>What's he hope to accomplish by this?

Make a shitload of money.

Mission accomplished.

>>5668678

I can buy that about O'Reilly, but Beck is wet behind the ears. He seems like he really believes the stuff he says, like Alex Jones.

That book made me rage so hard.

america atheistic good joke even the atheist are religionfags there.

>>5668684

Except you have to go find Jones' material on your own. Beck is pandered next to mainstream media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYrHx6dj0mU

>>5668691

I see someone gets his views from South Park.

>>5668684
Beck seems sincere? Are you high?

>>5668694

I thought of the exact same thing.

>>5668711

No, and I do think he's sincere about his views. The man's a raving nutter, even on his own time. Check out his twitter now and then.

WE. DON'T. KNOW.

AND WE ARE NOT GETTING ANSWERS IN THE MEDIA.

Dude woulda made a sharp lookin nazi

religious people are a dying bread. the lunatics are getting lonelier and they know it. the less there are the more crazy they have to be to compensate

>>5668787

lol 'bread'. A dying bread. Would that be a crouton?

I don't get any money to give my views. No one pays me.

How much does he get per commercial?

>>5668782

I bet he thinks so too

>Glenn Beck blames America's ills on atheism

I wonder if he considers the dollar bill to be God and ignores the needs of his fellow human beings in favor of the dollar. Now you are not dealing with atheism, you are dealing with greed.

I'm not even American and I raged so hard my kidneys exploded. The US was founded as a secular state you cunt

>>5668778
Probably posted already, but this is too fucking funny.

http://gb1990.net/legal/response/D2009-1182%20Response%20Brief.pdf

beck is an irl troll ... he's television's biggest phony

100 years ago Americans were pious Christians for the most part. Of course it was utopia, as there were some problems, but the country wasn't totally fucked either.

Today religion is fade and nearly 15% of the country claims to be non-religious. The number is expected to continue growing. And here we are facing an incomprehensible about of debt, the threat of terrorism, broken borders, and a large part of the population hell bent on ushering in a new era of statism.

Whether or not you believe in God, you must admit that the country was in better condition when more people believed in him.

>>5668880

More women wore dresses during that era too. I guess it's only logical women wearing dresses was responsible for America's prosperity and integrity.

>>5668880
baloney. things were more shitty 100 years ago than they are today. The shittiness just expressed itself differently

>>5668899
I think that's a reasonable point. Traditional women's roles are good for America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI

>>5668899
That is partially true. Women wore dresses more often back then because feminism wasn't around fucking everything up. It's no surprise that today, after all the horrid shit the feminist movement has done, women are more unhappy now than they have ever been.

>>5668880

100 years ago Americans were quite poor, and blacks were horrendously treated for the most part. Of course it was utopia, as there were some problems, but the country wasn't totally fucked either.

Today poverty is fading and nearly 100% of the black polulation can vote. The number is expected to continue growing. And here we are facing an incomprehensible amout of debt, the threat of terrorism, broken borders, and a large part of the population hell bent on ushering in a new era of statism.

Whether or not you believe in poverty and discrimination, you must admit that the country was in better condition when more people believed in it.

inb4 >blacks voting causes our problems

>>5668867
You're thinking of that jew Jon Stewart.

america is on the decline because all empires must fall one day. oh boo hoo cry more amerifags.

I feel like I'm watching those christian guys on tv who yell and shit. Except this is on a NEWS network. I r confused.

The response I mean to type would take to long, troll.

>>5668988

It'll all make sense soon enough.

>>5669017

Holy fuck. I am scared.

>>5668988
Fox "News" is just right wing talk radio transposed to TV. There's no news involved

>>5668967
You are comparing the plight of individuals in the past to the potential collapse of the world's greatest super power.

Sure, in old days people had less stuff and technology wasn't great, but that didn't necessarily mean they were unhappy. No, it wasn't perfect, but it wasn't as horrible as you think.

Today - yeah people have lots of nice things and they can cure some diseases. But the country is falling apart. Everyone is going to be miserable as fuck when their currency is worth less than paper, and the government is too poor to provide all the services people actually need.

As for blacks.. well yeah, that sucks, but it's not as if it were a direct result of people being religious. Christianity has absolutely no policies or dogma regarding race. You can't tell me people owned slaves and mistreated blacks because they worshiped Jesus. The two are unrelated.

So who writes these fuckers' books? I know they don't do it themselves.

Trolling people for money sounds like a pretty sweet job.

protip: this faggot does it for attention

>>5668967
Way to fuck up the last sentence retard. America would be better if we got rid of all the black people though.

>>5669045

Actually Christianity does have racial dogmas. The Bible contains explicit permission to keep slaves from foreign nations, and it explains the servitude of black skinned races via the 'curse of ham'.

Pic related.

This actually made me rage. I usually just lol at Beck this kind of nostalgia makes me pissed off. As if when the country was more religious, there was any less killing.
ffs

>>5669256

There was actually widespread inter-sectarian violence in the first few decades of this country's existence. Look up the extermination order against Mormons. Shit like that is why we have a wall of separation.

Does anyone really take hime seriously anymore?

Think about what this guy is saying. Governments are being dismantled and children are being eaten on street corners because atheists. Atheists.

My head hurts from all the retardation.

I'm getting pretty sick of how /r9k/ is infested with liberals. College students probably, sitting on their asses while the NWO takes over and making fun of the only people doing anything to stop it.

>>5668668
I've never watched him before. Is he always this fiery?

If so, I see why so many people like him. He's quite the rhetorician. Shit, I respect him a little now.

>>5669418
Go back to /k/, silly

I know, I won't read his book, but I'll pretend I know what it says, then I'll go on an anonymous message board and say things like "Think about what this guy is saying. Governments are being dismantled and children are being eaten on street corners because atheists. Atheists."

Even though he has never said anything of the sort.

Arguing with Idiots was made specifically for people like you guys. Too bad for you you'll never open it up and see the well documented sources, over 25 pages of them, a large majority of which are left leaning sources such as the New York Times, or see the fact that the book is actually about how government spending and expansion of it's power is a direct threat to your freedom and the ideals set down in the Constitution.

Not that you care about your freedom or the Constitution either, of course, I mean, that stupid old moldy piece of hemp was written over 200 years ago by a bunch of racist bible thumping flat earthers, how on Earth could it have any relevance in today's world, right?

Fucking idiots.

>>5669450
Oh fuck yourself. I watch his show every night. I watched this live last night. This isn't about his book. This is about how he used the recent violence in Chicago to say that this violent attitude of present was because we have a lack of faith in a higher power, instead placing it in the government or nothing at all.

>>5669450

9/10 brah, pretty well done.

>>5669450
>Glenn Beck is a fine and rational human being.
DOHOHOHOHOHOHO
0/10

>>5669477
only a godless child would use a rail road tie to beat another child to death who didn't even have anything to do with the argument going on at the time.

There's no other way to describe it bro. Only someone with zero moral values whatsoever could possibly do what that kid did to that other kid.

I'm failing to see where he's wrong on that point.

Kid's parents probably aren't there, he's probably never been told right from wrong in ANY context, religious or not, and that's what leads to that behavior.

Beck, and everyone, has a right to comment on why they think insane shit like that is happening in this country right now, the sad part is that you don't think the kid beating the other kid to death with a railroad tie is crazy, but rather that someone stating that they would equate such a situation happening because there is no order or structure or binding faith in this countries' mindset any more to be the insane act.

>>5669497
far more rational than the army of group think retard 20 year old leftists that have been infesting the internet since the late 90s.

Every single one of you is the same, you realize that?

It's really sad.

>>5669525

But statistically, odds are that kid was a Christian. Christians commit crimes all the time. They make up most of America's prison population. Atheists make up about a tenth of a percent of the prison population. Even adjusting for the difference in numbers between atheists and Christians, that's disproportionate.

>>5669525
Values are part of culture, which is part of society. It isn't religion, but the society has a whole which deems certian acts wrong and right. It isn't that the child was godless, but that he was around a culture surrounded with religion and death.

I just got trolled, but meh.

reading his book will give you brain-aids and reverse boners.

jesus, I can't believe you guys are actually talking about this walking pile of human garbage.

>>5669525
Sure, the bros fighting and killing people in the crusades, sticking people with swords, only godless people could do that right?

I know are troll but is too fun.

I certainly think there is a crisis in morality in this country, it's just shifted. There's always been a crisis of morality

>>5669547
>violence and death.
Excuse me, I typed the wrong word.

