The news agencies put news crews on the planes with the candidate. The amount of time these stories are broadcast is the coverage. The Muslim thing was not an issue then, but some attention was payed to the country of birth. On the other hand, Fox was about the only network that covered Joe the Plumber. John McCain was an old hand at election so it was hard to find fault with him till he picked a Vice President. Then the left came down on him like a ton of bricks. Most the coverage for both sides consisted of speeches and interviews, Over all, the attacks were within limits for both sides.

Once again, history disagrees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRq6Y4NmB6U. Remember these words from John McCain?

In any case, if you think about it, there is little to separate the left anti war protesters from the right anti abortion protesters. The both resort to the same tactics and about the only thing that's different is the issue they are protesting.

Which mirrors my comment about communism and Nazism being similar mostly or only in being totalitarian.

Back to your question. Glen is not perfect and has made mistakes but the best response I can provide is from Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left . Page 71 contains the following

Hitler is just as straightforward in Mein Kampf. He dedicates an entire chapter to the Nazis' deliberate exploitation of socialist and communist imagery, rhetoric, and ideas and how this marketing confused both liberals and communists. The most basic example is the Nazi use of the color red, which was firmly associated with Bolshevism and socialism. "We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation ... so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings... so that in this way we got a chance of talking to people." The Nazi flag-a black swastika inside a white disk in a sea of red-was explicitly aimed at attracting Communist. "in red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for victory of the Aryan man".

Page 72 states

Nazism's one-nation politics by its very definition appealed to people from all walks of life. Professors, students, and civil servants were all disproportionately supportive of the nazi cause.

Though with more detail than I knew or remembered, this says what I said., but for one thing: Glenn Beck did not make a mistake. I think most viewers regardless of association would realize he was guilty of deliberate twisting of the truth.

Be warned that someone who is a strong liberal will consider the book junk or will have many of their believes shattered by reading the book.

Disagreeing with Beck or addressing his major errors or deliberate twists does not make one a liberal. I do not discuss these things like most, or any, others here. Trying to guess my affiliations will cause you great difficulty. :)

BTW, you made these detailed comments about what Hitler was able to do, yet ask below how Beck can get the ratings or reviews that he does if Beck is so filled with hate as others here have asserted, Truly, truly, I ask of you, do you not see the contradiction between that question and your statements here about Hitler?

I don't think I saw that clip before, but I also recall when Kennedy ran for office and the big worry was that he was our first Catholic president. People had far more fear about Kennedy imposing his religion us than anyone had about Obama and the Muslim religion, Glen did make a mistake on Obama's beliefs because he was not aware of Black Liberation Theology and he publicly corrected his error. Most of us know very little about Black Liberation Theology as it tends to be more popular in the poorer areas of the country. On the surface, someone not versed in the two religion might confuse them, but a closer look would expose the fact that they have major differences. I think Obama may in part be responsible for this problem as well because he did write about much of this in his book, but he didn't talk about it when he was running for president. As the result, if you didn't read his book, you may not have understood this part of his life.
Also, sadly we still have a few people who seem to have missed the civil rights movement and judge a person by factors other than the content of their character. They will always be with us but hopefully they will be fewer as the years go on.

I place a warning on the book because it is costly in hard cover and I didn't want someone who would hate the book to spend their money on it. I think is is now available in paper back but that wasn't the case when I got my copy. It was not because I was sure of your political beliefs, Of the books I have been reading, I consider it one of the best but I know many would not agree.

Glen Beck every few shows tells us to do our own reading and not to only take his word on a subject. He admits he can make a mistake and several times at the start of his show he has said that he made a mistake and corrected the error.

Hitler, Obama and Glen have something in common. They are able to move people with their words. The important thing is what they do with these words. History will be the final judge as to what this ability was used for. Glen has come out strongly against using violence because he has learned from Gandhi nonviolence produces better long lasting results. I don't think liberals need to fear Glen or his followers.

---

Hitler, Obama and Glen have something in common. They are able to move people with their words.

One of these things is not like the others. Glen moving people by his words? The reality is that his words are counter-productive and don't in anyway cause people of all classes and races to join together... he, in fact, has just the opposite affect on people that aren't in on the Joke.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I am really getting tired of the White House always blaming someone else for the unemployment in the USA.
The facts are, until 2008 the unemployment in the USA was around 5%. It has not been higher then 6.3% since the year 2000. Since 2008 it has risen to almost 11%. That is more then double in only 2 years with no end in sight.
My sources are http://www.econdataus.com/jobdata.html. Check the second one down on the right side.
Our country is facing some of the worst times in my 63 years. Both parties are worthless. Remember the people of the US voted out the Republicans 2 years ago and gave the majority to the Demarcates for good reasons. It might be time to scrap the 2 party system. Neither party listens to the people of the US. They listen to their party leaders no matter what the people from their districts want.

