Errr... So? Is there a point to this story? -- J T

Romney and the Republicans like to portray Dems as elitist. Many are indeed among America's elite. The Kennedys come to mind. But wealthy liberals embrace a sense of nobles oblige. For rich conservatives, it's pretty much an every-man-for-himself/I got mine, screw you! attitude.

These down market sales also probably show that Mitt's in a bit of a money jamb since he "loaned" his campaign millions of dollars. One can only hope that he took a bath on a hedge fund investment as well.

. . . there is no housing shortage, just an allocation problem.

Thanks, Bigguns I thought I was the only person alive who thinks it is immoral to own multiple houses in a country with millions of homeless people and even more on the brink.-- human power

There is nothing immoral about owning more than one house. In fact, there is more than enough wealth in the world to allow shits like McCain and Romney to have three or more homes if they want them. The problems is getting people like them (most of the ultra-rich really) to understand that while they don't have a constitutional obligation to pay high enough taxes to help those who weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths (or rich second wives), they do have a moral obligation. I think this comes from Deuteronomy.

It's not even a very religious nation, regardless of what people tell pollsters. On any given Saturday or Sunday, you'll find more Americans attending sporting events than are found at temple or in church.

. . . we have no idea what Jesus actually said or whether he even existed.

. . . while Christ Himself did say that He had come to fulfill Yahweh's ancient promise to the Hebrews, -- Tom in Central Illinois

Paul and the others might have made up all this. And even if they didn't, we can't know for sure about any of this since the New Testament has been "edited" at least three times with the "originals" safely locked away in a vault at the Vatican.

Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production, period. (Or, in modern terms, all aspects of the economy, including finance, communications, the provision of health care, etc, as well as manufacturing).

You've just defined communism.

It has nothing to do with social welfare benefits -- which all states provide to some degree, even the most reactionary.-- Byzantium

Actually, it has everything to do with the state providing, at least, heavy subsidies to social welfare needs. All economic activity will be heavily regulated by the state, but a socialist state does not directly control or own all businesses.

Socialism includes Government contoll of ALL Manufacturing and Agriculture -- barkleyg

No, the Russian and Chinese versions of totalitarianism ("communism") included control of pretty much everything, which made them significantly different from the German, Spanish and Italian versions of totalitarianism. Stalin and Mao (and Lenin to a degree) weren't really interested in socialism or communism other than being a new secular orthodoxy to justify their brutalities. (The Italians and Spanish could still count on "The Church" for theirs to degree.)

It is possible to have democratically elected socialist governments that don't feature the nationalization of all economic activity and social welfare. Those of Norway and Sweden get along quite well with this and they didn't find it necessary to either slaughter or send into exile their historic royal families.

The Finns seem to be chugging along quite nicely in this manner as well since unyoked from their idiot Russian overlords.

There may be some potential Timothy McVeigh's out there, but I doubt they're taking their cues from a simple-minded clown like Beck. Can you imagine him leading anything? -- steambadger

Yes, because McVeigh is simple-minded. Beck is exactly the kind of clown people like McVeigh take cues from. For McVeighs, the fact that Beck's on a major network lends credence to the nonsense he spouts.

The average American Is a young(ish) white male. How convenient is that for Glenn Beck?-- Rebelpropagandist

No. It's doubtful that Glenn Beck's viewers are "youngish white males." Furthermore, the "average young male (and female)" in the U.S. is now more "latte-colored" and may actually be offended by shit like this, if they watch him at all.

In the 18-25 age group, white people no longer hold much of a statistical majority. (As of the 2000 census, a little more than 39% of all Americans were not white.) And since Beck is on television "news" he doesn't get much of this demographic as viewers anyway. FOX is definitely a network for poorly educated, middle- to late middle-aged white men and woman living in the sticks or suburbia.

The anti-Jon Stewart This should be boringly obvious by now, repeated and echoed throughout the blogotron until it becomes cliche, but for some reason it hasn't. Glenn Beck is the authoritarian right wing's version of Jon Stewart. -- Amity

No. Beck works for what too many Americans believe to be a legitimate news network. Stewart work for Comedy Central.

Stewart skewers stupid people by pointing out in a humorous fashion that they are crazy and/or full shit. Beck expects to be taken seriously as if he were revealing deep political and social truths and injustices. Stewart causes mirth. Beck's shtick preys on perceived slights and borders on inciting violence. Big difference.

Politicians prey on the ignorant. -- ohiopolitico

They've been the bulk of Rethug support for at least 20 years now.

. . . if we can find a way to liberate Austin in the deal.

You've got to be either more subtle or less. That's just pedestrian at best. You'll never outdo Stewart or Colbert with an effort like that, but your parody is quite like Glenn Beck's.