What to do with the idiots who agree with us?

[Jake_Ellison]

Certainly, I believe that when I read what the Founding Fathers wrote, they were developing an ideology that was based upon free individual men, as Rand, with that power coming from "God", but not of God from a particular religion. One must recognize that governments/monarchs of the era claimed their authority to govern came from God.

This subject is fodder for a long conversation that maybe ought to be had on this forum, in a separate thread. Until then, I'll just quickly challenge that claim, because it bugs me:

John Locke was a Christian, and he believed that God created man (and everything else). Therefor man's nature (and by implication his rights) must've come from God. But he never claimed that his ideas (realizing man's nature-tabula rasa, free will- and coming up with a political philosophy that advocates freedom, were divine revelation, or derived from the word of God(the Bible). He came up with those ideas himself, using reason. So the ideas in the Constitution came from John Locke and other free thinkers, not from God. The Founding Fathers did not claim to have the authority of God (they didn't claim that the power to free people comes straight from God) either, the way monarchs did.

And no one claimed that men should be free because God says so, the way conservatives are revising those now pretty much lost ideas the Republic was founded upon. Some of the Founding Fathers may have believed that God exists and is the Creator, but the ideas in the Constitution did not come from religious sources or mystical revelation. The ideas were born out of reason, same as Ayn Rand's ideas. Tagging those ideas with God's name was a big mistake.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Space Patroller]

This subject is fodder for a long conversation that maybe ought to be had on this forum, in a separate thread. Until then, I'll just quickly challenge that claim, because it bugs me:

John Locke was a Christian, and he believed that God created man (and everything else). Therefor man's nature (and by implication his rights) must've come from God. But he never claimed that his ideas (realizing man's nature-tabula rasa, free will- and coming up with a political philosophy that advocates freedom, were divine revelation, or derived from the word of God(the Bible). He came up with those ideas himself, using reason. So the ideas in the Constitution came from John Locke and other free thinkers, not from God. The Founding Fathers did not claim to have the authority of God (they didn't claim that the power to free people comes straight from God) either, the way monarchs did.

And no one claimed that men should be free because God says so, the way conservatives are revising those now pretty much lost ideas the Republic was founded upon. Some of the Founding Fathers may have believed that God exists and is the Creator, but the ideas in the Constitution did not come from religious sources or mystical revelation. The ideas were born out of reason, same as Ayn Rand's ideas. Tagging those ideas with God's name was a big mistake.

I notice in the Declaration of Independence and other writings of the time. that there is the reference "Nature and Nataure's God". This sort of puts a bit of distance between nature and God and why Rand could legitimately say, referencing "...endowed by his Creator...", that the specific crator was irrelevent. This comes from the Post-Newton "Great Clockmaker" theory. That God created the universe and set it into motion but take little if any active interest. This marked a change in the view of God from an active personalized being to a kind of force. This had to happen after the revolution in the physical sciences and the fall of the Aristotelian scientific model, which the Church had been so thoroghly invested into that when that fell, the Church and Cristianity in general saw that as a death knell unless they adapted to the times. On the other hand. no credible non-theistic schema had yet arisen to fill the metaphysicial vacuum that an implosion would create and since "nature abohors a vacuum". the cataclysmic implosion could not occur and we have "theistic evolution", "cratation science" and "intelligent design" as the remnants of the old system. The fact is that intelligent action is understanding that nature works by the Law of Identity. If you breed two dogs, and A is A and either A or not-A then how can the result be anything but dogs? How could A turn into not-A by natural means.

[Capitalism Forever]

I am reminded of a lecture Dr. Brook once gave(*), in which he mentioned that, according to Dr. Peikoff, there are 3 phases of how a new philosophy spreads and gains dominance in a culture:

• Phase 1: Nobody wants to hear of it.
  
• Phase 2: Everyone says he "loves it" but nobody understands it.
  
• Phase 3: Everybody understands it and you have won.
  

Dr. Brook thinks we are entering phase 2 now with Objectivism. So we're going to hear all kinds of people say they love Objectivism--people like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin, and sometimes even people like Hillary Clinton and Angelina Jolie. There's more and more of it in store as Objectivism continues to gain popularity--so y'all better get used to it.

I guess what irks some of you is that the distribution has so far been pretty lopsided, with lots of plaudits from conservatives, but mostly just animosity from leftist opinionmakers, who seem to be eager to make sure to keep their Hillaries and Angelinas from mentioning Ayn Rand. As I argued on another thread, this is pretty much an inevitability given what both sides stand for. This is another thing you'll need to get used to!

