smacking about the head Beck and I heard that woman as well and if Limbaugh is trying to mock her by Snerdly ringing a bell he is not being very smart. I think ALL the words that define the left such as Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Liberal/Statist should be ground into the dirt just like the pukes who embrace them.

If WE all don’t join together ie: the above mentioned men and the GOP along with the TEA Party Movement in time to ring in November 2, 2010 with a bang then this country IMO will not survive another two years under Democrat control because all the pillars and mechanisms that make US great will have bots to explode them apart after all the D’s have left the house two years later. It is incumbent upon WE The People to STOP the countries slide into hell and WE have NOW TO DO IT!

Psssssst. There’s a communist in the Whitehouse!

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” –Alexander Hamilton

Study at Redstate University

While we’re on the subject of the meaning of words, I think that we should reserve the term “socialist” for those Democrats who truly believe that government should own the “means of production”. I’m not sure what the proportion of Dems who support such a goal is, and how many others are just patsies, but I prefer the term “Marxist”, because not only does it tie the American left to Marx and his political heirs (and thus show the link between leftism and communism that much more strongly), but it is also a broader term that works better for the coalition that they have in our two-party system. Another benefit that reclaiming the term “liberal” would have would be to allow us to win over the social democrats and libertarians who vote for Dems thinking that they have a better human rights record, simply because they are “liberal”. I want the American left associated with Vietnam, Cambodia, N Korea, the Sandinistas, and with as many leftist groups with poor human rights records as possible, to prevent the fates of countries controlled by these leftists from becoming our fate. I also wouldn’t mind pointing out that the actual number of classically liberal despots in existence has been a small one (Pinochet [though overvalued as a free-market reformer] and Cromwell [possibly] would arguably round out the list, but I can’t think of anyone else). At any rate, I want to make sure that people understand the ultimate endgames of both ideologies: while one has brought freedom and prosperity to countless nations and individuals, the other has given us a grey, drab wall inside Berlin, the “Killing Fields”, the Holocaust, the “Great Leap Forward” and the forced famine of Ukraine.

but i haven’t gotten around to it and now you’ve started the conversation.

I think Beck is completely wrong in tarring the 19th and first-half or so of the 20th Century Republican “progressives” with the same brush as the Democrat/socialist/communist/fascist version of “progressives.”

By the standards of many here, and Beck’s standard, I guess I’m a progressive; I have no problem with using the power of the state to accomplish a goal which the Constitution permits and to which the people consent. I consider that to be being a Statist, not a Progressive. All Progressives are Statists but they aren’t much on either that Constitution or “consent of the governed” stuff.

Any student of History knows that by the 1930s, “Progressive” was code for communist. Rush successfully demonized Liberal, too much so I think, so the communists in America – who didn’t go away with the collapse of the USSR – dredged up their old handle, Progressive, to rehabilitate themselves thinking, rightfully I fear, that nobody knew what it meant anymore and after all, who didn’t believe in progress?

Beck has done as bad a thing with Progressive as Limbaugh did with liberal. I know that as soon as you call one of them a socialist or communist they start screaming McCarthyism and there is a conditioned visceral negative response to that, but McCarthy was right and they are socialists and communists – some of them even know they are.

And for different reasons. Rush I know better than the rest and do not get to listen to Beck or Levin as much

But I agree that we do not need a tiff between Rush and Glenn at this time, it will only play into the hands of the Left (whatever they want to call themselves this week)

This also goes for the turf wars or blog wars going on between those on the right.
Not everyone will agree with everything i believe and I expect that, and will not say that someone that does not believe exactly as me is a RINO, or anything like that.

We are all fighting the same people, the LEFT, and should not be fighting against each other.

And I would not be surprised to find that Beck does too.

It really would be nice to have them work together. Whatever words they choose. I would prefer they be more accurate, but words are weapons and these 2 are masters of them, so I won’t be that picky. So long as they not pick fights with each other.

What would REALLY be nice is to have them and Levin (the scholar) and Hannity (the translator) all working together.

with the bell was silly. Of course I have been lambasted on Redstate many times for being harsh on moderate or liberal Republicans.

But, I am sorry, I really think we should purge these people from the party. We could keep a few who manage to win an election in a deep blue state, but should give them no perks.

We simply cannot go forward with what this nation needs with a bunch of snakes in our own movement holding us back.

If you are unwilling to oppose them, then they win. And part of opposition ought to be to call them out.

if there is one, is so big between Beck and Limbaugh, as it is with their followers. I had not picked up any animosity between the broadcasters, or their followers, before CPAC.

