Mark, RE you comment: ""So group A contains groups B, C and D. But he says nothing to show that B, C and D intersect with each other. ""

Technically, you are correct in your logical analysis, Mr. Spock, the cool, logical Vulcan.

However, what your logic fails to calculate is that Glenn Beck is a human, and, using English language, implies that it is the liberals that want you to be dependent on them -and, it is logical to infer as much.

For example: The slave owners wanted you to depend on *them* for your cradle-to-grave needs -and lose all your civil rights in the process; likewise, the liberals want you to depend on *THEM* from your cradle-to-grave needs -and lose all your civil rights in the process.

I know whereof I speak: I UNDERSTAND prejudice -as a Native American, I was asked to leave an establishment, according to the actual police report for only the offense of my ethnic attire (a feather I was wearing) -not for allegedly starting a disturbance. (I did *not* create a disturbance -and even the crooked cops involved did not allege this -they rightly believed the even more corrupt court system would uphold them here -and we thought counter sit-ins were no longer needed. LOL)

Have some more Kool Aid Lisa, it's gooood for you.

When one was liberal in the 19th century, it did not have the same meaning it has today. Liberals, in the classical sense, were free market, pro-democratic, and free thinking individuals. They were not necessarily "progressives." Republicans and Democrats had different ideologies back then, so its wrong to compare the Republicans and Democrats of today to both parties of the 19th century. Both parties have evolved with the times. And like any political party that wants to stay alive, it has to change part or their whole ideology to get elected.

Beck did not say that slave owners were progressives. What he said was that "people who encourage you to become more dependent" is a group of people that contains the groups of people called tyrants, slave owners, and progressives. But he did not say that these latter three groups are one and the same or even subsets of each other.

So group A contains groups B, C and D. But he says nothing to show that B, C and D intersect with each other. Understandable that if you listen quickly you can think that is what he is trying to say, but he does not say it. So in the end what he says is correct.

What a cute slight of hand. Up until early 1900's "Liberals" supported individual liberty and were opposed to gov't suppression of anyone (including slaves). These were the classic liberals. Today's Modern Liberal supports gov't suppression of whomever he doesn't like (conservatives or "the rich", for instance)to support whatever cause makes the liberal feel good about himself. Pathetic.

Repeat after me: we have to treat Fox News like what Jake Tapper calls, "a sister news organization."

Beck makes crap up, like the bogus charges against Mr. Jennings of not reporting statutory rape in the late '80s though the young person was, in fact, 16 at the time, and the student today says that no actual sex took place between him and the older person; then the "news" anchors repeat the bogus story as a "many say" kind of "story," and then the doofus straight media reports it too as an "others say" -- never looking into the details, just passively accepting the nonsense as if it was true.

What we need, in fact, is an Edward R. Murrow to report on Fox as the Joseph McCarthy of our times: lying, guilt by association, and on and on. They have no shame, but they should be forced to wear the scarlet letter: P for Propaganda.

um hello people. yes it was the democrats who supported slavery but back then THE DEMOCRATS WERE CONSERVATIVE and the republicans were liberal. The two parties switched gradually somewhere in between then and now. democrat =/= liberal, that is the name of a party which today happens to be a more liberal party than the republicans, who happen to be conservative.

About the arguement that Democrats owned slaves is true. Remember when the Dixiecrats jumped from the Democrats to the Republicans when the Democrats reluctantly backed the American Civil Rights Act in the 1960's? I guess the racism, greed and avarice from the Dixiecrat led Republican Party attracted the Neo Cons. Who in turn used wedge issues to attract the religious idiots who in turn consolidated the Neo Cons stranglehold on the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of the government.
Conflict of Interest and Collusion leads to Treason

What makes this writer assume Beck was only describing slaves in the South, or even in the US? People get enslaved by those who promise to make all their decisions if you give them all of your money.

However, keep up the good work. A little more dithering and all those voluntary warmongers will be dead in Afghanistan. Just chant that mantra of "Fired up... ready to GO!" to the object of the personality cult of THE ONE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMqj3YQgJVI

Yes! Yes! All you folks who've been voting Republican, thinking you've been voting conservative, remember this next time you go to the polls: Vote Democratic! Glenn Beck told you so!

Re: BLACK Man- I agree largely with what you say. Things have become pretty scrambled- many Blacks considered themselves Republicans early in our being allowed to participate in the political process during Reconstruction- we had Black governors, etc.

so, is this good for the hebrews or bad for the hebrews? should we run back to the pyramids schlepping straw? certainly better than being demeaned as switch-hitters by beck and friends!