>>5669525

moral values =/= christianity

what other religion can you go to heaven after killing somebody, railroad tie or not, just by saying you're sorry?

>>5669546
statistically he was no religion because his single parent mother probably works 16 hours a day 7 days a week to support his ass and never had a chance to take him to church

Look, Beck's point is not so much a organized religion thing as it is a spirituality thing, a value system of do unto others as you have them do unto you, which is so absent from inner city black gangsters lifestyles it's not even debatable. Chicago has one of the highest gang and crime rates in the nation for a reason.

>>5669547
Sorry bro, the culture of death we certainly have but trying to say it's a culture of religion that caused this is just...well bro.

You're just stupid as fuck. That's all needs be said about that. Get out of your house and go meet some human beings for once. You're fucking wrong, stupid, and wrong. So wrong I had to say it three times.

>>5669551
Only an idiot equates the Crusades to inner city black on black gang violence. Someone who doesn't understand gangs, the Crusades, history, or pretty much anything. Which is stereotypical of the internet group think retard leftist, all of you are so exactly the same.

>>5669565
Lots of religions bro, you don't even have to say you're sorry.

Nice ignorance some more fags.

Blaming Christianity for inner city Chicago gang violence, you guys are truly the height of intellectual insight. Oh wait.

Anyone else noticed that they cut the dude's speech right before he was going to say 'God bless'?

>>5669531
>army of group think retards
>Every single one of you is the same, you realize that?

Oh are you talking about Fox News viewers?
0/10. Again. Seriously, try harder please.


desafsfnseifnsdkjvnhfsdkjblox

>>5669572
I said I typed the wrong word. Read the rest of the thread. I meant to say "violence and death", not religion. It was a lapsus linguae.

>>5669572

You're a conservative Christian.

Discredited.

>>5669586
Thanks for proving the point with the by default cop out attack of all idiot retard group think moron internet leftists

"Uh uh I have no response QUICK ILL ATTACK FOX NEWS I"M SO SMART"

>>5669581

Oh i don't blame christianity, as much as it deserves it. I blame another moral value: stupidity.

>>5669572
Stating my comparison was ill founded and then claiming I know nothing of History (I'm a history major so suck my diiiiiick) does not prove my point wrong, that violent tendencies is not lessened by faith or religion or spirituality

>>5669596
Oh, fair enough.

>>5669597
I'm a Conservative. Couldn't care less about religion except that I get really tired of how you knee jerk morons blame it for everything.

Just because your daddy fucked you in the ass while screaming about Jesus saving his soul as you were a kid doesn't mean Christianity equates to reason for all the evils in the world, particularly not...what again?

Inner City Black on Black gang violence.

Lol could you fags derail the conversation more?

>>5669602
While I don't completely agree with what that poster wrote, I have to say that as an individual, you are not very smart.

>>5669572
>premootblox
You do realize that the vast majority of black people are Christians, right? That includes the ghetto type too. And what about secular countries? Most of them have a smaller violence and crime rate than America. How do you explain that?

ersgdrtyhdtyhgdbthndgjhnfgcujhndgyhn

>>5669572

>>statistically he was no religion because his single parent mother probably works 16 hours a day 7 days a week to support his ass and never had a chance to take him to church

Let me see your source for this fact.

>>Look, Beck's point is not so much a organized religion thing as it is a spirituality thing, a value system of do unto others as you have them do unto you, which is so absent from inner city black gangsters lifestyles it's not even debatable. Chicago has one of the highest gang and crime rates in the nation for a reason.

It's almost as if they aren't thinking rationally. Religion promotes irrational thinking. America's black population is overwhelmingly religious.

>>Sorry bro, the culture of death we certainly have but trying to say it's a culture of religion that caused this is just...well bro.

You think reason is a bad thing, then?

>>You're just stupid as fuck. That's all needs be said about that. Get out of your house and go meet some human beings for once. You're fucking wrong, stupid, and wrong. So wrong I had to say it three times.

This isn't an argument. It's a sign of desperation.

>>Only an idiot equates the Crusades to inner city black on black gang violence. Someone who doesn't understand gangs, the Crusades, history, or pretty much anything. Which is stereotypical of the internet group think retard leftist, all of you are so exactly the same.

The common element is unreason. Religion promotes unreason. So do other ideologies, political and economic, but religion is more pervasive and influential.

>>5669612
We're both history majors, bro, except I put my wallet where my mouth is and have spent over 5 grand on history books outside my educational study.

And your comparison is ill founded. It's flat out full fledged "turn off my brain and refuse to think" mode bullshit is what it is bro.

Comparing the Crusades to inner city Chicago gang violence. Fucking stupid.

>>5669619

You're conservative, and a Christian. It doesn't surprise me that you'd lie about it in some way. You people will say anything you think might benefit your argument.

TROLL HARDER

acornblox

>>5669619
So you are pissed off because we are blaming religion for all evils -- which we are not doing in this thread at least by the way -- but Glenn Beck gets to blame all of America's problems on atheists? Hypocrite much?

>>5669632

Is it true that when people don't think critically, they become vulnerable to exploitation by charismatic authoritarian figures?

In what context might this exploitation occur? Churches, perhaps? Isn't faith uncritical thought?

>>5669632
Perhaps it is. That doesn't fucking matter. Now convince me that violent tendencies is lessened by faith or religion or spirituality

Also good for you, not everyone is rich and/or can suck their parents dicks I mean wallets like you you

>>5669646

nope, just the dead teacher in kentucky with the word FED on his chest. I'd say that's a body to lay at Mr Glenn's doorstep.

>>5669627
The vast majority of blacks are Christian in America, obviously true.

That doesn't mean that many of them are practicing Christians, that doesn't somehow equate to Christianity is to blame for inner city ghetto violence, the whole premise is a laughable attempt to derail everything into "HURR RELIGION BAD HURR"

>>5669630
If you're trying to state that most inner city black gang member males don't come from single family homes I'm just going to lol in your face bro.

That's so clear it's not even funny. The whole gang system is meant to simulate a family setting for those who don't have one. Gang leaders are the proverbial fathers for their soldier members.

They aren't thinking rationally because they live in shit and don't think they have any chance and they don't have fathers or any strong foundation in their lives like a religion that's what leads them to join gangs. So much study has been done on this over the years. Maybe you should just watch some National Geographic specials on gang life or something.

As for your third statement, I can only assume you can't read to some how get that from what I said that you quoted. Don't be an idiot.

And finally, the common element is poverty dipshit. You really are a dumb mother fucker

You kids don't get it. This isn't a debate. It's Americans patiently tolerating liberal tantrums.

You're not going to get your way. The most you can hope to accomplish is to tread that fine line where we're still willing to put up with you.

If Obongo isn't out of office in 2012, it'll be proof enough for me that you've gotten out of control and represent a real threat to the continued existence of this nation.

If that happens, you will stop being human beings in my eyes and the eyes of all other patriots, and start appearing instead as obstacles. Obstacles that must be removed.

>>5669676
also in case nobody mentioned it there is that girl that her murdered, THEN raped in or around 1993.

robotbloxxxxx235rq43

>>5669679

I didn't say that. Would you agree that their actions are unreasonable, and that they stem from irrational thought? How is it that they think in such a way? Perhaps some aspect of how they were raised....?

I don't understand why progressives continue to focus on Glenn Beck and argue against him as if he represents the entire Republican party.

It'd certainly be stupid of me to assume that the average liberal voter has opinions that directly coincide with Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart..thus I choose not to bitch about Maddow and Stewart and instead debate people on the merits of their individual opinions as they themselves express them.

Glenn Beck is a troll. He does not represent the opinions of the majority of the Republican party. Arguing against him and his opinions is a waste of time.

>>5669641
Not a Christian but it's nice to see all you can do is label people, lock them in that box that allows you to turn your brain off, refuse to use it, and that way everything is safe. You're safe. You don't have to be an individual. You don't have to be alone. You don't have to be the target. Nice and safe in your own little box. You fucking rabbit.

>>5669653
>Is it true that when people don't think critically, they become vulnerable to exploitation by charismatic authoritarian figures?

I dunno man, maybe you should ask all those Obama voters about that. One of us. One of us. Yes We Can. One of Us.

>>5669676
The guys who killed that guy probably thought he was an undercover cop. That part of Kentucky is Meth central bro. No one gives a fuck about Census workers, but it's nice to see that you let the Huffington post get you ready to convict people of murder who have nothing to do with a situation. You are truly the most manipulable people who have ever lived in the history of mankind.

