ROFL @ Glenn Beck

[silverpig]

Glenn Beck is even wrong in the future

Here he's trying to make the case to not host the Olympics in Chicago and he says:

"Vancouver lost, how much was it? They lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics."

ROFL, they haven't happened yet. Way to make shit up Glenn!

 

[UberNeuman]

Glenn fancies himself as a "Q."

 

[smashp]

And he is Wrong about history also

In his latest book he quotes the Constitution:

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

...then follows it up with a comment:

"That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]"

Uh, Glen, this provision of the Constitution has to do with IMPORTATION, not IMMIGRATION. This provision gave the founding fathers a right to place an import tax on slaves.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: smashp
And he is Wrong about history also

In his latest book he quotes the Constitution:

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

...then follows it up with a comment:

"That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]"

Uh, Glen, this provision of the Constitution has to do with IMPORTATION, not IMMIGRATION. This provision gave the founding fathers a right to place an import tax on slaves.

It says "Migration or Importation"... seems to me it covers both immigration and slave trading.

Back to Beck being a douche from the future

 

[Amused]

He mistook the 1976 Montreal Olympics for Vancouver.

If you look at the 76 Olympics, they were a financial disaster for Montreal.

So no, he wasn't making shit up. He just got the city name wrong.

The Olympics were a financial disaster for Montreal, as the city faced debts for 30 years after the Games had finished. The Quebec provincial government took over construction when it became evident in 1975 that work had fallen far behind schedule; work was still under way just weeks before the opening date, and the tower was not built. Mayor Jean Drapeau had confidently predicted in 1970 that "the Olympics can no more have a deficit than a man can have a baby", but the debt racked up to a billion dollars that the Quebec government mandated the city pay in full.

The Olympic Stadium, a daring design of French architect Roger Taillibert, remains a lasting monument to the huge deficit and as such is known as the Big Owe; it never had an effective retractable roof, and the tower was completed only after the Olympics. In December 2006 the stadium's costs were finally paid in full.[5] The total expenditure (including repairs, renovations, construction, interest, and inflation) amounted to C$1.61 billion. Today, despite its huge cost, the stadium is devoid of a major tenant, after the Montreal Expos moved in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Summer_Olympics

So, um, blog fail and thread fail.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: smashp
And he is Wrong about history also

In his latest book he quotes the Constitution:

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

...then follows it up with a comment:

"That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]"

Uh, Glen, this provision of the Constitution has to do with IMPORTATION, not IMMIGRATION. This provision gave the founding fathers a right to place an import tax on slaves.

Maybe you should look up the definition of 'migration' and ask yourself why it sounds so much like immigration?

 

[Perknose]

There is no more complete idiot on the national stage than Glen Beck.

There is no more bloated hypocrite blowhard than Rush Limbaugh on our national stage.

There is no shallower, more ignorant and gibbering twerp than Sarah Palin on our national stage.

There was arguably no worse President, both personally and as president, than George Bush.

There was no more dark, ugly facist prick in recent memory in our government than Dick Cheney.

I'm sensing a pattern here.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Perknose
There is no more complete idiot on the national stage than Glen Beck.

There is no more bloated hypocrite blowhard than Rush Limbaugh on our national stage.

There is no shallower, more ignorant and gibbering twerp than Sarah Palin on our national stage.

There was arguably no worse President, both personally and as president, than George Bush.

There was no more dark, ugly facist prick in recent memory in our government than Dick Cheney.

I'm sensing a pattern here.

Why not add Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales among others to the list

 

[bamacre]

Too bad Democrats are more interested in the loony right than what their own party is doing.

 

[First]

What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Perknose
There is no more complete idiot on the national stage than Glen Beck.

There is no more bloated hypocrite blowhard than Rush Limbaugh on our national stage.

There is no shallower, more ignorant and gibbering twerp than Sarah Palin on our national stage.

There was arguably no worse President, both personally and as president, than George Bush.

There was no more dark, ugly facist prick in recent memory in our government than Dick Cheney.

I'm sensing a pattern here.

I sense one as well. They were all picked by you. I'm sure the same list by a Republican would look quite different.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: First
What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

Not that I like the guy, but what is sad is that both examples given in this thread of him being wrong or making shit up are completely false. On the fly he got the name of a Canadian city wrong. That's it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: First
What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

Is he? I've never listened to him.

Who listens to you? Oh yeah, I remember now. Nobody.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: smashp
And he is Wrong about history also

In his latest book he quotes the Constitution:

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

...then follows it up with a comment:

"That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]"

Uh, Glen, this provision of the Constitution has to do with IMPORTATION, not IMMIGRATION. This provision gave the founding fathers a right to place an import tax on slaves.

