Glenn Beck: McCain Worse than Obama?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Okay…

This was an interesting interview. (If you have time, you should listen to the whole interview…)

Now…why would Beck like Hillary over BOTH McCain and Obama?

Mufasa

Obama reminds me of a baby deer, Clumbsy and nieve. McCain reminds me of well and 80 year old man, Clumbsy and losing his mental capacity. Hillary while I disagree with most of her positions is niether clumbsy, nor losing any of her mental capacity, she is sharp, and would sell our doom to us much easier than either of the other two would. It would most likley be a much slower process under hillary. To be honest I think TPTB wanted her because it would have drawn less attention to thier plan. It pains them that all of thier choices are fucking retarded (bush) insane (gore) nieve (obama) or decrepit (mccain). They probably loved bill and would have loved hillary. Slow transformation is what they want, and it’s not so much that they are pulling strings like a puppet master, it’s more like they are playing a game of risk. Strategically moving peices or nudging them into place while the peices have little to no knowledge of thier manipulation. I think that no matter how much Obama stinks it up, people will be like It should have been hillary, and I think she is our next president. (after obamas second term of course)

V[/quote]

I liked Hillary and would have gone to the Dark Side of the Force (voting democratic) if she got the nod. Undeniably the smarter of all three mentioned above. Maybe the Slick Willy scent was still too strong on her.

I still say thet Obama was installed, not elected. The dems had their eye on him before he won his spot in the senate. They had a line of shit to sell to us and he was the appropriate lackey to do so. Hillary would have never stooped so low.

BG

22

Well if you guys like Hillary I expect to see her run against Obama in 2012. She will resign sometime next year in a dramatic policy dispute with the one. It will be very public and Hillary will claim the moral high ground over an appropriate issue. By next year Obama’s approval rating will be in the 20’s, the balance of power will be equalized in the house and Reid will be out in the senate. Hillary will strike when the one is the weakest and get her parties nomination by attacking him relentlessly for two years.

23

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Exactly who cares what Glen Beck says? He’s another big mouthed fuck that gets ratings every time he says something “CONTROVERSIAL!!!”

Please. Guy’s a moron.[/quote]

I think FI meant to say “Mormon”…!

Mufasa

24

[quote]hedo wrote:
I don’t like McCain one bit. However compared to Obama he was the lesser of two evils. McCain would not have wasted nearly as much money as Obama has and he wouldn’t have pushed this nightmare health care plan on the the voters.[/quote]

This is impossible to tell. I think the only thing we can say is that he said he would not spend as much. Likley it would have turned out to be single digit percentage points less, so all in all it’s not really all that much of an improvement. Ron Paul, Yea, he would have spent less than obama, less than bush, less than clinton, I don’t know how far back he could have cut it but you know for sure he would have tried to cut it drastically. You would never see so many vetoes in your life. I really also like the fact that he would have done away with nearly all executive orders, which is in no way part of the process of democracy, nor does it belong in a contitutional republic. It only belongs in a dictatorship.

V

25

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
I still say thet Obama was installed, not elected. The dems had their eye on him before he won his spot in the senate.[/quote]

I suspect one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that any at-all recent US president wasn’t picked and groomed by various powerful entities well before election, probably along with other equally-acceptable-to-them candidates.

For example, I recall how strange I found it, back in '91, how the media was falling all over themselves declaring Clinton the “frontrunner” for the Democratic nomination – before there ever was the first primary election.

Simply by calling a candidate the frontrunner or promoting him as being likely to win, this pretty much guarantees that a high percentage of primary voters will vote for that individual, as they like voting for the winner and hate “wasting their vote” by voting for someone that they know, from the media, “has no chance.”

GW Bush could surely be said to have probably been pre-selected as an acceptable candidate by some with enormous influence; ditto for GHW.

Reagan had to work FOREVER to get it, and had a lot of opposition for a very long period of time within the Republican establishment, so perhaps not there. It might be that he overcame the Republican establishment, but not without having to bargain with them: e.g., accepting GHW Bush as Vice President.

Carter? A similar story to Clinton with regard to the media.

Ford? Well, picked by Nixon anyway, and never elected.

Nixon? For sure.

We can go back further, but what is the point.

I am not saying that behind-the-scenes decisions pick THE president, but the final two candidates wind up both being among those previously found acceptable and pushed to prominency.

If the Soviets had been equally smart, they could have had a phony political dispute and split the Communist Party into, for example, the Stalinist and Leninist parties.

The first would favor taxation of vodka; the second, subsidy of vodka.

By election time every few years, both the Stalinist and Leninist candidates would be perfectly acceptable to the regime. Wouldn’t matter to them which the people “elected.”

But the people would get to vote! Hooray!

They could have fooled them for decades yet to come.

However, they thought that having a vote with one name on the ballot would fool people – this however was slightly underestimating the gullibility of the voter.

The above is personal opinion only.

26

[quote]Vegita wrote:
hedo wrote:
I don’t like McCain one bit. However compared to Obama he was the lesser of two evils. McCain would not have wasted nearly as much money as Obama has and he wouldn’t have pushed this nightmare health care plan on the the voters.

This is impossible to tell. I think the only thing we can say is that he said he would not spend as much. Likley it would have turned out to be single digit percentage points less, so all in all it’s not really all that much of an improvement. [/quote]

I don’t see a reason to think McCain – other than an immediate stimulus – would have written in anything more for the next 10 years than had been projected under the Bush budgets, as opposed to adding $9 trillion as Obama has, even before health care “reform.”