Homosexuality is destroying the country.

lolol

>>5669717

>>it's nice to see all you can do is label people, lock them in that box that allows you to turn your brain off, refuse to use it, and that way everything is safe. You're safe. You don't have to be an individual. You don't have to be alone. You don't have to be the target. Nice and safe in your own little box. You fucking rabbit.

But aren't you the Glenn Beck follow here?

>>5669685
>fat neckbeard still living with a mother who coddles his fat ass and a father who beats it.
lol internet warrior.

>>5669724
Keep proving the point, failtroll.

Keep on being everything you proclaim to despise.

>>5669717

You keep presenting your own speculation as fact, without citing any sources. Do you understand why you can't do this and still be taken seriously?

Wow, so much shit in this vid.
Some people like Obama very much, so what?
FOX NEWS YOU GUISE

>>5669732

Ahh, someone else who gets their views from South Park. High five bro!

>>5669685

look at the demographics dipshit. you're outnumbered by reasonable americans who are sick of your racism. Get your head out of that right wing echo chamber world of make believe and wake the fuck up.

$100 says that the OP is paid by the DNC to cause poorly constructed shitstorms on /r9k/ every day.

>>5669551

the crusades were a defensive war, idiot.

short version: turks attacked the middle east which was predominately christian and jewish at that time. europe decided that this shit didn't fly and went in.

>>5669754
stop getting trolled it makes you look dumb

>>5669760

Obviously. Liberals are always conspiring to make Republicans look bad. That's the only reason McCain lost.

>>5669735
Don't particularly care if you take me seriously, I don't take you seriously.

Nothing you dumb motherfuckers have to say matters. Once you grow up a little bit, if you ever actually take the time to learn about the history of the nation, and what the threats to your own personal freedom that a large government with no control over it's spending possesses, then you'll wake up, and then you'll be relevant.

Until then liberals are essentially, as was stated earlier, tantrum throwing children, never happy, and wouldn't be happy if they got what they claim they want, which is the one world socialist government that would supposedly solve all the world's problems.

>>5669762

Cool christian propaganda bro.

I suppose the holocaust was also defensive.

>>5669782

See:

>>5669754

You're not in the majority, bud. Liberals have control now.

>>5669786

jesus christ, open a fucking history book and read (if you can read). goddamn bleeding heart liberals spouting bullshit without checking the facts.

>>5669797

Ah, so you're a conservative. That explains it. Discredited.

>>5669791
Not after 2010 lol

Bro liberals are not and have never been the majority. They may have control for the moment but they're fucking it up so bad it's not even funny.

And they can't get shit all done even though they are in power, that's how pathetic and weak they truly are.

Glenn Beck is a complete asshole.
I cant believe that political discourse in this country has devolved to this level of horse shit.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. What total fucking assholes you all are.

The fact that there are "Conservatives" and "Liberals" rummaging through their empty minds in this cesspool both proves that both sides are filled with complete fucking dunces and overall terrible people who don't know anything about life.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

>>5669762
You...you serious? The crusades were set up because the pope didn't know what to do with all these fucking knights brawling each other in Europe. So he went all like "guise I think god just spoke to me go to jerusalem and kill some sarrasins"
Need I add that the Middle East was a mosaic of religions, and that the rule of the arab lords (not the muslim fucktards of today's world, obviously) provided everyone quite good freedom, even more considering other regions from that time (jews in europe...).

>>bleeding heart liberals

i love how people who say this also claim to be christians

>>5669806

What do you mean? The ban on federal funding of stem cell research has been lifted. Transnational rail is in the works. We've got a nobel prize winning physicist and a Harvard professor in influential advisor positions rather than creationists. We're funding the development of solar panel and battery technology and investing in new solar energy towers and windfarms all over the country.

How is that "not getting anything done"?

>>5669818
>>5669806

This is what I was talking about. Liberals are a small minority. If they can;t be reigned in soon and prevented from causing further damage, it will be time to start taking more drastic measures.

yep.

You kids don't get it. This isn't a debate. lt's Americans patiently tolerating conservative tantrums.

You're not going to get your way. The most you can hope to accomplish is to tread that fine line where we're still willing to put up with you.

If Obongo isn't out of office in 2012, it'll be proof enough for me that you've lost control and represent a marginal threat to the continued existence of this nation.

If that happens, you will stop being human beings in my eyes and the eyes of all other rational people, and start appearing instead as obstacles. Obstacles that must be removed.

>>5669806

see what you don't seem to get is that it's not liberals vs conservatives, it's the crazy shitbag fringe of the right wing against everybody else. No better demographic than the last election to tell you how americans feel about their president. You guys were screaming crazy shit then and the only difference is now your screaming crazier shit louder. It didn't work for the John Bircher's and it's not going to work for the teabaggers. Enjoy being ostracized.

>>5669820
americaneducationfailblox

>The crusades were set up because the pope didn't know what to do with all these fucking knights brawling each other in Europe.

This is why American education is a shit ball. A massive fucking waste. What the fuck American educational system. Why do you continue to perpetuate this oversimplification retard logic bullshit historical revisionism? Why?

Oh wait because actually teaching people actual history is too hard and makes them too smart to see through the bullshit.

Look bro, the Pope didn't need to get rid of stupid kids in Europe, they could easily have stayed home and fought one another. There were clear religious, political, and economic reasons for taking the Levant back from the Muslims. You have to understand the prestige of owning Jerusalem, the Holy City of the world's three major religions. The wealth that comes from the sea and land trade to the East and West through the region, the whole invasion of Europe by the Muslims during the dark ages when Europe was weakened by war disease and the collapse of the Roman and then Constantinople Roman empires, there were lots of logical, clear, rational at the moment reasons for the Crusades, particularly when taken in the context of the world at that time.

Just...please god. Read a fucking actual history book for once in your lives, instead of telling us what your 7th grade social studies teacher shat into your brain 3 years ago.

>>5669572
You obviously have never been to the south side of chicago.
Those people tend to go to church.... religiously.... every sunday, and praise god. The poor black families tend to be actually quite religious and socially very conservative.
Though no amount of god is going to help you out of the south side. There is tons of crime and the poverty is really high. There is also this mentality that you need to hustle to make it anywhere in life. That basically means you try to make money by any means necessary, in essence it breeds more crime.
Religion has no baring how a person will live their life. It's the social settings and how they are raised, the idea that "God" is the one that instils respect for life is utter fucking bullshit. It's not lack of god that creates crime, it's poverty and that is a fucking fact.

>>5669856

You realize their shit will never end until we kill them all and take the country back.

>>5669811
Agree. Its no wonder we are the laughing stock of the fuckin political world. Are people in this country really stupid enough to use this fucking tool as a source of any real information? Its so sad. And, it fucks up the country. Its like having the special ed class clown grading everyone's test papers.

>>5669829
Everything you mentioned is lol

Sorry bro none of that matters for dick.

Obama has done...

1. Massive spending bill
2. A massive bail out bill
3. A cap and trade bill that is a massive tax increase that is dead in the Senate
4. A health care initiative that is dead on arrival

That's it bro.

Oh yeah and he might get Chicago the Olympics.

Hasn't ended either war, though he is handily losing Afghanistan right now, good on that eh? He hasn't pulled out of Iraq, won't be closing Gitmo any time soon, hasn't resolved the political divisions, didn't turn shit to gold with a glance like he was played up to during the election and is fast becoming the biggest failure in American Presidential history.

To my grim but elated delight no less.

>>5669856

But hey, bro, America is the best country in the world, right? So why learn about other old countries and shit, right?

>>5669837

I see you get your coup delusions from Newsmax. hi five!

>>5669856

I'm from France YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID

Also fuck you

dfgsrthgdsrbtfghdtyghdythg

>>5669871

>>Everything you mentioned is lol. Sorry bro none of that matters for dick.

See? You don't listen to evidence contrary to your views. You dismiss anything that you don't want to hear.

Cleaning up the massive mess we're in is a costly project. Stop blaming the guy doing the cleaning and start blaming the Republican administration before him that made the mess.

The human race is collectively getting smarter and dismissing 2000 year old camp fire stories used to keep the locals in line....

News at 11.

>>5668668
While I don't agree with his religious zealot side, he has a point about "putting your trust in the government"

DON'T FALL ON EITHER SIDE. BE A LIBERTARIAN

ITT: shitstorm

glenn beck is master of IRL trolling

i agree with Beck for the most part. I am leaving america if this continues

>>5669858
Been to Chicago

All I saw was snow and black dudes selling fake gold chains for 20 bucks a pop to tourists so they could go buy a crack rock

Oh yeah and the Medieval Times. That shit was fun.