-------

(*) "Ayn Rand's Influence, the Spread of Objectivism, and the State of ARI," Oslo, Norway, November 9, 2007

[Mammon]

so y'all better get used to it.

[...]

This is another thing you'll need to get used to!

Are you a nilihist? Do you really enjoy seeing people take your ideals out of context and try to couple them with contradictions and therefore misrepresent them?

I'm never going to get used to people taking someones words out of context or spinning their ideas to justify a misleading position, because it's immoral and I'm against it on principal.

But principals are something these conservatives will never understand to begin with.

I have many problems with conservatives, as this community is well aware of. One of those problems is that the conservatives are the biggest "have my cake and eat it too" adherents.

They want to worship a man who advocated pure altruism and selflessness, who said that it would be difficult for the rich to get into the better part of the after life.

Yet,

They advocate an economic system that is focused on greed and selfishness and based on the concept of individual rights and freedom, that says being rich is a perfectly fine.

And many conseratives want to be rich, or already are rich. They also have an obessions with pointless social issues, all of which involve violating someones rights and crushing their freedom. Yet they drive around with proper stickers with phrases like "Freedom isn't free!" and "Life without God, how's that working for you?"

This is entire movement is focused, at least in it's modern incarnation, on forcing contradictions to work. And now some of their outspoken leaders and members are hijacking a concept from a book written by a woman who created a philosophy based on the fact that contradictions can not exist; who said selfishness is a virtue.

Why does it seem like me and a few others are the only Objectivists who seemed pissed off about this? I'd expect more outrage, but for whatever reason there isn't too much fuss made about the fact that people are taking your ideals and shitting all over them in front of the whole world.

The only reason I can come up with here as to why so many neocons are picking up Rand, is along the same lines RussK mentioned, they simply don't understand what they are talking about. They don't seem to make any concentrated effort to understand ideas at all. This seems to be a problem with all Christians (actually, more so with the Protestants than Catholics), they never dig deeper into ideas, they just accept what's on the surface. It's persistent mental shallowness and it transcends into their politics as well.

And according to CapitalismForever, we are supposed to "get used to it" I guess we should all go out and find the nearest F-150 with a "ONE NATION UNDER GOD!" bummer sticker and confess our supposed mutual feelings on absolutely everything -- especially the fact that liberals are not human beings with a reasoning mind capable of understanding the ideas that we decided to half-ass understand and attempt to implement. Because also according to CapitalismForever, we have nothing in common with liberals.

In fact, I think I'm on to something here. Let's just totally forget about what Ayn Rand actually advocated at all. Let's just cherry pick select quotes and ideas like our new conservative best friends do with their Bibles! It's worked wonders for them.

I mean it's pretty obvious John Galt was a Christian. He said "God" in his speech. That must mean he is a Christian. And he wasn't homosexual, so that must mean homosexuality should be punishable by law! They don't do whatever everyone else is doing, so that must mean they are in the wrong. I mean, if everyone is doing it must be a good thing. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. That's how we decide whats good or not. Everyone around me is a Christian and says Atlas Shrugged is a good story about liberals and their agendas being bad, so that must be the truth.

Ah yeah, cherry picking is the best way to go!

What have I been thinking all along? These conservatives aren't bad, they just have a tiny, tincy, wincy problem of completely evading reality when it suites their emotional knee-jerk reactions and rationalizations. Nothing there to worry about, that's easily overlooked. They don't like Democrats. Which is makes them practically Objectivists right?

Who is John Galt? A conservative, Christian, pro-American, Republican-voting, Cowboy-hat wearing, country-music-star, talk-show-host, Joe-the Plumber, American who didn't like the Democrats and their progressive tax policies.

Better get used to it.

[Space Patroller]

So the conservataives have a contradiction

Agreed!

Are they hypocrites?

Only if they know what they're doing. I flunked Telepathy 101.

Now the best and the worst one can say is that they are half-right.

This means that we can get some traction.

Try getting tractions with the post 1970 libs, of whom Ayn Rand said "[referencing the libs of the 1930's] Though they were wrong, I envied them their methodology [reason]. Now they are in no such danger". She also used to like Reverend Ike, which I found passing strange, because he proclaimed one's birthright to prosperity.