It says "Migration or Importation"... seems to me it covers both immigration and slave trading.

Back to Beck being a douche from the future

Really douche, maybe you need to touch up on your history. Lets go right to the transcript of the Debate on the Floor of the Federal convention in 1787

http://teachingamericanhistory...tion/debates/0825.html

The Report of the Committee of eleven [see friday the 24th. instant] being taken up,

Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"

Mr. GHORUM 2ded. the motion

Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National5 character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

On the motion; which passed in the affirmative.

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.6

Mr. Govr. MORRIS was for making the clause read at once, "7 importation of slaves into N. Carolina, S. Carolina & Georgia shall not be prohibited &c." This he said would be most fair and would avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated. He wished it to be known also that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with those States. If the change of language however should be objected to by the members from those States, he should not urge it.

Col: MASON was not against using the term "slaves" but agst. naming N. C. S. C. & Georgia, lest it should give offence to the people of those States.

Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been declined by the old Congs. & were not pleasing to some people.

Mr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. Sherman

Mr. WILLIAMSON said that both in opinion & practice he was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in S. C. & Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS withdrew his motion.

Mr. DICKENSON wished the clause to be confined to the States which had not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves, and for that purpose moved to amend the clause so as to read "The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same shall not be prohibited by the Legislature of the U- S- until the year 1808"-which was disagreed to nem: cont:8

The first part of the report was then agreed to, amended as follows.

"The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808."

N. H. Mas. Con. Md. N. C. S. C. Geo: ay9

N. J. Pa. Del. Virga..............no 10

Mr. BALDWIN in order to restrain & more explicitly define "the average duty" moved to strike out of the 2d. part the words "average of the duties laid on imports" and insert "common impost on articles not enumerated" which was agreed to nem: cont:

Mr. SHERMAN was agst. this 2d. part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

Mr. KING & Mr. LANGDON considered this as the price of the 1st. part.

Genl. PINKNEY admitted that it was so.

Col: MASON. Not to tax, will be equivalent to a bounty on the importation of slaves.

Mr. GHORUM thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS remarked that as the clause now stands it implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.

Mr. SHERMAN in answer to Mr. Ghorum observed that the smallness of the duty shewed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation.

Mr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not like merchandize, consumed, &c

Col. MASON (in answr. to Govr. Morris) the provision as it stands was necessary for the case of Convicts in order to prevent the introduction of them.

It was finally agreed nem: contrad: to make the clause read "but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person," and then the 2d. part as amended was agreed to.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Perknose
There is no more complete idiot on the national stage than Glen Beck.

There is no more bloated hypocrite blowhard than Rush Limbaugh on our national stage.

There is no shallower, more ignorant and gibbering twerp than Sarah Palin on our national stage.

There was arguably no worse President, both personally and as president, than George Bush.

There was no more dark, ugly facist prick in recent memory in our government than Dick Cheney.

I'm sensing a pattern here.

Is the pattern that all of these people could make a better political argument than you without namecalling and insults? WHAT DO I WIN!?

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: First
What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

Not that I like the guy, but what is sad is that both examples given in this thread of him being wrong or making shit up are completely false. On the fly he got the name of a Canadian city wrong. That's it.

That was my first thought. I figured he was talking about the Montreal Olympics and simply misspoke since the Vancouver Olympics are just around the corner and would be the Canadian City on most peoples' minds if they were thinking about Olympics.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: First
What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

Not that I like the guy, but what is sad is that both examples given in this thread of him being wrong or making shit up are completely false. On the fly he got the name of a Canadian city wrong. That's it.

no he is wrong with his facts, as always

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: smashp
And he is Wrong about history also

In his latest book he quotes the Constitution:

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

...then follows it up with a comment:

"That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]"

Uh, Glen, this provision of the Constitution has to do with IMPORTATION, not IMMIGRATION. This provision gave the founding fathers a right to place an import tax on slaves.

It says "Migration or Importation"... seems to me it covers both immigration and slave trading.

Back to Beck being a douche from the future

Really douche, maybe you need to touch up on your history. Lets go right to the transcript of the Debate on the Floor of the Federal convention in 1787

http://teachingamericanhistory...tion/debates/0825.html

The Report of the Committee of eleven [see friday the 24th. instant] being taken up,

Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"

Mr. GHORUM 2ded. the motion

Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National5 character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

On the motion; which passed in the affirmative.

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.6

Mr. Govr. MORRIS was for making the clause read at once, "7 importation of slaves into N. Carolina, S. Carolina & Georgia shall not be prohibited &c." This he said would be most fair and would avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated. He wished it to be known also that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with those States. If the change of language however should be objected to by the members from those States, he should not urge it.