Nice museums, wouldn't want to live there.

>>5669854
Bro, I know you're young, you haven't seen many elections, it's okay. The funny thing about American politics is the party down today is the party to rise tommorrow.

It's just how shit goes.

Congress and Obama have screwed this up so much that very little is going to save them, we're in October, bro, you need to understand, Congress hits recess soon, when they return they come back to an election year.

As bad as things are now, they will only get worse for the left during the election year because they really won't be getting shit done then.

As for the rest of your crap, the last election McCain is not a conservative, he's the exact candidate liberals have told Republicans they should run for decades, the libs and the media sucked McCain's cock for years you're just too young to remember it. That's why he lost.

>>5669914
Go to the Middle East. I hear they live inside buildings made of holy books over there. You will love it.

>>5669906
Obama isn't cleaning up anything and I reject your silly list of crap because it's all irrelevant nonsense bro.

If you actually had something relevant I would be the first to accept it, but saying Obama is fixing a mess, when the mess was a 2 trillion dollar deficit over the next decade and Obama has single handidly expanded it to 12 trillion over the next decade if he gets his wishes, is laughable on it's face.

Obama is a wet dream, homey. All mess, no fulfillment. Everything he promised was a bald faced lie and the American people don't like his spending, he's collapsed in the polls and the trend is clear, it's a virtual rewind repeat of what occurred to Bush from 2005 onwards.

HOLY SHIT
100/10
I MAD

Ten more years of Beck and America will have a real jihad against atheists. You have to go a fair distance from Washington to find a president that accepted Communion. In his advocation of more Christianity, he's obviously a loon.

Conversely, he's got a real point though about the hero-worship of Obama that's being handed down in centre-city schools. My black barber tells me that Dubya embezzeled 6 trillion before leaving office and hangs pictures of the guy in his shop. Do you think his teenage kids are going to think critically about health care reform?

>>5669837
The thing is that people who identify with being conservative tend to buy into the platform hook, line and sinker. Most republicans buy the entire thing and vary little about personal stances on certain issues. Democrats on the other hand espouse many different views and stances on issues. There isn't a strict platform that democrats stand on. So, no, "liberals" and not a minority. It's pretty half and half. About each side holds 45% and a pretty solid 10% that float between the two parties.

1: 75% of people believe in the invisible sky man
2: Appeal to the 75% of people who believe in this sky man
3: ???
4: Profit

4chaners should idol Glen Beck. He gets paid tons of money to do what they sit on 4chan and do all day out of sheer passion.

54etw5yhe5tyhjdetyjh

>>5669943

>>Obama isn't cleaning up anything and I reject your silly list of crap because it's all irrelevant nonsense bro.

Repealing the ban on the federal funding of stem cell research is not "irrelevant nonsense". Nor is funding new battery technology for electric vehicles, or improved efficiency in solar and wind power.

Everyone, this man represents American Conservativsm. Get a good hard look.

>>5669915

>Why back in my day we used to run things like gay >marriage as an effective wedge issue. I'm sure >things will turn around before too long when America >realizes what great president George W. Was. Ya >young libber-snapper! Oh my back...

>>5669972
No they do not, bro. Both parties want purity of opinion, but the Democrats will not even accept someone in their party if they're prolife, or for a war a Republican backs, not for gay marriage, whatever.

As soon as you expouse anything outside the liberal mainstream you become an idiot, racist, bigot, homophobe, fascist nazi, warmonger, chicken hawk blah blah blah.

If you're a conservative who believes in small government but abortion and gay marriage, you're a libertarian, no one yells at you to get out of the party if you're in the Republican party for having those beliefs, they may argue with you and say they feel abortion is murder and accepting of homosexual lifestyles degrades the nation but they don't tell you you yourself are a racist bigot who needs to get out of the party.

I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about the social issues any more, it's the spending and the hand outs that have to stop, and the wars that need to be fought effectively enough that they can be won quickly and the men and women can come home successfully.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Holy fuck, shit seems to have gotten real while I was shoppan.

>>5669963

>>Ten more years of Beck and America will have a real jihad against atheists

There's a tripfag going around pretending to be from the future who says it happens in 7 years. John Titor style.

why doesn't anyone want to talk about me anymore? i'm hateful too! fucking crybaby stole ma audience, get me my pills Lupe!

>>5670018
>not for gay marriage

Obama is not for gay marriage. But that's ok because he's black.

>>5670018

This is different from Conservatives accusing Obama of being both Hitler and Stalin over healthcare....how?

>>5670009
mootblox

>Repealing the ban on the federal funding of stem cell research is not "irrelevant nonsense

I know this is hard for you libfags to get, but years, YEARS AGO, they discovered alternatives to using stem cells from aborted babies that are more effective than the stem cells from aborted babies and fetal material that you dumbasses are STILL obssessed with.

I'm talking like 2003 man. I don't know how you guys missed that news, but it's way old news. And yes the repealing of the ban was irrelevant because of this fact, actually. Thanks for playing.

Just goes to show your media will even keep news from you in order to make sure you keep grinding those two decade plus old battles that have no relevance to the modern day governing issues like the fact that the NATION IS GOING TO BE BROKE IN A FUCKING DECADE IF WE DONT STOP SPENDING AND PRINTING MONEY FUCK

>>5670011
Obama's spending and inability to express a backbone on any issue of international importance is all the wedge issue we're gonna need for the next 3 years.

>>5670055

>>I know this is hard for you libfags to get, but years, YEARS AGO, they discovered alternatives to using stem cells from aborted babies that are more effective than the stem cells from aborted babies and fetal material that you dumbasses are STILL obssessed with.

Actually that's false. Non-foetal stem cells (from skin, marrow, etc) are deeply inferior in quality to foetal stem cells, particularly for research purposes. You've been misled.

>>5670054
Obama's not a conservative, he's not in the Republican party...

And Bush was compared to Hitler for pretty much every thing.

And...yeah.

How you see any comparison I just don't know bro. I think you need to reread what was said.

>>5670042
Limbaugh's still number 1 on radio, doesn't write books or do TV but when he guest appears on a show it's ratings tend to skyrocket.

Limbaugh still runs the show, Beck is just a nice distraction right now.

Limbaugh's audience has done nothing but grow the past year and a half.

>>5670052
Obama is for gay marriage, he just says he's not in Presidential settings so he can fool the middle. Haven't you figured out yet that nothing he says on television matters? Not a fucking word.

You have to go back to his recorded and video taped appearances from 2004 and before to understand his real agenda, everything since he went on stage in 04 at the Dem Convention has been a front to get votes and gain power. Nothing more.

>>5670025
More of that just flat out not understanding history. That language was put in that document specifically to show Muslims at the time that the USA was not a CRUSADER nation, meaning we weren't going to go from being involved in the region to trying to conquer the region for religious reasons, nothing more, nothing less.

Politics. It existed even 150 + years ago. I know. It's shocking.

>>5670072
Fetal stem cells from umbilical cords are one of the alternatives I was referring to, actually, no one has been lied to there are many alternatives to fetal stem cells at this point.

For fuck's sake man they can wipe adult stem cells and make them into simulated fetal stem cells now. You guys are just simply behind the times on this issue.

Reminds me of this man.

>>5670098

Why do you, a conservative, condescend to real people? Isn't that a bit backwards?

>>5670098
>Obama is not a conservative

is this really in the national discourse in the US? because that is hilarious

>>5670117
Dude. Look up nasal stem cells.

They converted NOSE stem cells to nerve compatible cells and put them in a girls SPINE. She went from PARAPLEGIC to REHAB.

>>5670130
Liberals aren't real people.

Neither are tripfags

>>5670055
>more effective

except embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, can develop into *any kind* of specialized cell

the potential is *far* greater

>>5670117
Umm, link to this? I've never heard of such a thing and frankly I don't believe it is any more than you pulling it out of your ass.

>>5670117

Yes, umbilical fetal stem cells are a viable source, but insufficient in number for research purposes. The only foetal cells used are those from aborted foetuses set to be destroyed anyway.

The bottom line is that you haven't any right to halt science when it conflicts with your religious views. You may think there's a better alternative, but that's up to qualified scientists to determine, not some republican bumfuck from Alabama.

>>5670144
They have discovered ways to simulate even that aspect of them man. Again, you are behind the times. This is nothing new at this point.

