Lindsey Graham calls out Glenn Beck

[Mustang]

I'm new here, but I'm stubborn...

And confused why Mustang hasn't identified anything about Beck's positions as being wrong - other than not having allegience to a party?

Oh I know Christie's positions, I don't need Beck to teach me how to judge my candidate, I know how to think critically. 
He is a real conservative on every issue. And he is running up against the most incompetent tax and spend liberal in the history of this state.

Like I said, Beck has done good work going after the Obama administration and the progressive movement. He just annoys me that he doesn't just focus on that.

It's really simple. I agree with Rush when he says that people who have an attitude that the Republican party is no different than the Democrats may use that as a wedge to support or form a third party, which only empowers the democrats. Rush says, what all of us conservatives should be doing is taking over the Republican party. I have noticed that it is starting to get trendy for conservatives to call themselves libertarian.
I think this trend has been started by people like Ron Paul and Glenn Beck.

To me liberaltarian means you are a conservative except on social issues (and maybe foreign policy if you are an isolationist libertarian).
I'm proud to say I am a Republican.

Are you a lawyer?

[bkg]

Lawyer? I should ask you, since the quoted answer doesn't actually answer the the question. You earlier said Beck is wrong - other than not supporting the GOP, where is he wrong and why?

And let me ask this - what's the difference between conservatives taking over the Republican party vs. creating a new party? Truly, other than the GOP dying, what's the difference?

[DixieBelle]

Mustang - people just want an answer to the question.

And on another note - what do you think of the 912 Project? http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/

[DixieBelle]

Mustang - people just want an answer to the question.

And on another note - what do you think of the 912 Project? http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/

[Mustang]

Mustang - people just want an answer to the question.

And on another note - what do you think of the 912 Project? http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/

I have a nuanced answer.
Yes I like the idea of the principles of this "project", but what is he trying to achieve with it?
My question is, how does Beck want to achieve a constitutional "purity"?
Dump political parties?

Beck complains about lack of representation. What is his answer? Dump political parties?
I would suggest increasing the size of the house of representives would create more direct representation.
I believe there is a law suit in the works complaining that the current number of congressmen/women is unconstituional because they have too many constituents to represent by that one person. By increasing congress, you create greater representation that are more concerned with their constituents and lesser by lobby's. And it may decrease the number of staff per congressperson, considering each congressperson has 22 staffers.

It's not that I disagree with Beck's message, it's that I disagree with how he wants to achieve it.
He's hitting his head against the wall in the end. Rush is much more logical, which I choose to side with him over Glenn's over the top persona.

[bkg]

I have a nuanced answer.
Yes I like the idea of the principles of this "project", but what is he trying to achieve with it?
My question is, how does Beck want to achieve a constitutional "purity"?
Dump political parties?

So... again.. .where is he wrong other than his lack of support for either primary party? I'm confused or simply missing it in your answer(s). What positions or issues does he have backwards?

My interpretation is that you're frustrated with him because he doesn't support the GOP, which is something you are clearly passionate about. That's *MY* interpretation based on your writings.

Increasing size of Gov't is never an answer. I think we'd be better off with the end to redistricting BS, personally.

What have the two political parties brought to the country?  Where has having a party protected freedoms, liberty or COTUS? I've often wondered this and never had a clear answer. Because parties, it seems to me, have gone the way of unions: have a goal of gainging power at all costs with little adherence to pricniples.

Do you disagree with the idea of COTUS purity? Do you think the GOP will get us there?

[Mustang]

Increasing size of Gov't is never an answer. I think we'd be better off with the end to redistricting BS, personally.

Enough with you condescending tone, where you flatly ignore EVERYTHING I say.

Do you understand how congress works? The number of congress is determined by population.
Which is more logical? Oh, lets dump political parties, and hey, maybe make a third party!
Or create more representatives to be more reliant on constituents.
That way THEY would be more concerned with YOUR concerns because people would have more direct control of their votes, in that fewer votes would be needed to elect that representative.

Your knee-jerk reaction that this is bigger government is obtuse, when you consider that this means would LEAD to smaller government.

So go start your little revolution of destroying all political parties with your poster boy.
Good Luck

My interpretation is that you're frustrated with him because he doesn't support the GOP

No, I think his answer to constitutional "purity" to disband political parties is nieve, illogical, and not realistic.
There are much more effective means than that ridiculous answer. Like increasing congress to more directly represent people.

[bkg]

Enough with you condescending tone, where you flatly ignore EVERYTHING I say.

I've ignored nothing. Sorry your feel that I have, but I haven't. Just trying to get you to elaborate on your statement.

Do you understand how congress works? The number of congress is determined by population.

I do. Very well. What are you getting at?

Which is more logical? Oh, lets dump political parties, and hey, maybe make a third party! Or create more representatives to be more reliant on constituents.

HUH - how does increasing the size of congress accomplish a greater reliance on constituants? Hell, dude, but even at the SLG leve, reps don't listen to consituants much anymore. I don't see how increasing the number of reps will change that. I'm willing to listen, but I'd ask for some detailed explanation.