The day after CPAC, Rush said, to the best of my memory, that he would not have lumpted the Republicans in the same boat as the Democrats. He said he would have had a hard time critizing Dick Cheney. He said that when he gave the CPAC speech last year that he tried to be uplifting and positive. He spent more time on his speech from last year, than he did Beck’s speech. Maybe that was his way of saying, my speech was much better, but, he didn’t outright say that.

Again, from memory, last week, when Rush did his little bell thing, he said, it was because he had gotten so many emails accusing him of not being hard enough on the Republicans. Most likely, those sending all those emails were probably Beck fans. I did not hear when the little old lady called and dressed him down, for not Republican bashing. I do remember a caller trying to goad him into bashing Beck, but, Rush was clear when he said that he did not ever make it a practice to criticize any of the other radio hosts. He said that they all had their own styles.

You mentioned Beck’s meteoric rise on Fox. Not so long ago, he just celebrated his first anniversary on Fox. All last year, Beck was truly great, with his research and uncovering the shenanigans going on in the Obama administration, his czars, and all of his communist comrades. He absolutely opened alot of peoples eyes to the smoke and mirrors this administration is hiding behind with their destruction of the US. I was glued to the TV every night at 5. Every day, without fail, on Beck’s radio show, he had to inform all the listeners of where he was in the ratings. It was as though he lived and breathed by the ratings. He was number 3 most of the year. I will never understand O’Reilly being number one, but, one night Beck beat him, and, I thought that Beck just might have to break his recovering status.

You mentioned that Beck is staking out his turf, and, I believe that. He has only been into politics and history for a few, couple, whatever years. He reminds daily of how he has been trying to make up for lost time, and he is reading everything he can get his hands on. Yesterday, he said that when he has a question, he seeks out who he thinks is the smartest on that subject, and sits and talks with them. Then he said that if he isn’t satisfied with what he hears, he calls more people. Everyone has a right to question, or to be sceptical, but, if you had to seek out information, how do you know someone is wrong. Is he just looking for someone to give him the answers he wants? A little arrogant maybe?

Rush has been doing what he does best for 20 years. Like Beck, Rush doesn’t hold any great degrees from any college. Rush has terrific instinct, and, he can look at most political situations, and, is rarely wrong with his analysis, and predictions. His style is totally and completely different that Beck’s. Rush analyzes, Beck, as you have said, tries to teach (and preach?), as he is learning himself. The Professor. They both have had addiction problems, that they sought help for. Rush’s interview a few months ago, was candid when he said that his addiction came from an insecurity in himself. He said that others seemed to think he was better than he saw himself. I believe he has successfully conquered his insecurity. On the other hand, I think Beck is still searching for his inner security. He said yesterday that he cannot turn off his mind as to his learning and research into the political and history world. He exchanged a dangerous addiction (alchoholism) into another addiction, politics. I would say the majority of us here at Redstate also share in that addiction, but, probably not to the same degree as Beck.

Beck calls himself a Libertarian. Rush calls himself a Conservative. Right there, they will never both espouse the same principles and belief systems, no matter how similar their styles or delivery may ever become. Rush has vocally supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t remember Beck ever even mentioning Iraq or Afghanistan. I don’t remember either ever saying anything about social issues, such as abortion or gay marriage.

Rush doesn’t have people calling him, in tears, or close to them. I’ve heard some call Beck that sounded like they were headed for the gun or bottle of pills as soon as they hung up. I’ll take Rush any day of the week.

If it isn’t all about the money with Beck, why is he on the road with O’Reilly, the Communist sympathizer?

I don’t like titles or categorizing people by “conservative”, “progressive”, “communists” etc. The key, isn’t what they say, it is what they do. “Watch the hands” was the first rule of street contact I was taught many, many years ago. They can’t hurt you with their words, but they can with what is in their hands. I heard the message, but learned it quick when some low life tried to stab me.

With TR, Wilson, FDR, McCain, Graham, Obama, Lieberman, Snowe, and even Bill O’Reilly, they all have one thing in common. What they say may not be what they do. For example, McCain talks about freedom but supports laws that take away freedom, some laws like McCain/Feingold actually attacked the Bill of Rights. And that goof either didn’t realize it, or chose to ignore it in order to insure incumbency.

Big government is bad government, period. The minute you find yourself having to adapt your life to a government rule, not based on if you are impacting someone else’s life, you are done.