I don't know how to make this clearer, that information, while accurate and true, is not exclusive any more. Scientists have found ways to manipulate all sorts of stem cells, again, the stem cells from afterbirth are just as effective, they are in fact fetal stem cells, but no abortion has to occur to acquire them, just a natural birth.

>>5670141
All those scientists out there who have PHDs and want to research Fetal Stem Cells are really just evil people who want to kill as many babies as possible. AmIRite bro?

>>5670162
Who told you this, your pastor?

>>5670159
Insufficient?

How can something that comes out of every woman who has a child on planet Earth "insufficient"

Look bro, I have already said I don't even particularly care about the social issues, but the government has the right to say they don't want aborted baby matter used for scientific research if they want.

However, the whole issue is moot, not because Obama overturned the law, but because by the time he did it didn't really matter any more.

They can make these things in a laboratory now, it's irrelevant.

But just to make you happy, I for one never really gave a shit and didn't think it should be necessarily illegal if donated by the parent who aborted the baby.

But going out on a soapbox and being all "YOU DON"T HAVE A RIGHT TO RESTRICT SCIENCE BECAUSE OF MORALS" is lol.

You're just wrong. Science could advance itself very quickly through some "immoral" acts, as the Germans showed us, the government, and the people, have every right to say whether something they consider immoral can be used by science or not.

>>5670197

You're wrong on the science of it, though. You don't seem particularly well read on the subject of stem cells.

>>5670162
Damn bro you need to head over to Harvard and let all those biological scientists who have been studying the field for 50 years know that they have overlooked this fact. Only in America are there 17 year old kids who are smarter than the entire collective scientific community on certain subjects. Oh and collect your Nobel Prize at your next available time because they offer it to gems like yourself.

>>5670018
Um.... ok......
First there you'll be hard pressed to find republicans that have a hands off approach to social issues in the senate or congress.
On the other hand there are liberals that are socially conservative, e.i. the catholic democrats and the southern "blue dogs". There is also a bit more variation to economic issues, and national defense. You have the extreme left that would want to do away with the military and big supporters of keynesian economics, and then there are others that support the military and supply side economics.
I'm just saying the base is not as in line as the right, and therefore in polling numbers it appears that conservatives are much stronger when it is just in fact that they are much more ideologically similar than liberals.

Ugh..... politics is just fucking bullshit too. Let's throw all logic out the window and go for the knee jerk reaction! This goes for both sides, but the right has been flying it's stupidity pretty high and proud recently.

>>5670197
>the government has the right to say they don't want aborted baby matter used for scientific research if they want

What else does the government have the right to stop us from doing? Does it have the right to say it doesn't want us eating meat any more? Or is that none of their fucking business?

>>5670193
Simple Wikipedia helps get people caught up on this issue

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

Suffice it to say the issue is nowhere near as black and white now as it was in 2000 when it was a relevant issue. Which it isn't anymore. Some political issues are fads, you gotta learn to realize that.

>>5670055
> Time Poll conducted by Abt SRBI. June 18-25, 2008. N=805 likely voters nationwide. MoE +/- 3.

> Favor 71 Oppose 19 Unsure 8

you think its just us "libs" that disagree with you on stem cells? Try 71% of respondents. in b4 you blame the media.

People only hate Glenn Beck because he makes them aware of truths they would prefer to ignore.

If he were really the moron his critics claim him to be, they would not feel threatened by him and would pay no attention to him.

>>5668668
WE WILL KILL ALL ATHIESTS!! HEIL JESUS!!! FOR THE FATHERLAND!!!

>>5670233
Government has a right to regulate scientific study, dumbass.

I guess you would be for scientists digging up dead people without their or their families consents to chop them up if they wanted too huh?

Yeah. You're on a ledge you don't want to start arguing on bro, because you're going to fall right off it when we start talking about how much a doctor/scientist could learn from dissecting a human while they are alive, or testing chemicals on humans that are untested or known to be lethal, etc.

There are limits to what scientists can do in pursuit of science, yes, and the government has the right to dictate that, particularly since it's their aka the tax payers money which funds the vast majority of these projects.

>>5670231
All those Blue Dogs were only accepted so the Dems could regain power, none of them are actually allowed to vote on their beliefs, are you crazy?

Why do you think the Dems are having so many issues with the health care stuff? Because those blue dogs know they'll lose their seats if they vote for it but Pelosi and Reed are telling them that they won't get a single dime in funding for any projects in their areas if they don't get on board.

Politics is what it is. Blue Dogs are essentially pawns and only tolerated because of that purpose.

>>5670235
*That's* your source for your crazy claim that embryonic stem cells have less scientific potential than other stem cells? Wikipedia?

Jesus.

>>5670262

You know, they laughed at Galileo too.


Then again, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

>>5670279

The sources are *on* the wikipedia page, bro.

>>5670273
Sure the government has a right to stop murder. We're talking about blastocysts that are going to get thrown out anyway. Only a superstitious dipshit could think that's murder. We might as well ban stepping on cracks or using worms for fishing.

>>5670262
No, the point is that people actually take him seriously. He is also a one of the more visible aspects of conservative talk radio. It's not the fact that he's voicing his opinions, it's that people actually believe it is news and that, fox and talk radio, is the only source that they read.

* spoiler, decent journalism is not to blatantly mix in opinion and write it off as fact *

>>5670279
Not a source, just a simple statement that even Wikipedia points out that adult stem cells are just as useful now as embryonic.

That's how far behind you are on this issue.

>>5670287
Exactly *which* sources say embryonic stem cells have less scientific potential than other stem cells? I say *none*. You say *some*. Prove me wrong.

God is not the answer. Nor is the government. Christfags and nanny state fags are the cancer.

>>5669525
The problem is you're confusing religion with Moral values.

Religion is -NOT- needed to teach moral Values. What you need is personal responsibility, which the US lacks in spades. It has nothing to do with religion, and more with the republicunt attitude of 'if you have the most, FUCK the rest of the world, I'm Amerikkan'.

>>5670304
The government has the right to regulate scientific study.

Look, man, the ban was only on government funding of the embryonic stem cell research anyway, the government has a right to restrict it's money to whatever it chooses, first and foremost, secondly, the government has the right to regulate what techniques are used in scientific study any way because it's in their purview and range of control.

I wasn't even trying to equate it to murder, just extreme medical tests of all sorts.

>>5670313
People take him seriously because he backs up what he says with things like video and audio of people saying and doing what he accuses them of, and they step down over it.

>>5670197
no, religious morality should not be the guide of science.

>>5670321

so are libertarian douches.
and motbloox

>>5670348

So if scientists found out that butt sex might produce a cure for cancer as a side effect, the government has the right to stop all tests involving butt sex because the LORD our God said no butt sex.

>>5670376
Then by what moral code do we guide science?

What isn't acceptable in a quest for further scientific knowledge?

>>5670447
Anything that conflicts the holy book of the religion I am part of because of geographical accident.

>>5670273
Obviously you're not listening. The original point is poll numbers, and the reason the right looks stronger. Not about how the house or congress votes. The two are completely different.


Also, the whole hub bub was about funding. Embryonic stem cell research was completely legal, it was basically about funding. Funding is not quite as simple as just money. Funding dictates quite a bit how you run your labs, what time frames you're working on, how you can use information you have collected and how you can set up testing. Basically you're you would have to have to completely separate labs for one that test embryonic stem cells and the other that would have some government funding. Because of this it actually wasted a ton of money, time and man power.
Also, it wasn't a fetus that yielded the cells, they were fertilized eggs that were set up for in vitro fertilization. Basically doctors fertilize a ton of eggs hoping that some will start to develop and then they put a couple in the mom. Now you have a bunch of fertilized eggs that are left over and going to be destroyed. This is a far cry from the idea of sucking a baby out of a woman's vag and dissecting it for science.

>>5670447
A moral code that emerges from genuine public debate where actual reasons are provided as opposed to tribal superstitious horseshit.

>>5670376
Just because some religious groups are against it, doesn't make it unethical. I'm an atheist and I'm against embryonic stem cell research, I see it as being very unethical.

>>5670447
We have ethicists for this very reason. Turns out that most people, through rational discussion, are able to figure out what should be allowed and what shouldn't. Academia is usually pretty good at regulating itself since no one likes ethics scandals.

Religion is completely unnecessary. Not only that, but if we allow to religion to be a guide then WHICH religion should we use? Who's to say that Christianity is more moral than Hinduism or Buddhism?

