Faux seems to be lacking in journalistic morality and seperation from the subject being reported on.
In fact, Faux seems to be directing events rather than reporting on them.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002210009

Here's an interesting little tidbit...
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/10/right-rebels-foxnews/

WOW! WHAT A GREAT SCAM

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

If there is news on Fox or CNN it is an error. They are entertainment shows. You know this because of how much they care about their ratings!

I tend to agree. At one time, when Ted Turner ran CNN, the news had integrity. Now? not so much. I never saw fox as anything more than a news bender for the conservatives. Heck they were the first ones spouting off about WMD's and having found them. they never retracted any statements and never gave updates on false claims. thereby making it seem like it never happened even though we sat and listened to them say it. whats worse is that every other news channel was picking up on their rhetoric and running with it. Trusted sources that assumed Fox had legitimate sources and werent just cooking up some story. well it turns out they did cook up stories...

heck just look at the last 3 presidential cycles. they faked polling data to influence late voting on the west coast. they cooked the books in florida to give Bush a substantial lead when there really wasn't one. this led late voters to abandon voting since he had already pulled off the victory and their vote was a waste of time. Nice trick and they kept doing it. again and again

Heck the Conservative want to scream foul with ACORN but i have republican lackies that are paying $50 for people to vote republican here in the DFW area. Considering this persons personal and family wealth I can see why he would prefer to have folks bought than actually trust them to just vote their conscience.

---

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

The Beckheads and Dittoheads are continually told by their manchild leaders that the Democrats, the left, liberals or progressives (progressive is the new swear word of the right) are the spenders of the people's money, while the republicans and others from the far right are the great stewards of the people's money.

They repeat this like some looney mantra until it becomes the truth in their closed circuit heads...dispite the facts...which just get in the way of their ideology.

Here are the facts Dena
Please take note of the Carter years that you seem to have suffered through with it's reckless spending.
I guess a good Beckhead will never let the facts get in the way of a good revisionist version of history.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

also note that Johnson kept spending down even though he was involved in a major war. The only correlation I see in that graph is that the Republicans Cut taxes almost exclusively to the rich and increased spending. This is a great way to make a deficit grow.

---

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

Glenn Beck is the new Abbie Hoffman



[...]

When Buckley came on the scene in the mid-1950s, the American right was dominated by kooks: right-wing isolationists, Pearl Harbor and Yalta conspiracy theorists, anti-Semites and members of the John Birch Society like the palindromicaly-named Professor Revilo P. Oliver. Buckley and his movement conservatives, and later the early neoconservatives, struggled to purge the right of crackpots and create an intellectually serious movement capable of governing the country.

And yet the right of 2010 looks like the fever-swamp right of 1950 instead of the triumphant right of 1980. The John Birch Society, which Buckley and Goldwater expelled from the conservative movement in the early 1960s, was a co-sponsor of this year's Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC). Folks who claimed that Eisenhower was a communist now insist that Obama is a socialist. (The conservative historian Russell Kirk had the wittiest put-down of the Birchers: "Eisenhower isn't a communist; he's a golfer.")

[...]

The rise of the conservative counterculture may provide the beleaguered Democrats with a stay of execution. A serious Republican counter-establishment, putting forth credible plans for addressing the nation's problems and determined to collaborate with the other party to govern the country in this crisis, would be a greater threat to the new, shaky Democratic establishment than the theatrics of the right's Summer of Love.

Or should it be called The Winter of Hate?...

---

Please re-do the graph to show who controlled the House. All spending bills must start in the House.

---

Dena
While you seem quite concerned that some of us don't spend the time to get to know your boy Glenn Beck, and therefore start down the path to enlightenment, but what you have failed to do is actually double check the stuff he says.

Most of the things you've listed as reasons for being one of those simplistic teabag people are right off Beck's program.

If you are worried about government spending and national debt, why are you still voting right wingers into office? Since shortly after WWII the republicans have been the party of big spending and large debt.

The only reason there has been no complaints from the corporatists and the elites about this is due to the fact that the powerful are the recipients of this spending.

The left may have the reputation of being the big spenders but if you look at the numbers you'll find that it's just another right wing lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

I don't know what you were doing during the Carter administration, but paying attention wasn't part of it.