What happened to "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." that was the words made famous in the Preamble to our great Constitution.
An example of the people loosing control of the law of the land can be found in California right now. Several times the people, by a vast majority, have voted not to recognize same sex marriages, just to be over throne by a GAY federal judge. He stated that the law was unconstitutional. I wonder if he has read the constitution. I am sure our forefathers did not plan on so many things being overruled as being unconstitutional.
How the people can take back the country, I do not know.

---

First, you need to include ALL the people. Including the gay.
8 years of almost no regulation enforcement has left a major disaster, in which the rich prospered by effectively legalizing corporate theft and in some cases murder.

The disaster started approx july/august 2008, you need look no further than the stock charts to confirm this. Blame who you want, but get the timing right.

"All men are created equal" Includes those you do not agree with. They have the same rights as you do. If you do not protect their rights, you deserve no rights of your own. You can pat yourself on the back for taking care of your "neighbors" through your church, but it is easy to take care of those you agree with. The challenge is in taking care of everyone regardless of how they wish to "pursue happiness".

There was no "vast majority". And proclaiming a constitutional mandate to infringe on the rights of others is a mockery of the very basis of our constitution.

---

Janice

The stock market did not bring up the unemployed. You are right everyone has a right but when we do not honor the will of the majority then we are not a democracy. I suppose if a few (minority) wants something they should be able to force that on the majority? I think not. Democracy is based on the vote (will) of the majority or there would be no reason to vote. Just give everyone what ever they want.

---

I am sure our forefathers did not plan on so many things being overruled as being unconstitutional.

They had it in the back of their minds or there would not be need of a constitution. I'm sure they hoped only 1 of a thousand and not 999 of a thousand. But that is what we get with democracy a/k/a popularity contest.

---

The stock market did not bring up the unemployed. You are right everyone has a right but when we do not honor the will of the majority then we are not a democracy. I suppose if a few (minority) wants something they should be able to force that on the majority? I think not. Democracy is based on the vote (will) of the majority or there would be no reason to vote. Just give everyone what ever they want.

We were not a Democracy until the 17th amendment was passed in 1913. Another Progressive project. The intent was to destroy individual rights and and have your rights determined by the majority.

---

The stock market did not bring up the unemployed. You are right everyone has a right but when we do not honor the will of the majority then we are not a democracy. I suppose if a few (minority) wants something they should be able to force that on the majority? I think not. Democracy is based on the vote (will) of the majority or there would be no reason to vote. Just give everyone what ever they want.

The stock market was a precurser to the unemployment. As companies failed, people became unemployed, or under employed. Other companies reduced to survive, adding to unemployed. This left people unable to maintain their over extended homes, which put the over built homes on the market at spiraling lower prices, which bit into construction, which added to the unemployed.

This is what happens when a bubble bursts. This did not start in 2009. It bottomed in 2009, and the unemployment is a trailing indicator(the one that really matters to most people).

---

Janice

The stock market did not bring up the unemployed. You are right everyone has a right but when we do not honor the will of the majority then we are not a democracy. I suppose if a few (minority) wants something they should be able to force that on the majority? I think not. Democracy is based on the vote (will) of the majority or there would be no reason to vote. Just give everyone what ever they want.

You have every right to not be gay. You have a right to not be (insert ethnicity/religion/political affiliation of choice) if you do not wish to be.

You do not have a right to tell others not to be (copy from previous insert)

---

Janice

The stock market did not bring up the unemployed. You are right everyone has a right but when we do not honor the will of the majority then we are not a democracy. I suppose if a few (minority) wants something they should be able to force that on the majority? I think not. Democracy is based on the vote (will) of the majority or there would be no reason to vote. Just give everyone what ever they want.

We were not a Democracy until the 17th amendment was passed in 1913. Another Progressive project. The intent was to destroy individual rights and and have your rights determined by the majority.

So if your state legislature is run by a bunch of hooligans you'd get a hooligan elected. Nice. And lets not forget that we elect the state legislature as well so this amendment clearly cuts out the middle man(state Gov't) and goes directly to the people to decide the outcome. I can see how a state may be dominated by one party or the other. If the Original were in place wouldn't that make 2 Senators redundant since the legislature would clearly force the minority party to accept what they dont want.

Then again, with the current system it's increasingly difficult to get these leeches unelected and off the public dole. Of course I'm talking term limits and in all likelihood a state legislature would most likely change Senators faster than the general populous does

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The stock market did not bring up the unemployed. You are right everyone has a right but when we do not honor the will of the majority then we are not a democracy. I suppose if a few (minority) wants something they should be able to force that on the majority? I think not. Democracy is based on the vote (will) of the majority or there would be no reason to vote. Just give everyone what ever they want.