Is it just me, or does anyone else want to see a debate between glenn beck and someone like richard dawkins or christopher hitchens?

>>5670502

Unless you have a PHD in biology no one really cares what you think.

>>5670522
Not really. It will turn out the same way that the "debate" with O'reilly and Dawkins did.

Dawkins: Religion is absurd because of this this and this.

O'reilly: LALALLALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALLALALA

>>5670468
None of that matters a whit as to whether the government has the right to restrict funding or not to a scientific endeavor.

Believe it or not bro, scientists don't get to just write a bill out to the feds and expect it to be covered in full no questions asked.

As for the whole "well bawww they'd have to split labs blah blah blah" so fucking what? There are lots of studies and scientific research that is conducted without government funding, get over it.

As for poll numbers, when was the last time a polling agency even gave a fuck about this issue to do a relevant poll? Anyway, even poll numbers don't get to govern how the government funds or doesn't fund scientific research.

Your logic lacks the simple fact that the government can decide where the money goes. That's how it goes. I for one don't think the government should be spending anything on science that isn't related to the military, all that shit should be in the private sector and then you wouldn't have this issue anyway.

>>5670491
Last time we had one of those we had gulags and concentration camps brah.

And fyi, the moral code that the religious people follow has worked for more like 4000 years. That shit hasn't lasted that long just by luck.

>>5670521
Ethicists' job is to sit around and find ways to make the traditionally immoral moral, that's all bro. What a silly idea, propping up a minor school of philosophical thought with zero actual power or validity to mandate what our ethics are versus a several thousands years old belief system that the majority of the world adheres to automatically.

>>5669045
>You can't tell me people owned slaves and mistreated blacks because they worshiped Jesus. The two are unrelated.
And you, therefore cannot tell anyone here that religion is connected with the state of the US economy, nor can you say that the terrorists hate the Americans because of their 15% lack of religion.

>>5670625
Oh you mean the same moral code that condones slavery, stones people who work on certain days, commands you to destroy the non-believers, and tells you to kill anyone who has a sexual fantasy?

I'm watching his show right now. He's doing it again.

>>5670695
I wish I could take people like you, and get you to read all the books on this subject I've read, just so you could begin to really understand why, when you throw out a list like this, you're just....wrong. You don't know the context, the reasoning, anything in relation to why and what those various things mean in the Biblical literature.

Just suffice it to say, you have a lot you could learn on the subject. A lot. Too much. It's really sad and I blame, actually, religion because it's religion's job to teach the historical context that something like the Bible, the Koran, etc. are written and they just fail to do that. Instead they throw you a bunch of parables and rules and no real understanding of why those things existed.

It's sad. It's no better than the American Educational system boiling the Crusades down to "Well there were a bunch of horny armed 20 year olds in Europe so the Pope said lets send them boys off to whack sand niggers and take Jew Gold for Germany", no better at all.

>>5670570

The polling thing has nothing, NOTHING, to do with stem cells.
>>5669837
>>5669818
This is where the origin of polling numbers and somebody saying that liberals are actually a minority.

Next was my two cents why scientists didn't like how stem cell research became a prolife religious debate, and how it ends up effecting them. They could stop funding, which is totally fine and obviously dumping money into fields that show no results makes no sense. The main thing is how funding will actually dictate quite a bit how your labs are run, and how religious pressure was doing that.
Remember that only 30 years ago in vitro was considered very controversial; basically "morals", or the status quo, constantly change. To look at an emerging technology and instantly brand it as unethical with out objectively looking what EXACTLY the technology is incredibly short sighted. I am in no more of a position than you are to decided if it should receive funding or not. That should be left up to people who actually know what it is and qualified in the field to decide what should get funding. That should also involve setting up the rules of funding, and not turn something like this into a big politicized debate.

>>5670811
The point is morals are relative and no 2000 year old book ( Or any other book for that matter ) is going to be an absolute guide to morality. When people start acting like they have a perfect guide to morality and ethics we find a situation like that in the Middle East. When people start thinking they are better than other people who don't think the same way the outcome is ALWAYS the same. ALWAYS.

>>5670811
Historical context doesn't mean shit. If your morals are so absolute then the culture they emerged in shouldn't matter at all. If it does then all that does is prove that your morals are, in fact, subjective.

>>5670944
mootblox

>The point is morals are relative

No, they are not. Morals are not relative. It's not morally okay to stab a man in the neck in Buttfuckistan just because in Buttfuckistan they say it's okay to stab someone in the neck.

Morals are one of the most fundamentally immutable realities of mankind. Even if you feel a moral value is relative, those who are harmed by your ignoring or engaging in the immoral act that the value exists to contradict will know that it was wrong.

Just because some society says it's okay to rape a woman doesn't make it right. Just because the Romans thought it was okay to fuck 10 year old boys in the city baths didn't make it okay.

>>5670871
Self identified liberals are absolutely a minority, always have been, always will be in America. I can't even keep track of what all you're rambling on about now but it's an undeniable reality.

Do some liberals lie about their beliefs? Sure. Do some refer to themselves as moderates because they really think being a far left extremist is moderation? Sure. But it's irrelevant to the fact that they're a minority of political opinion in America and have been for so many decades it's really not worth arguing over at all.

The state has the right to restrict funding to a project it doesn't agree with, for whatever reasoning they so choose.

Glenn Beck is a libertarian. this just shows how out of touch with reality libertarians are

>>5671021
That was a lot of typing for a troll post.

>>5671021
It is immoral for a woman to show her skin to any man who is not her husband.

>>5671017
Historical context when it comes to what is written in the Bible is absolutely one of the most important aspects of it.

As it relates directly to history and how the moral code we have today evolved over thousands of years, it does not prove that morals are relative, rather it enforces that the truth of moral values is consistent no matter the age.

Does the Old Testament condone slavery? Only over those who are indebted and those who were captured in conflict and then it goes on to lay out how to treat them morally and humanely. The context comes from the world the literature was written in and the oral traditions grew up in and how it actually began taming that world, making it more moral over time, not less.

>>5671052
But all you wrote was 10 words. Is that really that much effort for you?

The Internet just hates Glenn Beck because he makes millions of dollars a year trolling while they live in their parents basements trolling and are only paid in virgin dollars.

>>5671098
You could have just said "morality is objective". Would have had the same effect.

>>5671021
>Morals are not relative.
>Just because some society says it's okay to rape a woman doesn't make it right.
>Just because the Romans thought it was okay to fuck 10 year old boys in the city baths didn't make it okay.

I think you need to re-examine your examples a little bit better and try to find something that doesn't completely contradict what you're trying to argue.

>>5671074
>As it relates directly to history and how the moral code we have today evolved over thousands of years

So in other words your religion's morals have changed over time.
Which means they're not absolute.
Which means they're relative.
Glad we could agree on something.

>>5671074
You are making no fucking sense. Jesus.

Shut the fuck up.

>>5671111

Part of me really think he's just a troll, but he makes a convincing nutcase.

>>5671128
Nah, I'm pretty sure it needed some backing up on the issue.

>>5671146
They are absolute and only our understanding of them changes, becomes deeper over time, or did until we stopped believing in morals at all and started feeling everything was relative.

Nothing I"ve said is contradictory, you're just incapable of comprehension

>>5671154
No, I think Ill keep typing till the thread starts to auto sage probably

>>5671190
People still believe in morals. They always have. And these morals have always been different and contradictory from person to person, let alone between societies. Morality was invented by humans, it can't be absolute.

>>5671190
What makes you think we got the Bible's message right?

Also, why don't we use the Quran?

It's followed by almost as many people as the bible, after all.

>>5671190
Our understanding of them doesn't change. Rather, our ability to come up with a bullshit explanation so we can fit them into the new morals that we find superior is what changes.

I'm finding it pretty difficult to see how you can take this and make it moral:
>When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

>>5671190
It is immoral to kill a man. A man breaks into your house and rapes your daughter and slits your wife's throat. He takes a shit on your son and then stabs him in both eyes, but leaves him alive so he can live the rest of his life blind. You catch him in the act and he says "If you think this is bad just wait until you see what I do to the people next door" It is immoral to kill him. The police capture him and send him to jail and he has his followers break out and he rapes and murders another family. It is immoral to kill him. He gets caught again and in the process he kills 8 police officers. He breaks out of jail again and rapes and murders 2 more families. It is immoral to kill him. He finds you and attacks you and tortures you and chops off all your limbs. The police capture him again and it is still immoral to kill him.