You are the one who should check your sources a little more carefully. The stagflation was not fully Carters fault as it was started by LBJ with his Great Society and the Vietnam war. Nixon didn't do much to slow things down and then Ford did a price and wage freeze without reducing government spending. When Carter came in, he spent and taxed at a time when the economy couldn't take it. In the 4 short years Carter was in office, prices doubled. The proof is at ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt . It seems that FTP tags don't work on this web site. If you can't get accurate numbers from the United States Government, I don't think you can get them anywhere.

I have check the links you provide before responding to you, however you appear as if you don't know what you are talking about by your remarks. As I indicated Glen is coming down hard on the Republican party and is using may of the same arguments you are using. The links you provide are off very liberal web sites and they have not done their fact checking. The people who write for these web site are so blinded by hate that they fail to see the truth. That's the danger of relying on liberal web sites for you sources.

I am also very offended by being called a Republican by every left winger on this web site. I do not endorse many of the things the Republican party has done in the past and I was not very happy with Obama or McCain as our options for president. I am an anti-Progressive or a Constitutionalist. If you don't understand what these terms mean, you should refrain from calling me names till you do. Also for you information, conservatives don't spend like drunken sailors which is what the Republicans did before the Democrats got them out of office. You like black and white terms but there are none in American politics.

---

Dena
You describe yourself as a constitutionalist.
What does that mean and what is it you are looking for?

I don't really want a lecture but if you could just describe your vision of government and it's role in the lives of the citizen.

PS: Thanks for putting some spaces in your text. It's so much easier to read

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

I wonder if this isn't something similar to Libertarianism. Which is a great idea but is fiscally untennable and unreachable.

---

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

Dena, although I'm not an American, I'm interested in US politics, maybe you can answer me some questions so I can understand you better.

First, what is this vision of the founding fathers you've been referring to? And how is the current US constitution only a "twisted distortion" of this vision?

Secondly, I am puzzled by your use of the term "progressivism". In the US, the term might carry connotations I fail to see, but where I live (and in the dictionaries and encyclopedias I consulted), it principally means only "a movement in favor of change or reform". I consider myself a socialist/green (not communist!), pretty much the epitome of "progressive" in my country.
Earlier, you said:

A progressive believes there are inferior people and a superior people (progressive) has the right to conquer and enlighten them

This is vastly different from how I understand progressivism. I understand progressivism as a movement that aims to ensure that all people enjoy equal rights (and duties). Please explain to me what exactly you mean with "progressive" and what exactly are the "progressive" stances of both the Democrats and the Republicans.

I'd be very happy if you can help me understand US politics better.

---

First, what I am posting refers to the United States form of government and is not a reflection other countries because other forms of government came into existence under other conditions with different goals.

Helsionium - your dictionary and my description are both right when applied to American Progressivism. Many papers have been written on the subject and our history books have only selected the best parts of Progressivism and lost the bad parts.

Skildude - you are also correct as well. The original name was Progressive and then after Wilson the name had such a stink that they changed the name to Liberal. It is only the last few years that they have gone back to Progressive because Liberal was becoming dirty and it appears they are now considering using the name Populist. People in both the Democrat and Republican parties are progressive but both parties have people who are not progressives. Examples are the Blue Dog Democrats and the Conservative Republicans.

Robert Waite - I don't know how much you understand about the founding of the United States so this I may be more long winded than you like but I will try to keep it short. You can also stop reading when I get to Progressivism.

The United State founding fathers were people who wanted to avoid a powerful government and instead wanted the individual to have the power instead of the government. They understood it was not possible to have thousands of rulers running a country so they came up with another solution. That was to first give the individual power first. If the individual didn't want the power, next in line was the state. Again if the state didn't want the power it would fall to the federal government. At first, only two powers were given to the federal government and that was to maintain postal roads and defend the country.

In addition, the power was divided in the federal government into four parts. The House where each person is elected by population protecting the rights of the population, the senate elected two per state to protect the rights of the state and the President elected by all but limited to commanding the military, implementing the laws passed by the house and the senate and has limited veto power over the house and the senate.
The Supreme Court is appointed by the the President and approved by the senate. The main function of this court is to allow the individual to force their will on the government if the government violates the rights of the individual.

To make sure this all works correctly, the constitution, bill of rights and constitutional amendments define and limit what each may and may not do. The constitution may be amended at any time to change the power balance, but it is hard to do so most of the time it is reserved for granting freedoms such as ending slavery, giving women the vote and defining freedoms. It was used for prohibition and the income tax as well so it is possible to make mistakes.

