OK, maybe my problem is the knowledge that Glenn Beck is a strange strange idiot of a man. Still. Seriously, he can't think of a better place to have a tea party than the Alamo? Boston, ding, ding, anyone remember Boston? Plus the whole, Alamo ended badly bit? I digress.
About Free Speech:
The idea that a business is too big to fail, is neither American nor anti-American nor un-American. It may or may not agree with your economic philosophy, but if you cast your economic theory as not simply right, but patriotic, you have just labeled all those who have differing views, Anti-American. So, that whining about having been called names, apparently you don't think that's a *bad* thing, since you yourself have just done it. Of course, (and forgive me while I get technical here) free speech only applies to what the government can tell you, about you can or can not say. So I'm very very confused as to what his problem is here. Is he complaining that it's a violation of his free speech to have people call him names for what he says? Or is he celebrating their free speech in calling him names? Or is he trying to say that free speech doesn't really apply here, cause the gov can call him names, just so long as it doesn't stop him from calling people names. Or, and I think this is most likely, he's pissed because people are objecting to him saying whatever he wants -- he feels like his right to free speech is violated by people disagreeing with him.
About the Market Correcting Itself:
About the Market Correcting Itself:
Hey look, I agree that the market will correct itself if left on it's own. It's just that it would take twice as long and be twice as nasty. And require a whole lot more retirees to move in with their kids because they retirement nest eggs have just gone poof. (What can I say, my parents have their money with AIG, so I'm pro bailout.) Glenn maybe able to build a new wing for the rents, but most people would be flat out ticked.
About the Debt Thing:
Boy howdy. The bulk of that debt, that was all Dubya. So nice rhetorical slight of hand trying to make Obama, equally responsible, but no, sorry, not true.
About the We Are All Now Socialists Line:
We are not socialists. Seriously. Would some of the right wingers, please, please, for the love of all that's good, invest in a dictionary? I mean you may not like what's happened, but it's not socialism. Socialism is when the government owns and controls the means of production. It could be stretched to say, owns and controls the banks, but that's a debatable point. What's not debatable is that giving money to a financial institution, wither you like it or not, is not socialism. No company has been taken over. Let me say that sloooooooowly, no company has been taken over by the government. (Excepting failed banks that the FDIC takes hold of for short periods of time. But since that's been going on for a while, I'm assuming that's not what has provoked this outrage.)
Just Grammar Pickiness:
That 8th sentence should read "if you're here legally or illegally, the law applies. You are never too rich or powerful." or perhaps, something else. This is the point of grammar it should help you make your meaning clear. It should not say "if you're here legally or illegally, it applies-never too rich or powerful." Cause frankly, I can't figure out what he means. Now, I'm not perfect in my emails, but I tend to proof read things I hope more than a handful of my friends will see.
The Media isn't in Bed with the Left:
I can't even begin to foam at the mouth enough about the "media gets into bed with one party" comment. I guess, for once, Glenn does get it right, even though he didn't mean to, when he says, "They can't attack the message, so I guess they have to target the messenger." I would love to have witnessed the moment when the right wing, said, "hey have you noticed, that the smartest, best educated people in the country, the ones who follow the news, read source documents, and think about stuff, that those people don't like what we're doing." I spend hours wondering how in a massive leap of illogic, someone went, "well, it can't be that *I'm* wrong and need to evaluate my ideas. It must be that they are wrong. Let's not waste time defending our indefensible ideas. Let's attack them!" I think Karl Rove must have been there -- if only in spirit.
In Which Glenn Joins the ACLU:
In Which Glenn Joins the ACLU:
And Glenn, such a fan of the Constitution, so glad to hear it. I assume you will be joining the ACLU, the group dedicated to preserving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, etc. (PS, there are 10 of 'em, No.2 isn't the only one.)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Here is Glenn Beck's take on what the tea parties are about. While not all tea party protesters may agree with all of these items, I think a lot of people agreed on most of them.
What the Tea Parties Are About
April 16, 2009 - 0:33 ET
This is what the tea parties are about:
It's about spending - too much spending, to be specific. The idea that a business is too big to fail is anti-American; we've always been for the underdog.
It's about putting my family - my children - under $12.8 trillion in debt; all it took was two presidents and six months.
It's about the idea that we're all socialists now.
It's about the idea that the government can force companies, banks and states to take money and the strings that are attached to it, that they didn't want.
It's about power - too much power going to federal government.
It's about corruption - too much corruption, in both parties.
It's about the rule of law - that no one is above the law: if you're here legally or illegally, it applies-never too rich or powerful.
It's about if you write the tax code you should pay your taxes.
It's about the Republic, not mob rule.
It's about the concept of free speech - we've been called insane, lunatics and worse, just for speaking out.
It's about the years of lies from both parties - a Republican Party that claims to be for small government but gives us Medicare Part D that's got $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
It's about hypocrisy - both parties claim to be the most ethical, but we get corruption and not one damn person in Washington to speak out against it.
It's about the media that gets into bed with one party and has moved so far left that it can't even begin to see we're not extremists, we're moms and dads who just want to have a Republic for our children; but they can't see it.
But I'm the extremist.
Bush and Obama spend or put us on the hook for $12.8 trillion, but I'm the extremist?
Cap and Trade without any plan on who pays the taxes or where the money goes, but I'm the extremist?
States are looking to apply retroactive taxes - that's like changing the rules in the middle of the game - but I'm the extremist?
Vilifying AIG executives, without any law being broken, just for accepting money they were owed, but I'm the extremist?
Bush and Obama have taken over and want to take over banks, car manufacturers and insurance companies, but I'm the extremist?
The politicians in the House and Senate stuff $20 billion in pork and earmarks into spending bills when we have to beg the Chinese to loan us that money, and I'm the extremist?
A Supreme Court justice and Harold Koh, who will help run the State Department, talk about trans-nationalism and by definition a diminished role for the Constitution, but I'm the extremist?
Politicians openly talk of the Fairness Doctrine - or its ugly twin, "localism" - and curtailing my free speech, but I'm the extremist?
Unions and big labor politicians want to take away the right to a secret ballot, but I'm the extremist?
I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the Founding Fathers. I believe in the American people. When did believing those things make someone - anyone - an extremist?
I'm not the extremist.
I learned something from a lawyer friend of mine who won lots of cases in front of judges and lawyers - I asked him how he won so many cases. He said it's easy: If the law supports my client's position I argue the law. If not, I argue the facts. If the facts don't support my client's position, I just attack the opposition.
They can't attack the message, so I guess they have to target the messenger.
