 Level of Consciousness Forum Index Kinesiology and Level of Consciousness  Glenn Beck
|
Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
 Bottom  Previous Topic  Next Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
Topic options
Threaded
Newest First| Poster | Thread |
|---|
|
Re: Glenn Beck | #31 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Spiritual Initiate
 
Joined: 2009/7/29
From
Posts: 5
 |
Has Fox News really dropped that much since the time of publication of Truth vs Falsehood?
p.113, Fox News: 380. The O'Reilly Factor: 460. Dr. Hawkins has described Bill O'Reilly as a bell-weather of integrity. He still seems that way to me. It's suprising the disparity between his LoC (quoted in the previous post) and the much higher LoC of the program (as it was in 2005 anyway). Any thoughts? It's always humbling to think how it's impossible to verify essence without the aid of calibrations! Peace, Iain |
||
Posted on: 2010/3/4 18:28
  |
 |
||
iain2203
|
Re: Glenn Beck | #32 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/9/30
From Slovenia
Posts: 233
|
Did anybody see the Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" Rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC? I just saw snippets of it and from what I have seen the overall message was, basically, that people trust in God again, like it says on the money.
Half a million people showed up. Awesome! |
||
Posted on: 2010/9/1 1:56
|
|
||
|
Re: Glenn Beck | #33 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/2/18
From Asheville, NC
Posts: 503
|
Quote:
I would guess that it's because they have switched roles to that of establishment-hating underdogs. It's just part of the typical political pendulum swinging that happens every time the presidency switches parties. Now, they are digging up as much dirt on Obama as possible. It's near impossible to find a single positive word about the president on their programs, a complete reversal from their stalwart and unconditional support of the prior presidency. Inside the political world, this may seem normal, but with regard issues outside politics this would be exteme to the point of absurdity. In the real world, it would be a bit like 50% of the employees at your company (if you're lucky enough to have a job) thinking the boss was a demon from hell and the other 50% thinking he was just the bee's knees. I saw a program on Fox News shortly after the election, and it was about 4 or 5 people sitting around a table talking about how bad Obama was. I wondered how this could be fair and balanced. We all know that there is good and bad in everyone. Where was the one person saying that they liked the new president? Where was the one good word about the good things he represented - how ever few they might have thought there were? Everything that conservatives said about liberal criticism of Bush can surely be applied to conservative criticism of Obama, can it not? There is a fine line between legitimate disagreement with a political position and casting aspersions on the person driving that policy. I think there is little doubt that people in both parties have crossed that line multiple times over all the presidencies I've personally witnessed, from Carter to Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama. It seems like many people of the opposing party jump on a bandwagon to bring the leader down by any means necessary, simply because they don't agree with his views or because they subscribe to an absolutist 'tribal' mindset, believing that the other 'tribe' is always wrong. We've all witnessed it sometime in our lives. It's why politics are so difficult to discuss. People identify with it so strongly. Sadly, politicos haven't waited for elections to begin mudslinging for at least 20 years, and this is mainly because of the easy platform of 24-hour news media. Is this what Fox News is doing? Maybe not entirely, but I definitely think that elements of hate-the-leader syndrome have crept in and are eroding their integrity. Michael |
||
|
_________________
Remember. You're unique, just like everyone else. "A joyful face is always beautiful anywhere in the world, whatever the shape of the nose, whatever the shape of your eyes, when you see a joyful face it's a beautiful face." -- Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev |
|||
Posted on: 2010/9/2 15:12
|
|
||
|
Re: Glenn Beck | #34 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/9/30
From Slovenia
Posts: 233
|
Quote:
Actually, even Sean Hannity has said a few positive things about Obama's efforts in Afghanistan. Quote: Everything that conservatives said about liberal criticism of Bush can surely be applied to conservative criticism of Obama, can it not? That doesn't seem to be the case, because some ideas are better than the others - they're more pragmatic & effective. Welfare state & higher taxes vs Safety net & lower taxes |
||
Posted on: 2010/9/2 18:08
|
|
||
|
Re: Glenn Beck | #35 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/2/18
From Asheville, NC
Posts: 503
|
Quote:
I don't know, Naptaq, sounds a bit like a thinly veiled justification for continuing the character assassination. Beside, I don't think Obama's plan is to create a welfare state (I think this is what conservative media want you to believe), nor would I want that myself. As for lower taxes, taxes on the wealthiest Americans were in the 90% range in the 1950s under Eisenhower and were in the 70% range during the 1970s. It was Reagan that cut them to where they are now. We've been in major debt ever since. Reagan himself said that the deficit was the biggest disappointment of his presidency. We used to be the largest creditor nation, now we're the largest debtor nation. When outlays continually outstrip revenue, you're going to be in debt. Period. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy (slightly) and managed to reduce the national debt enormously and balance the budget. If his budget policies had been continued, we'd be out of debt now. Bush returned taxes to the Reagan era level and we now have a new debt record, the majority of which was accumulated under the previous presidency. I certainly don't advocate raising taxes back to the 70% or 90% range, and would never advocate raising taxes on the middle class at all, but a return to Clinton era taxes on the wealthiest Americans might enable us once again to reduce debt to something reasonable. Sticking to a philosophy when it hasn't worked for decades isn't the wisest policy. It may sound great to always say "no new taxes" over and over, but sometimes "when needs must, the devil drives". We're in tough shape right now, and we might need to do things that are otherwise not what we want to do. Michael |
||
|
_________________
Remember. You're unique, just like everyone else. "A joyful face is always beautiful anywhere in the world, whatever the shape of the nose, whatever the shape of your eyes, when you see a joyful face it's a beautiful face." -- Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev |
|||
Posted on: 2010/9/3 18:47
|
|
||
|
Re: Glenn Beck | #36 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/9/30
From Slovenia
Posts: 233
|
Quote:
I did not justify character assassination at all. All I'm saying is that ideas matter, ideas have consequences. Most of what I see on Fox News is questioning his ideas, especially on the commentator side. Quote: It was Reagan that cut them to where they are now. We've been in major debt ever since. Reagan himself said that the deficit was the biggest disappointment of his presidency. Is it not true that GDP grew more in his presidency than in any other because of lower taxes? Is it also not true that the arms race with the Soviet Union is the largest contributor to that deficit? So within that context, I don't think it's fair to blame deficit on low taxes. Had it not been for lower taxes, the % of GDP debt would be higher, because the economy would not grow as strong as it did. Quote: Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy (slightly) and managed to reduce the national debt enormously and balance the budget. With the help of Newt Gingrich and his Republican majority.. Quote: Bush returned taxes to the Reagan era level and we now have a new debt record, the majority of which was accumulated under the previous presidency. The tax cuts increased the tax revenue. Bush spent like a Democrat and he had two wars to fight. Now if I compare that to Obama, he added the same $ amount of debt as Bush did in his first 7 years, without any additional wars. Quote: We're in tough shape right now, and we might need to do things that are otherwise not what we want to do. OK, I see your point. But it seems to me that high taxes without lower spending won't do much, because the economy can't recover as quick with high taxes as it can with low taxes. |
||
Posted on: 2010/9/3 21:35
|
|
||
|
Re: Glenn Beck | #37 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/2/18
From Asheville, NC
Posts: 503
|
Quote:
I have my doubts about that but I'll take your word for it because I don't watch Fox regularly enough to say for certain. Quote:
It's not unfair if the over-arching economic policy, one that we're still essentially on today, has led us to where we are - that is, deeply in debt with a disintegrating manufacturing industry, companies moving overseas and taking jobs with them, and a top-heavy economy with the wealthiest 1% having more money than the bottom 94%. That is what low taxes, deregulation, and free trade have done. And these are policies started during the Reagan years and continued by the two Bushes and tolerated (probably unwillingly due to a Republican congress) by Clinton. It's really nice to have strong ideas about how things are done economically. I can respect the fact that they thought outside of the box and embraced fresh economic theory back in the 80s, but while it may have had a strong effect over the short term, as in maybe 15-20 years, I don't think the benefits have held up and the economic downsides have gotten way out of hand. I'm very tempted to argue for a return to Keynesian economic policy but then I think maybe some new economic theory needs to be explored. Perhaps a hybrid theory that works better than the two could be found. All I know right now is that Keynesian economic theory has at