Yes you can say that this form of government is a real mess and you would be right. It is designed to slow things down and allow people to think about changes before they damage the country. Most of the time it works well but it has failed several times when one political party sweeps the table and gains control of all branches of the government.

My political leanings are a return to the constitutional form of government where the above rules apply. I am a realist and understand that some of the damage done in the 20th century can't be undone over night without harming a large number of people, but much of the waste and power grabs of Washington could be undone if we play by the rules. It will take time to reach this goal but many feel it is a worthy goal.

Progressives and where it all went wrong.
In the last part of the 19th century, the United States found our schools lacked PHD programs. Being Americans, we figured we could fix it and thought we knew how to. Germany at that time in history was well known for it's schools so we started using German instruction in our education system. The problem came when they were teaching Political Science. At that time German schools were ripe with Socialism and Marxist ideas and taught that instead of the ideas that our country was founded on.

Progressivism can best be described as Marxism with one big difference. In Marxism the government will be changed by revolution. In progressivism government evolves. As in Darwin's teachings each change makes the government better and the changes it goes through is something like this.

The first government is tribal. Small groups with a leader.

Next comes Kings where one persons leads a much larger group of people.

Then comes a government something like the United States where we throw off the king and start forming a central government.

Then comes a parliamentary form of government again where power is more central and the government is better able to meet the needs of the people.

It all ends with a form of government where power is very central and the individual has no say in the government. People are instead governed by a government that senses the desires of the people and provides what the people desire. Freedoms such as freedom of speech under this form of government will vary from day to day depending on what the government senses the mood of the people is.

A big problem for the American Progressive movement was the United States Constitution because it was very hard set rules as to what the government could and could not do. To get around this problem, the progressives believe that instead of the Constitution being a hard set of rules, it must be interpreted in light of modern views. If modern needs require that opposing political views not be voiced, it is permitted under the progressive view. This is the heart of the living constitution idea is currently voiced by some on the left in American politics.

This also turns the whole structure of government around because now the Government is at the top of the heap and the individual and state are no longer a factor in defining government.

The progressive movement made it first entry into the United States government with Teddy Roosevelt - a Republican and has been a major force in changing the United States government for the last 100 years. It is not restricted to one party and not all of the people in power were progressive but many were.

---

I recommend you, everyone actually, read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

---

I need to add them to my list. Currently I am working through the Progressive movement which is a job in it's self. It is something I was thinking about before you mentioned it but I need to run down copies of them.

---

I need to add them to my list. Currently I am working through the Progressive movement which is a job in it's self. It is something I was thinking about before you mentioned it but I need to run down copies of them.

Barnes and Noble and Amazon both list them from several publishers if you want hard copy. Shouldn't be hard to find as they are public domain.

---

Actually you have the intent of the founding fathers completely backward. Their intent was to enpower a strong federal gov't to levy taxes and a military force among other things. All one needs to do to see a weak central gov't and strong states/individual rights is look at the US gov't under the articles of the confederacy. Lets not forget that the Civil war was fought over States Rights not slavery. Strong federal Gov't vs States rights Hmm who won? Strong Federal Gov't won. Why does this matter? because otherwise we'd be back with the articles of the Confederacy which is what the southern states Named themselves after. The Confederate states of America.
what happened you ask? Nothing? since any and everything required the approval of 100% of the states to set taxes and make any law the articles became an exercise in futility. NO federal power meant no tax collection, no army, no common banking system(each state made its own money), each state levied tariffs on products from other states, etc.

A strong Federal gov't provided(s) the means of guiding the states, if not reluctantly, in the direction of the common good. States became subordinate to the Fed within certain specified roles, Commerce, international negotiations, war(defense), and much of what we consider the Executive branches Cabinet were parts that were delegated to the FED.

I'm still annoyed that Reagan bailed out of the national immunizations to save teh Fed a few bucks,we now have 50+ bureaucracies handling what used to be 1 bureaucracies job. Guess which is more efficient Hint: the FED. Aside from being able to supply the entire nation with immunizations which it got as a sweetheart deal that the smaller bureaucracies can't do and also kept the cost free to all. It's amazing that the rhetoric for states rights screws the very people it is supposedly helping. Sometimes people need to look at a bigger picture than the one at the end of their own noses and realize that sometimes the GOv't is actually the solution we've been looking for.