Morality is not absolute you moron. NOTHING is absolute in life except certain scientific principles and death. Look past your bible for a moment.

>>5671190
EVERYTHING -IS- RELATIVE YOU HYPOCRITICAL FUCK

>>5671229
People don't BELIEVE in morals, morals are a direct result of the fact that someone took advantage of another person. In that fact, they become absolute.

Just because Roman society said it was okay to rape little boys didn't make the boys enjoy it. And thus it didn't make the act moral, just because society accepted it.

Your twisted view of morality shows that you have none, because you believe that if some society were to judge, for instance, that cutting someone's heart out to sacrifice to the Sun God is a moral act, doesn't make the person getting their heart cut out any more accepting or happy about the situation occurring.

As societies formed people began to see how horrible they could treat one another and these moral values were discovered. Not invented. Discovered. Like any other natural law. Our evolution of our understanding of those laws has changed, but the laws have always been there, immutable, unchanging, in the background, waiting only for our EMPATHY to become mature enough as a species for us to begin to mutually understand that, for instance, having slaves is fundamentally wrong.

It's not wrong because Abe Lincoln said it was wrong, its wrong because it's wrong.

How that relates, for instance, to the Bible allowing or condoning slavery early on is simple: The Bible is ORAL TRADITION, HUMAN HISTORY and MYTHOLOGICAL PARABLE meant to teach us how to act and behave morally, not to be taken literally in every context at all times, but rather as the barometer by which we can judge if we have increased our empathy and understanding of the laws of morality.

>>5671274
Your argument is laughable because there is a moral difference between murder and killing and always has been.

And if you're really trying to say that morality is relative because it's okay to kill someone in self defense but not to kill them in a premeditated murder situation well, you're just an idiot at that point.

>>5671276
No, morals are not relative. Sorry. Just because you think rape is acceptable doesn't make it so.

>>5671273
Already addressed this but if you don't notice, there's lots of human rights in that out of context paragraph you've quoted.

>>5671306
Please tell me you didn't compare morality to the laws of physics. Because it looks like you did. If morality is a natural law, why is it that way? Who made it so?

>>5671347
You simply can't look past your own views long enough to realize you are retarded. Anytime a person starts thinking that he has the absolute way of thinking the outcome is ALWAYS the same....always.

FUCK YO MORALS BITCH

>>5671306
>Comparing Morals to the laws of physics.

>>5671306
If that's the case, is part of this barometer testing to see if we can figure out that the Bible is promoting actions that are, today, morally unacceptable?

You and I differ in our opinion of morality - you believe it is something that can and did exist without recognition, and I believe morality is something that came into existence out of societal necessity. However, your viewpoint has, among others, I'm sure, a gaping flaw in it's logic: humanity has not always progressed along a linear moral path.

If your view were correct, that people grew INTO our understanding of morality today, rather than my view that morality differs by time and societal viewpoint, then the ancestors of people who were good should end up being better, but it's the case that groups of people can get morally "worse" through our modern perspective as the generations went on. For a while, for instance, the Romans were fantastic for their time period, but they slipped. In America, many look back on the past as a more pure, morally correct time.

So, if morals were being discovered, as you say they are, they seem also to be lost from time to time. Would you agree with this assessment?

>>5671347
A lot of human rights? Sorry, I must have missed that between the part about it being okay for a father to sell his daughter into sex slavery and it being okay for her to remain a slave for her whole life.

And the context of that passage is that it's part of a longer list of instructions dealing with the buying, selling, and treatment of slaves. There's nothing in that part of Exodus that, upon reading it, changes the meaning of the passage, nor anything that would make you go "oh okay, now all that stuff about the sex slaves makes sense. I can see why that would be alright to do now".

>>5671306
To every physical rule in this universe that I can think of has an exception or some degree of uncertainty. Troll harder.

You guys are fucking retarded, the entire legal system in the United States, from the very Declaration and the Constitution on down through the legal system recognizes a "higher law"

The entire concept of law relies on the concept of the Rule of Law which is founded in the concept that morality and legality is immutable, unchanging, something that can only be discovered, not invented.

The fact you don't even know that basic fact, yet deem to call me retarded, is making me lol so hard at you right now.

Come back when you've grown up, and understand even the most minor of technicalities of the issues we're discussing, dumb fucks.

>>5671428
Yeah, apparently you have this congenital ability to read only the first sentence of pretty much anything. It makes you fucking stupid as shit

> If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

See all that? Yeah.

Enjoy being fucking stupid.

>>5671466

Contrary to your ignorance there are other countries on the planet other than the United States. Even further contrary to your ignorance there are countries on the planet who have vastly different laws. Just because you accidentally were born in the United States to Christian parents, it doesn't mean your immutable laws are the best, or even correct.

>>5671491
Yeah none of that is relevant to this discussion though.

>>5671466
You're using a common, but easily debunked type of argument that can be dealt away with through the simple statement of "and what evidence do you have to prove these people were right?"

Just because a smart person or a smart group of people decides one thing is correct does not make it so. Now, I'd like to ask if you've ever read Conrad's "Heart of Darkness?" I'm guessing you haven't or, if you did, that you didn't understand (or at the very least did not agree with) it's conclusion. The idea of the book is that, in the end, higher law, higher morality, does not exist - society just needs to trick itself into believing it does in order to continue to thrive.

In this day and age, I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that society needs to keep fooling itself to thrive, but I agree with the over all sentiment of the book. It would seem to me that you are a product of the mentality that the "Heart of Darkness" is fighting against - the type of person who actually believes in a higher power.

>>5671466
What "Higher Power" are you referring to and please provide proof of this higher power so even the rational people can recognize it.

>>5671466

Don't imply that you're religious and then tell *other* people to grow up.

>>5671516
You could've summed up a fair portion of your reply with appeal to authority.

>>5671511
I'm not the person who posted >>5671491 but I do have to ask: how the hell is that not relevant to an argument about universal morality?

>>5671516
mootblox
>and what evidence do you have to prove these people were right?"

Oh I dunno, the fact that a good portion of the rest of the world has embraced those values and look down upon nations who don't as basically human rights violators.

As for your book. There are lots of books bro. I really couldn't care less what some moral relativist "comes to a conclusion of" in his book that he wrote himself. That's just sillyness to even try to use that as some sort of fact for an argument.

No one has read that book, no one cares. Billions of people accept certain moral facts like murder is wrong and you don't take things that don't belong to you.

On the one hand you have simple reality, tried and true over thousands of years, on the other hand you have a book by some dumbass no one has ever heard of or cares about mentally masturbating until he comes to a conclusion you agree with. Grats.

>>5671518
The higher power of law and order and morality that is understood through simple observation and is self evident in society.

>>5671466
1. Read up on the Treaty of Tripoli
2. Read article 11
3. Note that it was agreed upon unanimously
4. Feel like a dumbfuck

Good DAY to you sir!

>>5671561
A good portion of the world at one time believed the world was a couple of thousand years old and that the sun revolved around the earth.The majority is not necessarily right.

>>5671428
bibleblox
>A lot of human rights? Sorry, I must have missed that between the part about it being okay for a father to sell his daughter into sex slavery and it being okay for her to remain a slave for her whole life

You also missed the part where you didn't read the full Exodus passage, and therefore lack the sense of context it takes to criticize something. I believe if you read the entire context you will see that the father was a debtor. This was a very common practice in the ancient world to repay debts, so the Law supplied restrictions and regulated conduct to protect the woman's life, security and any property that she may accumulate. The servitude was usually not permanent; only until the debt was deemed paid. The *owner* or his son was free to marry her then she was the wife or treated as a "daughter".

>>5671475
You need to learn how to read fucking read.

All the rest of it says is that the only the girl can get freed is if the owner or one of his sons marries her. And even then the only way she can leave is if the person she's married to marries another woman but doesn't have sex with her anymore or refuses to provide clothes/food. However, even when she does get freed she gets no aid or compensation. All the guy is required to do is just shove her out the door and say "you're free now, good luck staying alive bitch".

>>5671583
Already addressed that sillyness long ago bro.

Treaty of Tripoli was a political document, the specific language you refer to was meant solely to assure Muslims that we had no Empirical/territorial concerns based on a religious context in the region. That's it.

Go read up on the Treaty yourself, because the people signing it were very clear on what the language was referring to.

>>5671586
Such a silly argument. What is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right, but what is right is always right, this is unchanging as the wind.

>>5671583
lol, the "Treaty of Tripoli - MERIKA IZ NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION" card.