Unless there is something occurring on some other planet about which I don't know. you've got two reasonable alternaives. the conservatives and the liberals. Be rest assured I've had my blowouts with both but do you really want to support Wicca, Astrology, Alternative Medicine, lawyers, eco's, mainstream religion (part of the foundation of the "Progressives" of the late 1800's and the current National Council of Churches), the NEA, AFL, The NY Times, CNN and their ilk and Barney "Say it; don't spray it" Frank? What do we have in common with *that* bunch?

The only good of having the 'crats in control of Congress and the Executive is that it sets up the first stages of the battle .

One thing about mainstream Objectivism: it's been mired in the past since 1975. They were good starship captains, not navigators; great theoreticians, lousey practitioners. LIke it or not, we are part of the Right and the bad guys know it.

I must say that the left is not monolithic it has at least two components. thsoe who want the US destroyoed economically and thosw who want it nucked by Iran, Russia or China. Have you ever seen conservatives demonstrating against the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima? or at Anti-nuke rallies?

For sure it's like transiting the Asteroid Belt, but what would you rather be doing; crossing the Asteroid Belt or getting the Belt across your Asteroid? Where would you rather live; Fort worth or Fall River?

Edited March 18, 2009 by Space Patroller

[gags]

Are you a nilihist? Do you really enjoy seeing people take your ideals out of context and try to couple them with contradictions and therefore misrepresent them?

Why do you support Obama?

[Capitalism Forever]

Below is a small sample from the growing amount of forum space and bandwidth devoted by Mammon and like-minded posters to wringing their hands about Ayn Rand gaining popularity among their political adversaries:

Are you a nilihist? Do you really enjoy seeing people take your ideals out of context and try to couple them with contradictions and therefore misrepresent them?

I'm never going to get used to people taking someones words out of context or spinning their ideas to justify a misleading position, because it's immoral and I'm against it on principal.

But principals are something these conservatives will never understand to begin with.

I have many problems with conservatives, as this community is well aware of. One of those problems is that the conservatives are the biggest "have my cake and eat it too" adherents.

They want to worship a man who advocated pure altruism and selflessness, who said that it would be difficult for the rich to get into the better part of the after life.

Yet,

They advocate an economic system that is focused on greed and selfishness and based on the concept of individual rights and freedom, that says being rich is a perfectly fine.

And many conseratives want to be rich, or already are rich. They also have an obessions with pointless social issues, all of which involve violating someones rights and crushing their freedom. Yet they drive around with proper stickers with phrases like "Freedom isn't free!" and "Life without God, how's that working for you?"

This is entire movement is focused, at least in it's modern incarnation, on forcing contradictions to work. And now some of their outspoken leaders and members are hijacking a concept from a book written by a woman who created a philosophy based on the fact that contradictions can not exist; who said selfishness is a virtue.

Why does it seem like me and a few others are the only Objectivists who seemed pissed off about this? I'd expect more outrage, but for whatever reason there isn't too much fuss made about the fact that people are taking your ideals and shitting all over them in front of the whole world.

The only reason I can come up with here as to why so many neocons are picking up Rand, is along the same lines RussK mentioned, they simply don't understand what they are talking about. They don't seem to make any concentrated effort to understand ideas at all. This seems to be a problem with all Christians (actually, more so with the Protestants than Catholics), they never dig deeper into ideas, they just accept what's on the surface. It's persistent mental shallowness and it transcends into their politics as well.

And according to CapitalismForever, we are supposed to "get used to it" I guess we should all go out and find the nearest F-150 with a "ONE NATION UNDER GOD!" bummer sticker and confess our supposed mutual feelings on absolutely everything -- especially the fact that liberals are not human beings with a reasoning mind capable of understanding the ideas that we decided to half-ass understand and attempt to implement. Because also according to CapitalismForever, we have nothing in common with liberals.

In fact, I think I'm on to something here. Let's just totally forget about what Ayn Rand actually advocated at all. Let's just cherry pick select quotes and ideas like our new conservative best friends do with their Bibles! It's worked wonders for them.

I mean it's pretty obvious John Galt was a Christian. He said "God" in his speech. That must mean he is a Christian. And he wasn't homosexual, so that must mean homosexuality should be punishable by law! They don't do whatever everyone else is doing, so that must mean they are in the wrong. I mean, if everyone is doing it must be a good thing. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. That's how we decide whats good or not. Everyone around me is a Christian and says Atlas Shrugged is a good story about liberals and their agendas being bad, so that must be the truth.

Ah yeah, cherry picking is the best way to go!