Col: MASON was not against using the term "slaves" but agst. naming N. C. S. C. & Georgia, lest it should give offence to the people of those States.

Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been declined by the old Congs. & were not pleasing to some people.

Mr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. Sherman

Mr. WILLIAMSON said that both in opinion & practice he was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in S. C. & Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS withdrew his motion.

Mr. DICKENSON wished the clause to be confined to the States which had not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves, and for that purpose moved to amend the clause so as to read "The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same shall not be prohibited by the Legislature of the U- S- until the year 1808"-which was disagreed to nem: cont:8

The first part of the report was then agreed to, amended as follows.

"The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808."

N. H. Mas. Con. Md. N. C. S. C. Geo: ay9

N. J. Pa. Del. Virga..............no 10

Mr. BALDWIN in order to restrain & more explicitly define "the average duty" moved to strike out of the 2d. part the words "average of the duties laid on imports" and insert "common impost on articles not enumerated" which was agreed to nem: cont:

Mr. SHERMAN was agst. this 2d. part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

Mr. KING & Mr. LANGDON considered this as the price of the 1st. part.

Genl. PINKNEY admitted that it was so.

Col: MASON. Not to tax, will be equivalent to a bounty on the importation of slaves.

Mr. GHORUM thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS remarked that as the clause now stands it implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.

Mr. SHERMAN in answer to Mr. Ghorum observed that the smallness of the duty shewed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation.

Mr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not like merchandize, consumed, &c

Col. MASON (in answr. to Govr. Morris) the provision as it stands was necessary for the case of Convicts in order to prevent the introduction of them.

It was finally agreed nem: contrad: to make the clause read "but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person," and then the 2d. part as amended was agreed to.

Funny, I read that as it NOT being solely about slaves.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: First
What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

Not that I like the guy, but what is sad is that both examples given in this thread of him being wrong or making shit up are completely false. On the fly he got the name of a Canadian city wrong. That's it.

no he is wrong with his facts, as always

He got a city name wrong, but was right on the facts. The 1976 Olympics left the city a billion dollars in debt.

So what? To ignorantly portray it that he actually meant Vancouver only shows that the blogger who wrote that is an idiot with no knowledge of recent history. As is the OP who passed it on.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: smashp
And he is Wrong about history also

In his latest book he quotes the Constitution:

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

...then follows it up with a comment:

"That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]"

Uh, Glen, this provision of the Constitution has to do with IMPORTATION, not IMMIGRATION. This provision gave the founding fathers a right to place an import tax on slaves.

It says "Migration or Importation"... seems to me it covers both immigration and slave trading.

Back to Beck being a douche from the future

Really douche, maybe you need to touch up on your history. Lets go right to the transcript of the Debate on the Floor of the Federal convention in 1787

http://teachingamericanhistory...tion/debates/0825.html

The Report of the Committee of eleven [see friday the 24th. instant] being taken up,

Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"

Mr. GHORUM 2ded. the motion

Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National5 character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

On the motion; which passed in the affirmative.

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.6

Mr. Govr. MORRIS was for making the clause read at once, "7 importation of slaves into N. Carolina, S. Carolina & Georgia shall not be prohibited &c." This he said would be most fair and would avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated. He wished it to be known also that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with those States. If the change of language however should be objected to by the members from those States, he should not urge it.

Col: MASON was not against using the term "slaves" but agst. naming N. C. S. C. & Georgia, lest it should give offence to the people of those States.

Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been declined by the old Congs. & were not pleasing to some people.

Mr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. Sherman

Mr. WILLIAMSON said that both in opinion & practice he was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in S. C. & Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS withdrew his motion.

Mr. DICKENSON wished the clause to be confined to the States which had not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves, and for that purpose moved to amend the clause so as to read "The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same shall not be prohibited by the Legislature of the U- S- until the year 1808"-which was disagreed to nem: cont:8

The first part of the report was then agreed to, amended as follows.

"The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808."

N. H. Mas. Con. Md. N. C. S. C. Geo: ay9

N. J. Pa. Del. Virga..............no 10

Mr. BALDWIN in order to restrain & more explicitly define "the average duty" moved to strike out of the 2d. part the words "average of the duties laid on imports" and insert "common impost on articles not enumerated" which was agreed to nem: cont:

Mr. SHERMAN was agst. this 2d. part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

Mr. KING & Mr. LANGDON considered this as the price of the 1st. part.

Genl. PINKNEY admitted that it was so.

Col: MASON. Not to tax, will be equivalent to a bounty on the importation of slaves.

Mr. GHORUM thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS remarked that as the clause now stands it implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.