I heard a political ad for a local conservative about how Texas is the most fiscally responsible state in the Union. what it really means is we have the lowest per capita tax collection of any state. It really shows around the state. Low unemployment benefits, the slowest payout for food stamps, and some of the worst roads in the country. Texas is 49th in education and #1 in pollution and Superfund sites. So I think the deep end of fiscal conservatism has really done its job. we are to dumb to even realize we are eating, drinking and breathing more pollution than any other state out there,

The roads are easily fixed according to conservatives. All we need are tolls for the next 30-40 years on any new construction. NPR reported today that the NTTA is so deeply in debt that the state has had to guarantee the loans its taken out. Which means that people will be paying tolls until they bleed and if at some time the NTAA fails on its debt the general public will foot the bill for the tollways that could have just been paid for with gov't bonds in the first place. this would also cost the tax payers less money since we aren'y having to play the NTTA commisioners and the NTTA envelope stuffers that are required to actually run the system. THE Toll system here is done by camera so No booths are around to slow traffic.

---

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

Actually you have the intent of the founding fathers completely backward.

Which set of founding fathers? USA has two. The ones who fought the Brits, or the Federalist turncoats who came later?

Thanks skildude for reminding some people who have forgotten that after all the ninth and tenth amendments are just that, amendments. Now if we could just hit SCOTUS over the head with a concrete 2x4 and get them to realize they are the most important amendments.

---

I don't really want a lecture but if you could just describe your vision of government and it's role in the lives of the citizen.

Dena
Please help me to understand what a constitutionalist is.
What would your version of government have the power to do?

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

I don't really want a lecture but if you could just describe your vision of government and it's role in the lives of the citizen.

Dena
Please help me to understand what a constitutionalist is.
What would your version of government have the power to do?

Under a constitutional government, in theory the government could do anything IF they go through the trouble of altering the constitution giving them the authority. The problem the United States has today is that for years the constitution has been freely interpreted and much of what the United States government is doing today is not grounded in the constitution. The way that can happen is because only someone who is injured by a law can take the case to the Supreme Court. Most of the laws like Social Security and Welfare are programs that people like so they are not likely to protest the program. It matters very little because the United States is running out of money and people to pay for the programs so they will collapse under their own weight in a few year and we will need to return to a more constitutional government just to survive.

In any case, the basics powers of the government are defined by the original Bill of Rights and you can read about them here.

A few more powers are granted to the government by latter amendments, but in truth when the government takes on a task we can do for ourself, the task will be poorly done and cost us more than if we did it ourself. That is why the founders wanted to keep government out of our life.

---

I hate to differ again but the bill of rights is a list of "personal" rights that every "citizen" is entitled to have. THe constitution is the sole site for declaring what is in the federal gov'ts power. The constitution also declares that anything not covered by the constitution is given to the states to delegate the authority. Note that there are 27 or so amendments that change the constitution and declare additional powers or rules that the original Constitution did not make clear or mention at all.

WHat annoys conservatives is the line of the preamble that talks about promoting the general welfare of the people Of America. It was made vauge to allow for things in the future that couldnt possibly be imagined by the writers and the founders

---

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

I hate to differ again but the bill of rights is a list of "personal" rights that every "citizen" is entitled to have. THe constitution is the sole site for declaring what is in the federal gov'ts power. The constitution also declares that anything not covered by the constitution is given to the states to delegate the authority. Note that there are 27 or so amendments that change the constitution and declare additional powers or rules that the original Constitution did not make clear or mention at all.

WHat annoys conservatives is the line of the preamble that talks about promoting the general welfare of the people Of America. It was made vauge to allow for things in the future that couldnt possibly be imagined by the writers and the founders

If the founding fathers would have wanted a king, they would have selected one. My idea of General Welfare is not to spend our money, our children's money and our grand children's money before they are born. Every man, woman and child owe something like $300,000 on the national debit. I don't think the founding fathers ever intended to give that type of power to the federal government.

Currently the states are blackmailed by the federal government. If the states try to do something the federal government does not approve of, the federal government will not give the state back the money that was taxed from it's people in the first place. That is a clear violation of the state's rights.

The bill of rights is telling both the federal and state governments what they are not allowed to do the people. Some of these freedoms are also violated such as gun rights and they are looking at taking more with the Net Neutral rules they are kicking around.

The whole system has broke down and it starts with the federal government exceeding it's limits.

---