Idiot, our Ambassadors lied when they signed the document because we didn't have the naval force to face them.......yet. As soon as we got a respectable one, we sailed down there started shooting them with cannons.

Why don't we instead go to the proclamation to his "Almighty" issued by George Washington?

>>5671561
If it was so evident then why are people arguing about it?

>>5671588
Yeah, it was a common practice back in ancient times. It still is in some parts of the world too.

That doesn't mean that people today are going to consider it any more moral.

What this guy is trying to argue is that the Bible is a perfect guide to morals. If God thought that was slavery was wrong, he would have said so and banned it like he banned gay sex, shellfish consumption, and idol worship. Yahweh wasn't the type of deity to just go along with what humans did in order to be nice. Rather, he was the type of deity that would destroy the world if he didn't like how things were going. The fact that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery but instead accepts it and hands out some guidelines on it implies that Yahweh condones the practice and that slavery is thus moral when certain guidelines are followed.

Most people today would disagree with that.

>>5671645
Because our society has lost all sense of wisdom and intelligence as it has weeded out teaching any modicum of actual history, actual language, actual science and actual critical thinking skills or the philosophical thought that was the foundation of Western Culture until, oh, about the 1960s or so.

>>5668684

This isn't true. Listen to his earlier interviews, before he became a high-powered ass-pundit.

>>5671561
Your words betray your ignorance. Joseph Conrad is quite the famed writer. Perhaps wikipedia can help us here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Conrad

Now, back to your argument: it can be summed up as "lots of people agree with me, therefore, I'm right," where as my argument does, similarly, use someone else to make my point, but someone who has similarly thought through the problems in the same way our founders did. You got any data to say that more people think morality exists without mankind than people who think morality exists because of mankind? I doubt it. So relying on numbers ain't gonna work for you.

Now, say, back in medieval times, many people could have said the same thing, that many people agree with me and therefore it's moral, about a moral system that we disagree with today. I'm not going to dispute that murder and stealing are wrong, I'm going to dispute that you can claim to have any concept of higher morality when we have no idea where we are in your theorized time line chronicling the discovery of morals. A hundred years ago in America, many would have said that it's morally justified to beat homosexuals. Now, many say that one's sexual orientation shouldn't matter, and that homosexuality should be encouraged. Back in ancient Sparta, homosexuality was actively encouraged. In a hundred years, it is possible that the majority of humanity will be hating on homosexuals or, conversely, be granting them new legal rights and protections. Do you know where we're going for sure? Then how come you claim to know something of higher morality in the present, but not the future? Because the future is unknowable? So is whether or not a higher morality even exists - you're making too many assumptions for your theory to hold water.

>>5671661
mootblox
>What this guy is trying to argue is that the Bible is a perfect guide to morals.

Actually, what I"m arguing is that morality is a self evident situation, that those who are victims of those who claim that morality doesn't matter and thus will do as they will to whomever they choose suffer the effects and understand most fully that morality is a immutable concept

The only thing related to the Bible I"m arguing is that it is a solid barometer for how far society has come thanks to recognizing a higher morality than just "I'm hungy/horny/angry want to eat/fuck/kill" and that taking something from the old testament out of the context of the world it was written in isn't fair or intellectual, just ignorant.

>>5671683
mootblox

>Joseph Conrad is quite the famed writer

So is Stephanie Meyer lol

Still not relevant at all.

>it can be summed up as "lots of people agree with me, therefore, I'm right,"

Haha no, you fucking ignorant cunt. It can be summed up as "People who have experienced the effects of a person behaving immorally towards them know for a fact that morality is a true that is dicovered, not invented as they see quite simply and truthfully how it affected their life for the adverse" and that adverse effect, and the attempt to stem or stop the immoral act which causes effect is where morality and our understanding of morality comes from.

So yeah. You just flat out don't get it.

>>5671663
If History is so right why were there 27 amendments to the constitution most of which were added long before the 1960's?

>>5671723
Congratulations on feeling as though you have to insult me - I'm fairly certain some might term that immoral, but it seems you'd disagree with them. Is that because you recognize some higher consciousness that the rest of us don't? Again, I have my doubts.

So, in your now overly-complex summation of your position, you state that people discover something is wrong after it happens to them. You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that just feeling anger or feeling like you've been treated unjustly leads to or equates to the discovery of a previously unrecognized moral in someone's mind. But then these sorts of morals can contradict eachother. A poor person can see the rich taxed in, what is their mind, not enough, and feel that it is immoral to tax them so little. That same person can then become rich and feel that they are being unjustly taxed, even if they were taxed at the same rate. So you're either wrong, or the universal morals you're referring to affect different situations and actions than those - and therefore, it is not universal morality, since it does not cover all situations with which morals are involved.

>>5671689
There's no context in which the morality of the Mosaic Law is acceptable. It's a barbaric legal code. This is obvious to everyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with bullshit.

>>5671844
Not to intrude, but I must add my agreement to this. Most legal codes from the time period are hopelessly backward, laughable if they weren't so breathtakingly draconian.

Additionally, I must add that this isn't merely limited to Semitic religions and their off shoots. Morality, I feel is largely evident and surprisingly congruent in some situations even in largely uncivilized, largely areligious cultures.

>>5671844
Spoken like someone who has no understanding of what the world of the Assyrian Empire was really like.

>>5671797
Blah blah blah bro. The poor man is jealous, that's immoral. If the rich man were to use his wealth to harm the poor man, that would be immoral. Both immutable. The poor man feeling put upon simply because he doesn't have wealth has no merit in the argument at all because the rich man isn't hurting him and he isn't hurting the rich guy. If the state comes in and taxes the rich man at 70% of his wages, that would be immoral because it's making the rich man poor. If the rich man stole from the poor man or vice versa that would be immoral.

There is no ambiguity here, only your inability to actually look at the situation and seperate out jealousy and greed from acts that have actual effects. Perception is not reality.

Nice try though.

>>5671946
So you're retracting your statement that
>"People who have experienced the effects of a person behaving immorally towards them know for a fact that morality is a true that is dicovered, not invented as they see quite simply and truthfully how it affected their life for the adverse"
?
Because that's what it sounds like.

How the fucking hell does a thread that started with Glenn Beck have 250 replies and is still related to politics?! FUCK BECK, FUCK YOU ALL ITT

>>5671946
Precisely! Perception is not reality! And you are "perceiving" that your view is absolute truth! I am merely stating that it is possible for you to be wrong! Hell, you stated the poor man is merely jealous - how would you know? Can you see inside their heads, read their thoughts? Than how can you possibly be sure of your assessment? It is merely your perception.

Just your view. If you want to say that you think there are universal morals, you have every right to do so. But that's not how you've been presenting you're argument - you've presented it in such a way that says you believe this to be absolute fact and it can't possibly be wrong. But imagine if I thought the same thing - we'd be stuck at an impasse, which we may very well be just with you thinking this way. Now imagine if everyone thought that way - all human discourse would become meaningless.

In short: you cannot claim ultimate knowledge, you're just human.

>>5671946
What does the Assyrian Empire have to do with it? Sure, they conquered and assimilated the northern tribes of Israel in the eighth century BC, but I'm talking about the code of the Israelites as recorded in the Torah.

Also, in what context are slavery and rape, etc. acceptable? You sound like a squishy spineless moral relativist.

>>5671980
No, obviously not. Because the poor person feeling ass sore because someone else is rich and he doesn't feel they are taxed enough isn't experiencing any adverse effects, the rich man is not "putting him down"

I think you're basically showing your own inability to separate the idea that a poor person isn't poor because some rich man made him that way from the reality that there is a rich man and a poor man, neither is harming one another, and thus you cannot try and apply this rule to that situation.

Once one or the other has done something to harm the other, then the immutable rules of morality would come into play, but then it would be an entirely different situation.

>A poor person can see the rich taxed in, what is their mind, not enough, and feel that it is immoral to tax them so little.

They cannot feel it is immoral because nothing immoral is occurring. The poor man has no RIGHT to demand any of the rich man's treasury, my friend. That is in and of itself the immoral act in your premise. Because it would be the poor man taking an action which would directly and adversely affect the rich man.

The poor man's opinion of the matter matters not because the rich man has not harmed him in any way, ergo saying that the poor man's perception that something is immoral makes it so has no relevance to the issue at hand.

Only were the rich man to harm the poor man would there be that situation, but that is not your premise.

And thus we see that morality is immutable, only the human mind's attempts to convince itself it is always moral even when it harms others is the mutable thing here, and our minds are not reality.