love how you use guilt by association but dont do the same for the guys on your side

Don't try the victim role on me now.

If the RW politicos weren't so guilty of hedging, supporting and utterly failing to denounce those scumbags publicly this wouldn't be an issue.

But because they choose to passive-aggressively support them...you get the guilt by association.

Take it up with your leaders, bub, not with me. They brought this down on your head...not me.

how about i dont have leaders, asshole

 

[Intense]

I wouldn't mention the word MORALS if I were a Right-Winger.

Ensign, Sanford, Mr. "Wide Stance", other members of The Family...

That's like Satan talking about righteousness.

Is this a new DNC daily talking point? Attack the right on religion?

Just out of curiosity do you personally believe in God?

What is Your favorite Bible Chapter?

Whom is your favorite Old Testament Author?

So You claim that because We are from the Right We cannot be Moral?

Do you know what a Bigot is?

Don't go there with me child, I start my day each day with prayer and bible study...

This quarter I'm studying the Johnanine Letters

I'm a proud and practicing Christian.

Bible Chapter? Huh? You meant BOOK right?

Old Testament...hmmm...never thought about it, but I'll go with Moses, because of what he did.

No, scratch that...David...Psalms is just off the hook, perhaps its a tie.

I'm claiming that the Right are hypocrits and parasites...JUST like the blasted Pharasees.

Capice?

I'm Truly glad that you start your day off with prayer and bible study. Here is a cool Trinitarian Bible Link that I think you would approve of. Welcome to Holy Bible the site dedicated to God's word. check out the Online KJV (King James Version) bible and a search.
Great Search Engine. Clean copy/paste.

I am prejudice towards Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. John & Paul NT

Your reference was judgmental and bigoted. The reason I asked you about your faith is I will not accept Religious instruction from non believers, there are many here. I'm Conservative, I Believe, and do my best to put God First. Life, Liberty, and Property, or the Pursuit of happiness trace back as far as John Locke, Inalienable Right. Conscience over whats popular. These aspects are under open assault from the Left, which is State control oriented. As in, can't buy, sell, or trade, without their consent. I'm not spoon feeding you, I'm not force feeding you, I'm saying Like James Madison....

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation. .......

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

 

[Rational Man]

I don't think Glen Beck will be on Fox Noise much longer. His show is losing sponsors right and left after the crazy stuff he has been saying/doing lately. Even Fox will pull the plug on him if all the advertisers desert him. Maybe even O'Reilly will quit sucking Beck's cock every night, too.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't think Glen Beck will be on Fox Noise much longer. His show is losing sponsors right and left after the crazy stuff he has been saying/doing lately. Even Fox will pull the plug on him if all the advertisers desert him. Maybe even O'Reilly will quit sucking Beck's cock every night, too.

more lies

you are also claiming kerry won Ohio too
i bet you are just another retread of that moron

 

[MarcATL]

Intense,

And was your "test" not also judgemental and bigoted?

You claimed that you will not take religious instruction from non-believers.

I dunno what that means, because all the "religious instruction" we need in the world is i found in Scripture, so it doesn't matter who says it, once its substantiated by Scripture...KJV yes.

I don't take kindly to those types of tactics at all, it was a Pharisee move on your part.

You do realize that right?

BTW...I didn't bother to read that read stuff...sounds like Republican rhetoric, nothing at all to do with things of spiritual nature.

 

[MarcATL]

how about i dont have leaders, asshole

You mean you have your own one-man nation all to your self?

WoW!!

 

[KittenKoder]

how about i dont have leaders, asshole

You mean you have your own one-man nation all to your self?

WoW!!

You don't have to follow rulers, nor agree with them.

 

[DiveCon]

how about i dont have leaders, asshole

You mean you have your own one-man nation all to your self?

WoW!!

You don't have to follow rulers, nor agree with them.

clearly he is too fucking stupid to understand that simple concept

 

[MarcATL]

Whats funny is, I bet that the both of you bow down and/or drop on bended knee at the mere mention of Ronald Reagan.

 

[DiveCon]

Whats funny is, I bet that the both of you bow down and/or drop on bended knee at the mere mention of Ronald Reagan.

you just keep proving yourself a moron

 

[MarcATL]

Ouch!!! Too close for comfort huh? My bad.

 

[DiveCon]

Ouch!!! Too close for comfort huh? My bad.

nope, i was pissed at Reagan for never submitting a balance budget to congress
but
he was a damn sight better than Bush or Obama

and you just keep proving over and over how fucking stupid you are
keep it up

 

[KittenKoder]

Ouch!!! Too close for comfort huh? My bad.

No, DiveCon is right on with his point. I don't even know that much about Reagan, other than the fact that one of my favorite RPGs has a character races of zombies called the Reaganites.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

i saw him post the OP to this thread and looked at the time and the repeat of Becks show was just coming on
so i tuned to FNC and watched it
the OP is a complete LIE

I believe you without even watching it. I don't like Beck, but he's far from stupid.

