Glenn Beck: The Letter - Sign the Petition to our Leaders!!

Signed it.

While I believe that petitions show how many are on the same page, I don't know if it will do any good or not. If politicians are lining their pockets by allowing certain things to go on, what's going to get them to stop? I guess the first thing would be to vote them out of office, but how do you get other people to see what is happening?

That's why I wish there were term limits for the Senate & for Congress. Those that are seeking to make a career out of being a senator or congressman would have to seek a new office. Plus, term limits would shake things up a bit. You wouldn't have a party being in control as much for decades. If I spent 8 years as a governor, 12 years as a senator, & 12 years as a congressman, that would be a 32 year career in politics right there. I just don't believe that a person should be permitted to sit in the same spot for years & years until he dies. Strom Thurman & Ted Kennedy are two examples of this. Both of them have been / were in the Senate for a very long time.

 

>Constitution as it was written.

With black people counted as 5/8ths of a white person? Something like that?

No direct voting for senator or president? I'll go for that!

 

I don't sign these kind of petitions or letters anyway, but even if I did, I would not sign one from a Mormon. Mormons want to lead the government - they have a teaching about how they will "rescue" the country one day.

 

I don't see how that could be any worse than being rescued by the folks that put us all in the position of needing to be rescued.

 

Signed it gladly!

Everything in it I agree 100%

 

Mormons are not going to rescue anyone, but I'm also not going to play into their belief that they will, or align myself with that view.

 

Nobody asked you to Marcia. If you don't want to sign this petition then don't. We still have the illusion this is a free country after all. :smilewinkgrin:

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not signing this petition because Glenn Beck is a phoney corporate paid propagandist who uses the old "guilt by association" ploy to link patriotic Americans who disagree with the government's policies or dare to use their first amendment right to protest against them with extremist and terrorist groups.

In short the man cannot be trusted to tell the truth, let alone be trusted with rescuing anyone from the corporate hand that spoon feeds him. His faith has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. His blatant phoneyness has everything to do with it.

 

If you work for your money then I don't think you have to worry about the redistribution. When a candidate makes a statement like this in the middle of an election and wins, that says the majority agreed with him if you ask me.

If we adequately took care of our poor, there would be none for Government to help. Did you ever consider that?

I don't recall too many great things coming from the great depression.

I don't know if something like this is necessary. No one in American is confused with how the right feels. From the tea parties to the solidarity on NO to the criticizing of every little thing that happens in this country since they are no longer in charge. Trust me, we all know how the right feels.

The questions is are they looking for true bipartisanship or do they just want the rest of America to do it or see it their way...?

 

It might also mean that we now have an electorate who thinks they have a right to other people's money. (keep in mind...the percentage of people paying income taxes is not going up) It also might mean that the opponent of the socialist Obama was so weak that he couldn't even mount an opposition to such an absurd view.

Furthermore...your statement is off the mark. Of course we should be concerned if we work for our money and too much of it is taken. Are we supposed to simply "trust the government at its word" when it comes for what we think is too much of our hard-earned money...so they can waste it, and buy votes?

Big difference between "taking care of our poor" and rewarding slothfulness. And of course...in this whole mix, both D's and R's have engaged in vote-buying...from the prescription drug plan (R's) to the soon-to-be-implemented socialist healthcare disaster (D's)...and much, much more.

We cannot afford to give everyone everything they want. Responsible people understand the law of limited resources. Few people in Washington from either party are mature enough, or ethical enough, to understand such.

Why do you think Brokaw called them "the Greatest Generation?" Of course crises such as the Depression, and WWII made a profound impact on them. Now...that doesn't mean I wish to return to 25% unemployment and bread lines...but I would think you'd agree that we are nowhere near as self-sufficient and resilient as we were then.

No you don't.

If you did know "how the right feels," then you wouldn't constantly misrepresent their positions and incorrectly judge their motives.

I'll help you: Many, if not most, of whom you call "the right" (which is not a monolithic, singular, siamese-twin voting bloc) have one issue, not being sufficiently addressed, that is their paramount political concern:

Freedom.

Not the poster Freedom ( )...the concept, the ideal, the entity that Bush eroded. and that Obama obliterated.

Bipartisanship should be set aside when our leader pushes legislation that erodes freedom, punishes acheivement, and is fiscally irresponsible.

 

In a democracy, the majority at the polls decide the direction of we as a nation. Despite why the majority voted for the one who said he believed in spreading the wealth, the reality is the majority voted in that direction. That makes that direction "American". To be against that direction is "un-American".

But you got a tax cut... What is it you are concerned about, your tax cut or are you simply defending the rich( the real leaders and money behind the conservative movement)?

I don't recall Jesus making that distinction in Mat 25 but if you feel good with that then go for it.

Is it limited resources or are there resources that can be redirected? I personally don't mind taxing excess bonuses so that the poor can have preventive care. I personally don't agree with our system of rewarding those are the top with millions in bonus while the workers file bankruptcy to get relief from medical debt.

Then all the gloom and doom predicted from the right because of our national debt should make us one great nation...

Their major motive is to see Obama fail even at the cost of American failing. I don't think anyone minds the right having their position is how they go about communicating their position or proving their correctness that is offensive. If you have to lie or twist facts to make a position then your position is probably not worth making. If your motives involve slandering others, bearing false witness or the use of fear then then it is the motives that are not right...

Then I don't know why the right feels deprived when bipartisanship is set aside to move the agenda of the majority in the last election. Your agenda was on the ballot and lost so if the attitude is "forget bipartisanship" when it comes to individual beliefs then you should not fault the left for abandoning bipartisanship to implement their beliefs.

It is like our principles against torture, either we have them or we don't. If there is no bipartisanship (which we all know there is none) then why pretend there is when you are the minority party? If the president extends his hand like in his campaign promises and you slap it away because it doesn't contain exclusively your values of views, then whose fault is it when bipartisan attempts fail?

 

The word "bonus" usedin reference to CEO compensation is misleading. It gives the impression that there was a salary during the year and an added bonus at the end of the year. This is completely incorrect. In many cases the "bonus" is the whole of the yearly compensation. Government has no business dictating salaries or compensation packages either way.