Posted on 02/21/2016 11:16:38 AM PST by ShivaFan
Maybe Beck needs a calendar instead of a clock.
I gave up on Beck years ago. I do not believe he is who he seems to be, but rather just parroting what he thinks is popular and will make himself famous. He seems to lack discernment.
I used to admire Beck but haven’t for a few years now. I sometimes wonder about his mental health and have genuine concerns over the meltdown we’re bout to witness...
I’m going to eat one right in front of Beck tomorrow night!
Maybe this is his penance for having believed in Cruz rather than in God? (duck’n & runn’n)
WHILE SINGING HAVA NAGILA
Well obviously it needs to be a Jewish corned beef sandwich.
Will potato chips be an acceptable offering in lieu of this?
Well the situation seems to illustrate two problems.
For Beck, being shallow and Christian-esque.
For Cruz, being, well, maybe the same thing.
I don’t get down on Mormons as a whole. Their system, though confused, has enough information in it about Jesus and His capabilities and purposes to make a biblical gospel belief unto salvation, possible. However the theological errors make it even easier to make a human “religion” out of it all. Only God knows where Beck’s and Cruz’s souls are.
But, unfortunately, we have viewed on the public stage what they produce and the walk to talk ratio could be better.
“Why does Cruz have him around?”
Birds of a feather? :-)
LOL
That could get a little messy, but I think it would work.
No, he did not say “Scalia died so that Cruz could pick a successor”.
The words ‘Drama Queen’ come to mind for some reason.
Beck’s going to be a little bit more cranky than usual. : )
lol! Thanks for this post - I agree!
I can agree with all of that.
Can you Cruz people explain Beck to me? Why does Cruz have him around?I'm not a Cruz person in fact for me it's ABC...BUT, Cruz's major donor Mercer gave control of his Cruz superpac to an affiliate of Beck. So now Cruz is owned and controlled by Mercer, the Beck affiliate AND Beck.
The truth is they all deserve each other.
(Note: don’t take this personally, because I don’t mean it to be that way. I thought your post was a civil one, but I disagree with a fundamental premise on which I feel I may not have conveyed my viewpoint correctly.)
Let me clarify where I stand on this and why I find the stance that Trump has taken ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE, to be both wrong and offensive, and why it clearly puts him in bed with Code Pink ADMITTEDLY ONLY FOR THIS SPECIFIC VIEWPOINT, but it is an important viewpoint for me personally.
Trump stated that Bush deliberately lied to obtain approval for intervention into Iraq.
I have a a good amount of hands-on PERSONAL experience with Code Pink, and I am not surprised to see how Code Pink was just thrilled to the core that one of the front-runner candidates for the GOP has gone on record as saying “Bush Lied”.
What Trump said is a very different thing from saying (as you did, correctly IMO) that things are a mess and maybe should have been handled differently. I can agree, as many sensible people can, that things are a mess, and I have always thought things could have been handled differently in a variety of cases. (Note: Even if I think things could have been handled differently, I am willing to cut some slack in many cases, because people making decisions at the time do not have the advantage of hindsight)
Donald Trump can disagree with the handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, even if he did say in the aftermath of the invasion that he supported it (qualifying that by saying it should have been done right the first time) but to accuse a former president (ostensibly of his own party) of outright lying with absolutely no proof of that is not only bad politics, but reflects poorly on him personally.
There is no proof whatsoever that Bush deliberately lied. I think, as many do, that he did the best he could with the intelligence on hand at the time, of which there was much flux. To accuse Bush of making mistakes in interpreting the data and taking him to task is completely acceptable, even if it is typical Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I have tried to give Trump a little wiggle room on this, because if you read his words that followed his accusation of lying, one might construe that didn’t really mean to outright accuse then-President Bush of lying, but instead to accuse him of mistakes in judgement.
That I am fine with, accusing him of mistakes in judgement. But to accuse him of outright lying is despicable, and it is what Trump said.
The fact that Trump said it, and let that stand, indicates he meant it, or is sloppy with his speech and either too proud or too lazy to retract it and clarify what he really meant. There was a time when accusing someone of lying without proof was grounds for a fight to the death.
And it does make a difference to me if he accused him and meant it, or accused him by being lazy and imprecise in his speech without definitively retracting it, because that tells me something about the person making that accusation. And I don’t like what it tells me.
THAT is why I take issue with this. To make an accusation and ally yourself philosophically with Code Pink even on a single issue, or to do it by accident and not withdraw it and definitively distance yourself from it displays extremely poor judgement in both a candidate and a President.
Beck needs to fast anyway,!!
See my post at #78 for clarification.
As I state, I don’t believe Trump is a ideological bed-mate of Code Pink, but on this one specific issue and they way he presented it, he clearly presented himself that way.
For me, this “one specific issue” isn’t a trivial one. This has core meaning, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.