The fact that this escapes so many in D.C. proves they don’t care or in fact they support the effort to limit your free will and the chance for you to provide a better life for your family. Imagine what kind of business life you would have if someone hovered over you with the power to tax, fine or arrest you if they didn’t like your work. Read Mao’s China and how they lived in fear. Would you stay employed there or quit to find a better environment? The problem is there is no place left to quit and go to.

The elites really do believe they can choose your life, from birth to death, better than you can. It is madness. Excusing the lesser offenders as not being “that bad” is not the best way to address the situation.

My novel is out and on Amazon. It tells about a time, coming soon, when people have had enough. www.revoltthebook.com

Like I’ve said before. The vast, vast majority of this nation is made up of good people doing their best to live a good life. Abusing them in the name of power and control can work for a long time, until that tipping point is reached and a small segment stand up and say “No more.”

What will happen then? The novel tells of exactly that moment.

and when Beck put the Republicans on the left side of his board, and said, the Republicans are nazi’s and the Democrats are Communists, he only added weight to the left’s labels-

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/ratigan_media_attempt_to_brand.html

Rush encourages the conservatives to take back the Republican party. Beck encourages ???????, I really don’t know.

I think I do agree with what you are saying here. At this point, we need to be focusing our big guns at the enemy storming our gates (Socialists and Dems), and once we have that front won and held, then we start hanging the traitors to the planks of what conservatism is.

from last September. I recognized Comrade Obama the first time I ever heard him talk. He looked, talked, and acted just like all the other communist-trained union/community organizer types I’d dealt with in the big public employee unions since the late-eighties. I fought with them for twenty years, so I don’t mind calling a communist a communist.

I got into the labor relations world in what turned out to be the last days of the old American labor movement which was in many ways the marxist “historic compromise.” Some of them had “the” for a middle name and many of them would steal a hot stove if they could figure out how to grab it, but they were patriotic Americans at heart. By the late ’80s, with the increasing dominance of the big wall to wall public employee unions and the increasing radicalization of the national level of the NEA, the leftover SDSers of the 60s came to prominence in the AFL-CIO.

Anyway, here’s the piece: http://www.redstate.com/achance/2009/09/08/a-field-guide-to-communists/

when he said ‘Big government is bad government.” The government must be so constituted as to function reasonably well and not harm the country unduly even when run by the most corrupt. Because sooner or later it will be. Even should we get rid of all the gangsters now running DC, it is only a matter of time until their like return.

If the government is large and powerful it will be corrupt—even if angels are in office. As we know, angels do not win political office. This country existed over 130 years with out the federal government taxing over 10% of the national income. There is no reason it could not be held to such a level today. A Constitutional Amendment forbidding the federal government from SPENDING an amount in excess of 10% of the previous year’s GDP would leave ample funds to exercise all constitutional powers.

Your second answered your own question, at least partially.

Actually there is way to protect the original design from being destroyed by accident…i.e, creeping corruption. The answer is found in the many posts wright here on RedState.

why not just say “leftist”? Or “statist”?

And I believe that Beck would say that all Progressives are leftists; none of them are on the right. They may be icons of the right, but when they promote leftist ideas they are leftists. (I can’t study Beck every day, so I could be wrong.)

Statist is Mark Levin’s term of preference, but it isn’t in general use. But it is synonymous with Progressive and leftist, because it means those who believe that answer to every public problem lies in a government solution.

And they all mean socialist, too.

All those terms should be relegated to the land of dirty words.

I agree that Rush and Glenn might help us more if they worked together, but that is the statist solution. As two independent agents, they can cover more ground, and since both of them are primarily teaching us, they can teach more, independently. Better yet, they both have a policy of not commenting on each other except in general terms, generally. I had a different take on the Rush Horn than you did. (The only non-LSM broadcast media guy I’ve ever heard Rush disparage is Bill O’Reilly.)

Rush is a commenter, and he uses events of the day to illustrate the truth. Beck is a researcher and a classroom teacher. He starts with his research and then teaches us what he considers true, using his friend the blackboard. Both have their place, but they are probably never going to be coordinated.

Both also see the world a little bit differently than do most other people. That’s what gives them an edge.

than the attempted rehabilitation of words that have long since lost their classic meanings.

Non-political voters need simple guideposts to make decsions when their real lives are interrupted by elections. Rush provides them.

Rush, as usual, is right.

But you make a good case, VB, as usual.

55!!