From Wikipedia on Democracy:

The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without governmental or constitutional protections of individual liberties, it is possible for a minority of individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies is competitive elections that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.

The judges are required to uphold the constitution as it protect the individual's personal liberties. They are not required to uphold the will of the tyranny of the majority.

The stock market did not bring up the unemployed. You are right everyone has a right but when we do not honor the will of the majority then we are not a democracy. I suppose if a few (minority) wants something they should be able to force that on the majority? I think not. Democracy is based on the vote (will) of the majority or there would be no reason to vote. Just give everyone what ever they want.

From Wikipedia on Democracy:

The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without governmental or constitutional protections of individual liberties, it is possible for a minority of individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies is competitive elections that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.

The judges are required to uphold the constitution as it protect the individual's personal liberties. They are not required to uphold the will of the tyranny of the majority.

Freedom to own firearms is also important incase the government decides not to leave when they are voted out. We are lucky so far that it hasn't come down to that.

---

The stock market did not bring up the unemployed. You are right everyone has a right but when we do not honor the will of the majority then we are not a democracy. I suppose if a few (minority) wants something they should be able to force that on the majority? I think not. Democracy is based on the vote (will) of the majority or there would be no reason to vote. Just give everyone what ever they want.

Sigh.
Majority can only be achieved when garnering more than 50% (including 50.000001%).
When there are two choices/candidates, short of a tie, then, yes, we can have a majority winner.
We use the Plurality Method instead, since often there are more than two choices. Under this method, the winner is the one with the most votes. (If we ranked all choices in our votes instead, we'd be referring to the one with the most first place votes.)
Remember, Obama and McCain were not the only candidates. Nader ran, among others. In such a situation, a majority win is still possible, but perhaps less likely? I imagine most Americans believe Plurality is the next best thing: if you can't satisfy a majority, at least satisfy the most.
Dena tells us about the 17th Amendment. Well, looking very quickly how it use to work, it is easy to see other problems from that angle: nepotism, internal corruption, or the like.
So, the state governor use to select the state legislature or something along those lines? Tell me, then, how was the governor elected or selected?

This is what happens when a bubble bursts. This did not start in 2009. It bottomed in 2009, and the unemployment is a trailing indicator(the one that really matters to most people).

I care not when it popped, it only matters who started the dang thing growing! That was many many years ago. Think back, what legislation allowed/required the real estate market to grow exponentially? It was that market's collapse that brought down the banks who then brought down the stock market.

That anyone thinks that economic cycles are so short that any president has any significant influence on them is a fool.

---

Dena tells us about the 17th Amendment. Well, looking very quickly how it use to work, it is easy to see other problems from that angle: nepotism, internal corruption, or the like.
So, the state governor use to select the state legislature or something along those lines? Tell me, then, how was the governor elected or selected?

Article 1 Section 3 of the constitution states they are selected by the state Legislature. The neat thing about our constitution is they never erase. They just add on and correct it as flaws are found. When we made the mistake of passing prohibition, we left it in with the correction to remove it.
The idea was to counter the power of the people with the power of the state. This is also why we don't elect the president directly but instead use the Electoral College (Article 3 Section 1).

---

This is what happens when a bubble bursts. This did not start in 2009. It bottomed in 2009, and the unemployment is a trailing indicator(the one that really matters to most people).

I care not when it popped, it only matters who started the dang thing growing! That was many many years ago. Think back, what legislation allowed/required the real estate market to grow exponentially? It was that market's collapse that brought down the banks who then brought down the stock market.

That anyone thinks that economic cycles are so short that any president has any significant influence on them is a fool.

Bubbles take a long time to form and take longer to burst if the government keeps pumping money in it to keep it inflated. As for recovery that can be fast as in Reagan or the 1920 recovery. The problem is to get a fast recovery, the government must make some very politically unpopular decisions. A president would have to make the required changes almost as soon as they take office if they want to see results before their first 4 years are up.

---

Another Neat thing is that the Constitution allows for changes. We call these changes Amendments. Amendments are considered fixes to the Constitution. Also note that we've even repealed an Amendment. How quirky is that? So if this 17th Amendment is so bad start a grassroots movement, call it the teaparty movement, and get people acting on an amendment that seems to work better than having state legislators enacting their own form of Gov't. BTW isnt that against being a republic. Seems more like an oligarchy or better a plutocracy. Didn't we start a revolution over that very concept.

Heck, I bet some here forgot this little fun section of the Constitution that again was repealed

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

Nothing like being considered 3/5's of a person

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Wow it only took the first few posts to make me remember why I hate discussing politics so much. To sum up everything that has happened from the writing the of the declaration of independence to now you only need 3 words, WHITE LIBERAL GUILT. Also, haters gonna hate and deal with it.