What have I been thinking all along? These conservatives aren't bad, they just have a tiny, tincy, wincy problem of completely evading reality when it suites their emotional knee-jerk reactions and rationalizations. Nothing there to worry about, that's easily overlooked. They don't like Democrats. Which is makes them practically Objectivists right?

Who is John Galt? A conservative, Christian, pro-American, Republican-voting, Cowboy-hat wearing, country-music-star, talk-show-host, Joe-the Plumber, American who didn't like the Democrats and their progressive tax policies.

Better get used to it.

Following are ALL the times I--or, to my knowledge, anyone else on this forum within the last couple of years--mentioned liberals talking positively about any of Ayn Rand's works:

all kinds of people say they love Objectivism--people like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin, and sometimes even people like Hillary Clinton and Angelina Jolie.

[...]

mostly just animosity from leftist opinionmakers, who seem to be eager to make sure to keep their Hillaries and Angelinas from mentioning Ayn Rand.

To summarize the difference between the two approaches: Mammon et al. are scared stiff of the wrong people thinking they like any part of any book by Ayn Rand, while I and my fellow "nihilists" seem to take it in a stride. Even if the Comrade Messiah himself said he was a huge fan, we would just laugh and move on. In fact, I think it's a good thing that even liberals are beginning feel it necessary now to show their "Ayn Cred" in order to maintain their chic image--and Dr. Brook is with me on this; he specifically named Angelina Jolie as the first sign that made him think we are in "phase 2" now.

And why would it be a bad thing? It strikes me as a bit "Dominique-ish" to want to erect a wall of separation betweeen Objectivism and the people you dislike. If Miss Rand had meant to do that, she would never have published anything she wrote and kept her philosophy to herself. If you write a book that is going to sell tens of millions of copies, tens of millions of people are going to read it and talk about it--and not all of them will be 100% like your heroes. If you write romantic art, chances are that most of your readers will fall below the standard of your heroes--because projecting how men could be and should be necessarily implies setting a standard above what already exists.

Once Objectivism becomes THE philosophy in America, religion and whatever else you dislike about Rush Limbaugh is going to be as extinct as the flat-Earth doctrine is today.(*) But before that can happen, Objectivism needs to become the dominant philosophy, and you don't get dominance without getting popularity first. In other words, we need to go through phase 2 in order to reach phase 3. The alternative would be to stay in phase 1 forever--but that is not the ARI's plan. Hence, phase 2. Learn to live with it.

-------

(*) At this point, some of you may insist that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and all the rest do actually believe in a flat Earth. If that is the case, forget all I wrote and substitute two words: "Never mind."

[RussK]

Dr. Brook thinks we are entering phase 2 now with Objectivism. So we're going to hear all kinds of people say they love Objectivism--people like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin, and sometimes even people like Hillary Clinton and Angelina Jolie. There's more and more of it in store as Objectivism continues to gain popularity--so y'all better get used to it.

I don't think anyone doubts that Ayn Rand is going to be mentioned with greater frequency, by people who don't hold principles compatible with Ayn Rand, as her popularity or exposure increases; I think everyone is 'used to' that, as well as expects it. However, this doesn't mean that one should 'get used to' the cherry picking and the hijacking of Ayn Rand's ideas, which is the problem at hand, and to do so would be nihilistic as Mammon pointed out. One shouldn't get used to--essentially to dismiss judgment or action--the promulgation of ideas that one thinks harmful; one should definitely not get used to ideas that confound and contradict the ideas that one thinks true and advocates. What is being targeted is not popularity itself but the confusion, misrepresentation, and contradiction; and I agree with Mammon that many cases with Rand's New Congregation are infuriating. What should be done, is not stop the spread of Ayn Rand's ideas, not that anyone has argued for that, but to advocate Objectivism: attacking those ideas that are contrary to it, which also means taking those to task who are misrepresenting and dropping the context of Rand's ideas.

Also, I think there is a difference between the popularity of Rand and the popularity of Objectivism, which is why mostly refer to "Ayn Rand's popularity".

[Space Patroller]

I don't think anyone doubts that Ayn Rand is going to be mentioned with greater frequency, by people who don't hold principles compatible with Ayn Rand, as her popularity or exposure increases; I think everyone is 'used to' that, as well as expects it. However, this doesn't mean that one should 'get used to' the cherry picking and the hijacking of Ayn Rand's ideas, which is the problem at hand, and to do so would be nihilistic as Mammon pointed out. One shouldn't get used to--essentially to dismiss judgment or action--the promulgation of ideas that one thinks harmful; one should definitely not get used to ideas that confound and contradict the ideas that one thinks true and advocates. What is being targeted is not popularity itself but the confusion, misrepresentation, and contradiction; and I agree with Mammon that many cases with Rand's New Congregation are infuriating. What should be done, is not stop the spread of Ayn Rand's ideas, not that anyone has argued for that, but to advocate Objectivism: attacking those ideas that are contrary to it, which also means taking those to task who are misrepresenting and dropping the context of Rand's ideas.