You ignored my quesitons again - how have the two major parties protected freedom, liberty, COTUS, economy, etc, etc?

That way THEY would be more concerned with YOUR concerns because people would have more direct control of their votes, in that fewer votes would be needed to elect that representative.

I don't agree with this. I think you're incorrect to assume that by reducing the number of constituents that people in Congress will listen. They make no attempt to listen now, why would that change? How many reps received 90-95% ofcalls against TARP and still voted for it? Again, look at SLG. The same issues exist in that space and they each have fewer people to represent.

Your knee-jerk reaction that this is bigger government is obtuse, when you consider that this means would LEAD to smaller government.

WAit... seriously. How will bigger government lead to smaller government???? How will that happen?

So go start your little revolution of destroying all political parties with your poster boy.
Good Luck

why are you so upset? I've asked you questions that you haven't answered, so I've been pressing you to engage the debate... But you're refusing to do that, and I'm not sure why that is. You can call me names or whatever you want, but I'm not your enemy. I'm just asking questions that others did and that weren't answered. I can't really figure out what you're so upset over or why you won't talk about the issues that you think Beck is incorrect on rather than just attacking.

[5412]

I have a nuanced answer.
Yes I like the idea of the principles of this "project", but what is he trying to achieve with it?
My question is, how does Beck want to achieve a constitutional "purity"?
Dump political parties?

Beck complains about lack of representation. What is his answer? Dump political parties?
I would suggest increasing the size of the house of representives would create more direct representation.
I believe there is a law suit in the works complaining that the current number of congressmen/women is unconstituional because they have too many constituents to represent by that one person. By increasing congress, you create greater representation that are more concerned with their constituents and lesser by lobby's. And it may decrease the number of staff per congressperson, considering each congressperson has 22 staffers.

It's not that I disagree with Beck's message, it's that I disagree with how he wants to achieve it.
He's hitting his head against the wall in the end. Rush is much more logical, which I choose to side with him over Glenn's over the top persona.

Hi,

Let me wade into this discussion.  I think Beck is saying just that, no loyalty to either party.  Check out this website:  http://www.patriotsunited.com/

I joined this organization during the summer.  We have a platform of "values", do not endorse a party but will support a candidate from either party, or independent, who shares the same values we believe in. 

Beck is opposed to corruption in both parties, who can argue with that?  He is for certain values, conservative fiscal policy, enforce our immigration laws, minimum government.......etc.  Likely any candidate who he believes is in agreement with those values he would be in favor of.  I think he distrusts either party at this point and can support his belief with plenty of examples.  Not so sure he does not feel a third party will emerge.  The largest voting group now happen to be independents, their numbers are higher than either republican or democrat.

regards,
5412

[Mustang]

WAit... seriously. How will bigger government lead to smaller government???? How will that happen?

Just how you phrase my statements completely out of context annoys me to the point of wanting to ignore you.
You are almost as annoying as the RINO I have to work with at the office that thinks the independent candidate
has a better plan than the Republican candidate, when that independant wants to raise taxes 30% and give everyone free healthcare.


Do I need to spell out every little thing for you? More representatives would mean it would be harder to jam through legislation, slowing the process, hence smaller government. And the lawsuit about this is represented by strict constitutionalist conservatives.
That's why I called your response a "knee-jerk" reaction.

And I frankly do not have the time to respond to all your little nit picks and distortions of what my focus is in this debate and you seem to want me to drift to a different issue when you KNOW that my sentiment is directed to a focused issue of why Beck's irrationality concerning the means to his constitutional purity.

[bkg]

Just how you phrase my statements completely out of context annoys me to the point of wanting to ignore you.
You are almost as annoying as the RINO I have to work with at the office that thinks the independent candidate
has a better plan than the Republican candidate, when that independant wants to raise taxes 30% and give everyone free healthcare.


Do I need to spell out every little thing for you? More representatives would mean it would be harder to jam through legislation, slowing the process, hence smaller government. And the lawsuit about this is represented by strict constitutionalist conservatives.
That's why I called your response a "knee-jerk" reaction.

And I frankly do not have the time to respond to all your little nit picks and distortions of what my focus is in this debate and you seem to want me to drift to a different issue when you KNOW that my sentiment is directed to a focused issue of why Beck's irrationality concerning the means to his constitutional purity.

I haven't distorted anything. I've asked questions for clarification. If you can't clarify, then your positions are baseless. If you get emotional and, frankly, pissed off at being questioned, then your positions are baseless. You're taking something personal that isn't personal.

You may well be right that a larger congress would make it harder to push through unconstitutional legislation. But... it could also make it easier, depending on who is in charge and how they spin. There is no guarantee that it would lead to smaller gov'ment, there just isn't.

You support a party. I support ideals. You're comfortable with your position, I'm comfortable with mine. I'd like to debate, learn, question, engage in challenging conversation because it helps us all... you don't want to engage in that conversation with me, so that's fine. Good luck to you and your internship.