Mr. SHERMAN in answer to Mr. Ghorum observed that the smallness of the duty shewed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation.

Mr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not like merchandize, consumed, &c

Col. MASON (in answr. to Govr. Morris) the provision as it stands was necessary for the case of Convicts in order to prevent the introduction of them.

It was finally agreed nem: contrad: to make the clause read "but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person," and then the 2d. part as amended was agreed to.

Funny, I read that as it NOT being solely about slaves.

Slaves and Convicts, Did you comprehend the debate? They Comprimised their morals for the Union.

Compromised is the key word, and it was ALL about slaves

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Too bad Democrats are more interested in the loony right than what their own party is doing.

Yes.

But why even do this OP? The same people will froth about his evilness, a few will pop in to chuckle at the frothers, rinse, repeat, same shit different day. What decent conversation can come from this topic? What's goal here?

Boring.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Amused
He mistook the 1976 Montreal Olympics for Vancouver.

If you look at the 76 Olympics, they were a financial disaster for Montreal.

So no, he wasn't making shit up. He just got the city name wrong.

The Olympics were a financial disaster for Montreal, as the city faced debts for 30 years after the Games had finished. The Quebec provincial government took over construction when it became evident in 1975 that work had fallen far behind schedule; work was still under way just weeks before the opening date, and the tower was not built. Mayor Jean Drapeau had confidently predicted in 1970 that "the Olympics can no more have a deficit than a man can have a baby", but the debt racked up to a billion dollars that the Quebec government mandated the city pay in full.

The Olympic Stadium, a daring design of French architect Roger Taillibert, remains a lasting monument to the huge deficit and as such is known as the Big Owe; it never had an effective retractable roof, and the tower was completed only after the Olympics. In December 2006 the stadium's costs were finally paid in full.[5] The total expenditure (including repairs, renovations, construction, interest, and inflation) amounted to C$1.61 billion. Today, despite its huge cost, the stadium is devoid of a major tenant, after the Montreal Expos moved in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Summer_Olympics

So, um, blog fail and thread fail.

Or he got the name of the city wrong and the outcome wrong, since we are in the game of making stuff up to cover GB's ass.

Calgary ('88) :

They declared a surplus of between $90?$150 million, and this money was used to fund the various Olympic venues in Calgary. Ever mindful of the financial disaster of the 1976 Summer Olympics, Calgary organizers attempted to be financially successful, because there was political pressure on them to erase the spectre of a second Canadian Games at a loss.

He's a dumbass. Not only is he always getting facts wrong, he's leaping to baseless conclusions.
Canada lost money (maybe,) ergo Chicago will lose money. Obama is supporting Chicago, therefor Obama loves wasting tax dollars and is a giant Nazi Marxist douche who hates white people. Nevermind afiak every Olympics since '84 has made a profit, except for Athens. Which was run by the greeks, so what do you expect?

If GB hates the Olympics so much, perhaps he can support the bid for Tehran to host the next one. Clearly the only redeeming value of the Olympics is how much money they bring in.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: First
What's sad is that he's the leading voice of Libertarians in this country. Though actually, his insanity fits well with most of the kooks in the party.

No he is not. Libertarianism is a term commonly thrown around by those actually encouraging corporate-statism, in other words, been hijacked by the right. Left libertarians recognize the importance of some degree of egalitarianism and collectivism in order to reduce exploitation coming from other private actors. Many anarcho-socialists and anarcho-communists end up near the left libertarians as well thinking that any Capitalist system results in hierachy and exploitation, which they obviously oppose (an-archy).

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Perknose
There is no more complete idiot on the national stage than Glen Beck.

There is no more bloated hypocrite blowhard than Rush Limbaugh on our national stage.

There is no shallower, more ignorant and gibbering twerp than Sarah Palin on our national stage.

There was arguably no worse President, both personally and as president, than George Bush.

There was no more dark, ugly facist prick in recent memory in our government than Dick Cheney.

I'm sensing a pattern here.

Is the pattern that all of these people could make a better political argument than you without namecalling and insults? WHAT DO I WIN!?

for being wrong? Nothing?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Perknose
There is no more complete idiot on the national stage than Glen Beck.

There is no more bloated hypocrite blowhard than Rush Limbaugh on our national stage.

There is no shallower, more ignorant and gibbering twerp than Sarah Palin on our national stage.

There was arguably no worse President, both personally and as president, than George Bush.

There was no more dark, ugly facist prick in recent memory in our government than Dick Cheney.

I'm sensing a pattern here.

Is the pattern that all of these people could make a better political argument than you without namecalling and insults? WHAT DO I WIN!?

for being wrong? Nothing?

You got a little something on your nose..