Also, I think there is a difference between the popularity of Rand and the popularity of Objectivism, which is why mostly refer to "Ayn Rand's popularity".

This is not new and is at the core of a "separating the flys**t from the pepper" debate that I've been engaged in here over my use of "Randite", etc...

IT IS TO SEPARATE MYSELF FROM THE BASTARD HALF-BREED THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP OVER THE LAST 36 YEARS and indicate that I support straight-up Objectivism

Now. Thank God that Matt Allen apperas to have gotten off the ATLAS SHRUGGED kick.

Miss Rand once observed that "Todays unchallenged slogans become Tomorrows accepted virtues"

In terms of Rush. Do you really want Objectivism associated with complaining that "[the libs] laugh at persons who belive what can't be proven"? Not me: Not even in the same ^@$&ing galaxy! Thank God he's off his Atlas Shrugged kick and has been for several years.

And yes there was a big antagonism between Ayn Rand and the conservatives for just that reason, so that she and here's don't get lumped in with these persons in some kind of package deal. Thank God Buckley gave us the heave-ho.

Beck to the title of this thread

1) They are better persons than the libs, but this is due to psychological reasons: That is, their implicit unrecognized philoophy is better than their explicit one.

2) That which we share with thiem is superficially similar. In fact, at a depper level, they share more with our enemies and we DO have enemies. They may not know it but it is still true amd they will turn on us in a heartbeat

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/endof.html

Therefore, we treat them as useful idiots and generally OK folks but once they incur into our domain and try to associate our stuff with theirs, it's delenda est time. Miss Rand once said "Do not let your integrity be used against you" That means mind the store, folks and read "The Anatomy of Compromise". That should answer all questions.

Miss Rand did describe Dominique as "Myself in a bad mood"

Edited March 19, 2009 by Space Patroller

[TheEgoist]

Are you a nilihist? Do you really enjoy seeing people take your ideals out of context and try to couple them with contradictions and therefore misrepresent them?

I'm never going to get used to people taking someones words out of context or spinning their ideas to justify a misleading position, because it's immoral and I'm against it on principal.

But principals are something these conservatives will never understand to begin with.

I have many problems with conservatives, as this community is well aware of. One of those problems is that the conservatives are the biggest "have my cake and eat it too" adherents.

They want to worship a man who advocated pure altruism and selflessness, who said that it would be difficult for the rich to get into the better part of the after life.

Yet,

They advocate an economic system that is focused on greed and selfishness and based on the concept of individual rights and freedom, that says being rich is a perfectly fine.

And many conseratives want to be rich, or already are rich. They also have an obessions with pointless social issues, all of which involve violating someones rights and crushing their freedom. Yet they drive around with proper stickers with phrases like "Freedom isn't free!" and "Life without God, how's that working for you?"

This is entire movement is focused, at least in it's modern incarnation, on forcing contradictions to work. And now some of their outspoken leaders and members are hijacking a concept from a book written by a woman who created a philosophy based on the fact that contradictions can not exist; who said selfishness is a virtue.

Why does it seem like me and a few others are the only Objectivists who seemed pissed off about this? I'd expect more outrage, but for whatever reason there isn't too much fuss made about the fact that people are taking your ideals and shitting all over them in front of the whole world.

The only reason I can come up with here as to why so many neocons are picking up Rand, is along the same lines RussK mentioned, they simply don't understand what they are talking about. They don't seem to make any concentrated effort to understand ideas at all. This seems to be a problem with all Christians (actually, more so with the Protestants than Catholics), they never dig deeper into ideas, they just accept what's on the surface. It's persistent mental shallowness and it transcends into their politics as well.

And according to CapitalismForever, we are supposed to "get used to it" I guess we should all go out and find the nearest F-150 with a "ONE NATION UNDER GOD!" bummer sticker and confess our supposed mutual feelings on absolutely everything -- especially the fact that liberals are not human beings with a reasoning mind capable of understanding the ideas that we decided to half-ass understand and attempt to implement. Because also according to CapitalismForever, we have nothing in common with liberals.