least a slightly better track record than Reaganomics. Also, some cursory research revealed an inconclusive result on overall increase in GDP during the Reagan years. It may be that I've not found a definitive source to review but I couldn't find any strong evidence either way. The Wikipedia article says that the GDP actually dropped in 1982 but does not elaborate on how much it increased overall during the 80s. Yes, the arms race is a convenient excuse but hasn't every presidency had some excuse? There's been a war during every presidency in my lifetime, including the so-called "Wag the Dog" war in Bosnia. Quote: Quote: Yes, I suppose they deserve some credit. But, it was Clinton's policies that drove it, and given *positionality*'s track record it remains to be seen whether the Republicans would have had any inclination to initiate or continue the fiscal responsibility on their own. Quote: Quote: I have my doubts about that. Even if true, it's no excuse as the facts are plain. Whatever problems or wars you have to deal with, the economic policy for the revenue stream has to be made to match. My whole point is that ideology is great but it doesn't feed the bulldog. The previous administration spent like mad while resisting the common sense of increasing revenue to compensate. I sincerely believe that's why we're where we are now. Quote: Quote: No argument here. I'm disappointed that Obama decided to choose Health Care as his first initiative to push through Congress. Expenses have to come down and I believe they will eventually. I personally would like to see a thorough shakedown of economic policy, including reasonable tax increases on higher incomes, a reduction of government spending, and a successful conclusion to two ghastly and extended foreign wars. Surely such initiatives would complement each other and bring our economic balance back? Then again, most of the additional expenditures were the result of a near economic collapse that I feel was the result of bad economic policy during the previous 8 years. They were necessary to help restore the balance. And the $700 billion bank bailout was engineered by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, initiated by the Bush administration, and approved by Congress in September 2008 - a full two months before Obama was even elected. Michael P.S. Phew! I got all my nested quotes right!  |
||
|
_________________
Remember. You're unique, just like everyone else. "A joyful face is always beautiful anywhere in the world, whatever the shape of the nose, whatever the shape of your eyes, when you see a joyful face it's a beautiful face." -- Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev |
|||
Posted on: 2010/9/3 22:26
|
|
||
|
Re: Glenn Beck | #38 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2009/5/6
From
Posts: 231
|
I actually think Obama's intent is good. The problem I see here is the American Democratic party in trying to implement or embrace social reform has been infected almost form top to bottom with Marxist philosophy.
I actually like the concept of socialism, a certain amount of it positive for society. However if it is injected with Marxist philosophy--the core of which is victim-perpetrator mentality which produces a negative spiritual energy, the effects will only be negative. Like for example: a few months ago Obama gave a speech where he implied that we put limits on how much people make. The negative concept here is ---you should keep someone down in order to raise someone up. A negative concept which at its core plays on jealousy and envy. Why does this have to be. Why can't everyone go up, according to their potential. Or at least raise everyone up without having to punish or hold anyone back. This is the way it should go. Not to mentions this ignores fundamental economic laws that keep a stable and flourishing economy. I'm trying to see this from a spiritual perspective as much as I can. I just believe if a group has core negative philosophies, even though they do some positive things, the overall attractor fields in what they do will be on a negative tangent. I would like to see a form of socialism were there is not this Marxist mentality, I think that would be a lot better for the country. |
||
Posted on: 2010/9/4 21:32
|
|
||
|
Re: Glenn Beck | #39 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/2/18
From Asheville, NC
Posts: 503
|
Quote:
And don't forget the secular/atheist angle, the Marxist philosophy substitutes the state or 'Big Brother' as the 'provider' as opposed to God. I personally feel that this is the primary reason that Marxist socialism calibrates so low, it is aligned with atheism, which calibrates at about the same level. The concepts of limitations on wealth were also strongly advocated in book 3 of "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch, the book series that Dr. Hawkins calibrated at the level of Unconditional Love (LoC 540). Thus, it seems that the primary difference between offering this option is that of spiritual motivation. The currently controversial subject of 'Social Justice' for the spiritually-minded person is generally motivated out of the field of Love. It 'breaks our hearts' to see people suffering, and we want to do something to help. It's not that we want a cold, calculating system of government to do the job for us, it is that we want to use the system of government as the instrument of Love - God working through the people working through the government. The typical Socialist atheist may wish the same things but is also working to rid our society of all religious and spiritual adherence. The number of people I've met that literally find spirituality 'offensive' is actually disturbing. I have always felt that Socialism was a failed system. Of any ardent socialist I meet I always ask him to name a successful socialist country. I don't think there is one. The current closest one is obviously China, but they've embraced a hybrid system including capitalism as part of their economy, so it's not a complete example. Plus, the government calibrates below 200. Quote: Why does this have to be. Why can't everyone go up, according to their potential. Or at least raise everyone up without having to punish or hold anyone back. This is the way it should go. Not to mentions this ignores fundamental economic laws that keep a stable and flourishing economy. My own answer to this is that the system gets too top heavy. The most successful end up with so much wealth that they can influence the system in their own favor. Some may say that that's just fine, it's part of the rewards of their efforts. I say, that may be true, but it's also fundamentally damaging to the economy in the long-term. It's damn hard to keep the economy moving if most of the money is in too few hands. This happened before, in the so-called Gilded Age which preceded the Great Depression. Some believe it was one of the direct causes of the Depression. There's a reason why Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have pledged the vast majority of their wealth to charity and are encouraging other mega-wealthy people to do the same. I think, as apparently they do, that it is literally economically prudent and practical to spread the money around. The question is whether the government should be the method by which this is done. And whether it should be done arbitrarily. Ideally, we should have an economic system that naturally encourages this. Unfortunately, I don't think we do. Are we repeating history now? Was the government bailout the only thing that stopped another Great Depression? Is it fair to have the diminishing middle class bear the brunt of the efforts to repair the damage while the status quo is maintained for the richest of the population? Do we have to temporarily embrace some other philosophy in order to bring things back into balance? Michael |
||
|
_________________
Remember. You're unique, just like everyone else. "A joyful face is always beautiful anywhere in the world, whatever the shape of the nose, whatever the shape of your eyes, when you see a joyful face it's a beautiful face." -- Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev |
|||
Posted on: 2010/9/5 16:17
|
|
||
|
Re: Glenn Beck | #40 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Moderator
Joined: 2005/8/12
From Kitimat, BC, Canada
Posts: 740
|
I wonder if the issue lay not with economy so much as it seems due to a lapse in recognition of the purpose of laws.
It's my understanding that laws were initially implemented as a means to protect the livelihood and prosperity of those who were aligned with integrity. Could there be a way not to police the amount of profits that someone makes, but simply whether those profits are maintained with integrity or not? I mean, being rich in itself isn't harmful...ideally, the prosperity trickles down through philanthropy and other modes of social improvement. The problem seems to be due to hoarding...is that accurate? I'm reminded of a story that I heard in college, about a union formed by a group of women in India...they had both a minimum wage, and a maximum wage...and while there was quite a disparity between the two ends of the spectrum, it afforded for a rapid strengthening of the union and of the prosperity of the whole group. Proportionately, the maximum wage went up in accord with the minimum wage increases. Thus, profit motive and advancement could be maintained, while also ensuring that 'trickle-down' benefits remained tangible and visible on paper. Perhaps that might be a good example...whereby the government isn't necessarily the critical instrument for change with regard to regulating the expanse between prosperity and despair...if a significantly large union/organization would self-impose such thing as a 'maximum wage' within their organization, it might serve as a template for others to follow suit...pay dividends to members according to their excesses, and increase the minimum as well as maximum incomes accordingly. My interest and understanding of economics is quite simplistic though...so perhaps the notion is a bit naive? -Rob |
||
|
_________________
"Forgiveness ends the dream of conflict." -A Course in Miracles |
|||
Posted on: 2010/9/5 17:24
|
|
||
 Top Previous Topic Next Topic |
|
 |
|
You cannot start a new topic.
You can view topic.