So what is the Glenn Beck rally actually ABOUT?

It's called "Restoring Honor"? Who lost it?

Beck says it's about "honoring the military", but none of the hype he himself has generated about it seems too interested in that topic.

He says it's about "reclaiming civil rights"????? What is THAT supposed to mean in this context?

He says it is non-political, in fact it HAS to be non-political under non-profit rules, but Sarah Palin is featured prominently as well as the Tea Pary connection?

There was something about launching a book of his called "The Plan", which was apparently scrubbed. So this started as some sort of huge book signing party but now there is no book?

He's also talked a lot about it being "about God". And has talked about not writing a speech, so the spirit could speak "if He wanted to". Hmmmm. Not sure what to say about that one, except to wonder what will happen if the spirit DOESN'T want to speak. Will Beck just stand up there looking foolish?

Seriously, this whole thing seems really confused and the purpose and meaning (?) of it all seem to keep shifting like quicksand. I am not a Beck follower, is he always this....flaky?

It all boils down to: I don't want a black man in the White house

Vice Lord wrote: It all boils down to: I don't want a black man in the White house

You are so ignorant and these third grade rants don't lend you any credibility. I love how you are totally taken over by the kool aid, and repeat everything that the left tells you to say.

Question. Why did you start a new thread about practically the same thing we have been talking about for a few days now? Because there were good questions and points raised in the other one that you don't want to address? We have 6 pages on the Glenn Beck Rally and then you start a thread asking what it is about? Is it just so a few of you don't have to keep talking about it in the other thread?

The Viking wrote: Question. Why did you start a new thread about practically the same thing we have been talking about for a few days now? Because there were good questions and points raised in the other one that you don't want to address? We have 6 pages on the Glenn Beck Rally and then you start a thread asking what it is about? Is it just so a few of you don't have to keep talking about it in the other thread?

I started a new thread because the other one was discussion of everything BUT the purpose/meaning of the thing.

AspenValley wrote:

The Viking wrote: Question. Why did you start a new thread about practically the same thing we have been talking about for a few days now? Because there were good questions and points raised in the other one that you don't want to address? We have 6 pages on the Glenn Beck Rally and then you start a thread asking what it is about? Is it just so a few of you don't have to keep talking about it in the other thread?

I started a new thread because the other one was discussion of everything BUT the purpose/meaning of the thing.

Fair enough. But I am not going to bounce from thread to thread and post the same things. And why didn't you just ask this question over there. Yes, it was getting way off track. But I am not typing things twice.

The Viking wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: It all boils down to: I don't want a black man in the White house

You are so ignorant and these third grade rants don't lend you any credibility. I love how you are totally taken over by the kool aid, and repeat everything that the left tells you to say.

I haven't watched local or national News in 15 years, I haven't watched MSN, LINK TV or Democracy Now since right after the election and I never listen to the AM radio, so..I guess ESPN is brain washing me, huh?

Viking - The other thread started off, and CONTINUED on the same topic as far as I could see. It didn't "go off track", it was always and is still on the same track.

It's totally your choice whether you want to respond to this thread or not but I am kind of surprised to find you, of all people, acting as the "thread count" police. Is there some rule that there can't be more than one thread addressing different aspects of the same subject?

Vice Lord wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: It all boils down to: I don't want a black man in the White house

You are so ignorant and these third grade rants don't lend you any credibility. I love how you are totally taken over by the kool aid, and repeat everything that the left tells you to say.

I haven't watched local or national News in 15 years, I haven't watched MSN, LINK TV or Democracy Now since right after the election and I never listen to the AM radio, so..I guess ESPN is brain washing me, huh?

So where did you get the ignorant idea that this is about not wanting a 'black man in the White House'? Makes sense that you made it up. His niece who is black is one of the main speakers today. You are saying that this is all about not having a Black man in the White House?

AspenValley wrote: Viking - The other thread started off, and CONTINUED on the same topic as far as I could see. It didn't "go off track", it was always and is still on the same track.

It's totally your choice whether you want to respond to this thread or not but I am kind of surprised to find you, of all people, acting as the "thread count" police. Is there some rule that there can't be more than one thread addressing different aspects of the same subject?

I am not acting as the thread count. I just don't like answering the same questions on two thread. We are talking about the rally in the other thread and I don't feel like typing it twice is all. So I won't, I talked about it over there.