In fact, I think I'm on to something here. Let's just totally forget about what Ayn Rand actually advocated at all. Let's just cherry pick select quotes and ideas like our new conservative best friends do with their Bibles! It's worked wonders for them.

I mean it's pretty obvious John Galt was a Christian. He said "God" in his speech. That must mean he is a Christian. And he wasn't homosexual, so that must mean homosexuality should be punishable by law! They don't do whatever everyone else is doing, so that must mean they are in the wrong. I mean, if everyone is doing it must be a good thing. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. That's how we decide whats good or not. Everyone around me is a Christian and says Atlas Shrugged is a good story about liberals and their agendas being bad, so that must be the truth.

Ah yeah, cherry picking is the best way to go!

What have I been thinking all along? These conservatives aren't bad, they just have a tiny, tincy, wincy problem of completely evading reality when it suites their emotional knee-jerk reactions and rationalizations. Nothing there to worry about, that's easily overlooked. They don't like Democrats. Which is makes them practically Objectivists right?

Who is John Galt? A conservative, Christian, pro-American, Republican-voting, Cowboy-hat wearing, country-music-star, talk-show-host, Joe-the Plumber, American who didn't like the Democrats and their progressive tax policies.

Better get used to it.

You'd be cool if you would say things like this while not placing your nose up Obama's ass, Mammon.

[JMartins]

This is truly the best -- the very best -- topic title on this forum.

[Capitalism Forever]

What is being targeted is not popularity itself but the confusion, misrepresentation, and contradiction; and I agree with Mammon that many cases with Rand's New Congregation are infuriating.

Can you give some examples of what infuriates you?

[RussK]

Can you give some examples of what infuriates you?

I think some have already been given by others on this thread, but I'll give another: Glenn Beck praising AS on his radio and television show, and then indicating that to be an American, and be able to 'take back the country', it's essential to believe in god and his role in your life.

[Jake_Ellison]

I think some have already been given by others on this thread, but I'll give another: Glenn Beck praising AS on his radio and television show, and then indicating that to be an American, and be able to 'take back the country', it's essential to believe in god and his role in your life.

Maybe you're reading a bit too much into whatever he said. I'm no fan of his, but I've seen clips of him ranting on youtube, and I don't see him going that far.

You simply claiming that he did ain't gonna change my mind, but a link to him saying that "to be an American it is essential to believe in God" certainly would. So what do you say, do you want to off the bat do something I haven't seen the guy you're in agreement with do in any of those thousand or so posts he has, and back that pretty wild claim up with solid evidence?

[Space Patroller]

Maybe you're reading a bit too much into whatever he said. I'm no fan of his, but I've seen clips of him ranting on youtube, and I don't see him going that far.

You simply claiming that he did ain't gonna change my mind, but a link to him saying that "to be an American it is essential to believe in God" certainly would. So what do you say, do you want to off the bat do something I haven't seen the guy you're in agreement with do in any of those thousand or so posts he has, and back that pretty wild claim up with solid evidence?

What RussK says is true. I've heard it myself. As to the question of "going too far", Ayn Rnad has said 8 jillion times "Take poeple at their word" and "Don't delude yourself into thinking 'Aw; they don't mean it': They do" and then promptly deomostrated it many times over that necessary to prove her case.

Now there's another aspect here

Websites

Many of these idiots own websites. Bernie Goldberg listed Mike Savage as one of the persons screwing up this country. Bill O'Reilley is just a demagogue. Neal Boortz has a crdibility rating of about 3 and in and of humself is a net loss. On his show yesterday, Rush played two soundbites of Cramer that absolutely destroy the man's credibioity.

These websites are run by webmasters. These webmasters link to the source material in the overwhelming majority of cases. I'll have to look at Beck's website but I provide links to the sites that I've noticed link right to things that we should know.

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/

As such, they are rich resources and it would be dumb to not use them

[TheEgoist]

Maybe you're reading a bit too much into whatever he said. I'm no fan of his, but I've seen clips of him ranting on youtube, and I don't see him going that far.

You simply claiming that he did ain't gonna change my mind, but a link to him saying that "to be an American it is essential to believe in God" certainly would. So what do you say, do you want to off the bat do something I haven't seen the guy you're in agreement with do in any of those thousand or so posts he has, and back that pretty wild claim up with solid evidence?

Glenn Beck's second "principle" is that God needs to be at the center of your life. Google search "Glenn Beck 9 principles 12 values" and have yourself a laugh.