Becks radio show was ok when i would listen(not that often) but his tv show he goes too far for my tastes
but to outright lie about what he is saying is wrong
hannity wastes too much time trying to get people to answer yes/no questions, Greta spends too much time on "missing girl" stories

FNC has become too predictable

What is your opinion of O'Reilly?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Several major advertisers have already pulled their spots from his show, including (but not limited to) GEICO, Proctor and Gamble, Progressive Insurance and Lawyers.com.

They don't want their ads to air on Becks show. They are not dumb enough to pull ads from Fox (the highest rated cable news outlet for 8+ years running).

Wow major coup!!!

Just so. Not about what's so, but what sells, and on Fox that is shari'a trash for shari'a trash.

You're a fucking idiot. Do you even know what Shari'a is??

Sharia
Arabic: 'ash-sharī¢a
Turkish: Şeriat

The law system inspired by the Koran, the Sunna, older Arabic law systems, parallel traditions, and work of Muslim scholars over the two first centuries of Islam.
Sharia is often referred to as Islamic law, but this is wrong, as only a small part is irrefutably based upon the core Islamic text, the Koran. Correct designations would be "Muslim Law", "Islam-inspired", "Islam-derived," or even "the law system of Muslims."
This is well known to most Muslims, yet Sharia is always referred to as "based upon the Koran", hence it is the "will of God."

 

[Intense]

Intense,

And was your "test" not also judgemental and bigoted?

You claimed that you will not take religious instruction from non-believers.

I dunno what that means, because all the "religious instruction" we need in the world is i found in Scripture, so it doesn't matter who says it, once its substantiated by Scripture...KJV yes.

I don't take kindly to those types of tactics at all, it was a Pharisee move on your part.

You do realize that right?

BTW...I didn't bother to read that read stuff...sounds like Republican rhetoric, nothing at all to do with things of spiritual nature.

No, not at all. I had no prior knowledge of your claim, you had not addressed it yet. I was previously I needed to confirm here you were coming from. You say you are Christian, that is enough, I do not doubt or challenge your claim. I suspected that you were an atheist Troll, giving Religious Instruction for amusement. You have satisfied my suspicion, and put that to rest. We may be politically opposed, separate that, from the rest.

If I had never seen a bible once in my life, I would still have a relation ship with God through Conscience. I highly recommend you study Locke on the issue of conscience.

It is a sad realization that you resect the writings of James Madison in relation to Separation of Church & State, Conscience before Patriotism, God before Government, I'm not judging you, I'm just let down.

I moved past questioning your Religious motive before I sent out that last Post, obviously, you have not moved on.

 

[Intense]

I believe you without even watching it. I don't like Beck, but he's far from stupid.

Becks radio show was ok when i would listen(not that often) but his tv show he goes too far for my tastes
but to outright lie about what he is saying is wrong
hannity wastes too much time trying to get people to answer yes/no questions, Greta spends too much time on "missing girl" stories

FNC has become too predictable

What is your opinion of O'Reilly?

I think that he is an egotist, populist, and opportunist. It's like not If he will turn on Glen, but when. The answer to when is when Glen is down for the count. O'Reilly has undermined many a conservative tactic, at the most critical time, not as bad as Specter, but he does blow with the wind.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I still have not seen one person post a link showing glenn beck calling for people to be violent.

CAN ANYONE ACTUALLY SHOW ME A LINK WHERE BECK IS TELLING PEOPLE TO BE VIOLENT?

I did a search on youtube and only found vids of him telling people the opposite, pleading almost for people to be non-violent and respectful in their opposition.

With that being said I call EVERYONE in this thread who says Beck is trying to incite violence a LIAR>

Prove me wrong with a video of him seriously telling people to get violent. Or a link to a story of his where he encourages violence. Till then you can all keep acting like idiots and following the huffington post talking points without verifying for yourselves.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Becks radio show was ok when i would listen(not that often) but his tv show he goes too far for my tastes
but to outright lie about what he is saying is wrong
hannity wastes too much time trying to get people to answer yes/no questions, Greta spends too much time on "missing girl" stories

FNC has become too predictable

What is your opinion of O'Reilly?

I think that he is an egotist, populist, and opportunist. It's like not If he will turn on Glen, but when. The answer to when is when Glen is down for the count. O'Reilly has undermined many a conservative tactic, at the most critical time, not as bad as Specter, but he does blow with the wind.

Can you cite any specifics where O'Reilly has undermined many conservative tactics?

The reason I ask, is because I've read a lot of his books and I catch his show every once in a while and he seems to me to be the epitome of an individual thinker.

So if he has undermined any ideologues tactic, I'm willing to bet it was for the best.

 

[Oddball]

Can you cite any specifics where O'Reilly has undermined many conservative tactics?

I don't know about undermining tactics, but he is the first in line to embrace the leftist mantra of doing cerrtain things for the holy chiiiiillldrreeennnn.

Likewise, his claim that he's "looking out for you" simply reeks of leftist paternalism.