McCain probably would have done a multi-hundred billion dollar immediate stimulus. Less than Obama, but still a lot.

Everyone with sense expected Obama to add a trillion dollars spending over 4 years. Not even his most serious critics expected multi-trillions, and had McCain expected it and said so, he would have been called a liar.

Actually, he was called a liar for saying Obama would add a trillion to spending.

27

I don’t think there is any question at all that Obama kept his true intentions well hidden during the campaign. The media essentially annointed him after the Iowa caucuses. No matter what came out about him it was minimized or explained away…and they didn’t look to deeply in the first place.

McCain was at least a known and vetted candidate.

28

[quote]hedo wrote:
Well if you guys like Hillary I expect to see her run against Obama in 2012. She will resign sometime next year in a dramatic policy dispute with the one. It will be very public and Hillary will claim the moral high ground over an appropriate issue. By next year Obama’s approval rating will be in the 20’s, the balance of power will be equalized in the house and Reid will be out in the senate. Hillary will strike when the one is the weakest and get her parties nomination by attacking him relentlessly for two years.[/quote]

I can see them eventually having a falling out, to what point, who knows. She is strong willed and not easily manipulated. Obama, he’s handled on a daily basis and does what he’s TOLD what to do. 2012 should be an interesting election year.

BG

29

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
beachguy498 wrote:
I still say thet Obama was installed, not elected. The dems had their eye on him before he won his spot in the senate.

I suspect one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that any at-all recent US president wasn’t picked and groomed by various powerful entities well before election, probably along with other equally-acceptable-to-them candidates.

For example, I recall how strange I found it, back in '91, how the media was falling all over themselves declaring Clinton the “frontrunner” for the Democratic nomination – before there ever was the first primary election.

Simply by calling a candidate the frontrunner or promoting him as being likely to win, this pretty much guarantees that a high percentage of primary voters will vote for that individual, as they like voting for the winner and hate “wasting their vote” by voting for someone that they know, from the media, “has no chance.”

GW Bush could surely be said to have probably been pre-selected as an acceptable candidate by some with enormous influence; ditto for GHW.

Reagan had to work FOREVER to get it, and had a lot of opposition for a very long period of time within the Republican establishment, so perhaps not there. It might be that he overcame the Republican establishment, but not without having to bargain with them: e.g., accepting GHW Bush as Vice President.

Carter? A similar story to Clinton with regard to the media.

Ford? Well, picked by Nixon anyway, and never elected.

Nixon? For sure.

We can go back further, but what is the point.

I am not saying that behind-the-scenes decisions pick THE president, but the final two candidates wind up both being among those previously found acceptable and pushed to prominency.

If the Soviets had been equally smart, they could have had a phony political dispute and split the Communist Party into, for example, the Stalinist and Leninist parties.

The first would favor taxation of vodka; the second, subsidy of vodka.

By election time every few years, both the Stalinist and Leninist candidates would be perfectly acceptable to the regime. Wouldn’t matter to them which the people “elected.”

But the people would get to vote! Hooray!

They could have fooled them for decades yet to come.

However, they thought that having a vote with one name on the ballot would fool people – this however was slightly underestimating the gullibility of the voter.

The above is personal opinion only.

[/quote]

I agree with you on all points. An eye opener for many of us older farts was when JFK was taken out in 1963. Has there been a straight up honest election since? Or how far back does it go to get “the chosen one” in office? Obama has about as much credibility as president or less than my mailman would have in the position.

BG

30

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
beachguy498 wrote:
I still say thet Obama was installed, not elected. The dems had their eye on him before he won his spot in the senate.

I suspect one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that any at-all recent US president wasn’t picked and groomed by various powerful entities well before election, probably along with other equally-acceptable-to-them candidates.

For example, I recall how strange I found it, back in '91, how the media was falling all over themselves declaring Clinton the “frontrunner” for the Democratic nomination – before there ever was the first primary election.

Simply by calling a candidate the frontrunner or promoting him as being likely to win, this pretty much guarantees that a high percentage of primary voters will vote for that individual, as they like voting for the winner and hate “wasting their vote” by voting for someone that they know, from the media, “has no chance.”

GW Bush could surely be said to have probably been pre-selected as an acceptable candidate by some with enormous influence; ditto for GHW.

Reagan had to work FOREVER to get it, and had a lot of opposition for a very long period of time within the Republican establishment, so perhaps not there. It might be that he overcame the Republican establishment, but not without having to bargain with them: e.g., accepting GHW Bush as Vice President.

Carter? A similar story to Clinton with regard to the media.

Ford? Well, picked by Nixon anyway, and never elected.

Nixon? For sure.

We can go back further, but what is the point.

I am not saying that behind-the-scenes decisions pick THE president, but the final two candidates wind up both being among those previously found acceptable and pushed to prominency.

If the Soviets had been equally smart, they could have had a phony political dispute and split the Communist Party into, for example, the Stalinist and Leninist parties.

The first would favor taxation of vodka; the second, subsidy of vodka.

By election time every few years, both the Stalinist and Leninist candidates would be perfectly acceptable to the regime. Wouldn’t matter to them which the people “elected.”

But the people would get to vote! Hooray!

They could have fooled them for decades yet to come.

However, they thought that having a vote with one name on the ballot would fool people – this however was slightly underestimating the gullibility of the voter.

The above is personal opinion only.

[/quote]

Bill I agree with this 100%. If you only look at the republican primaries of the past election you can clearly see it in action. Ron Paul had MASSIVE grassroots support on a very conservative platform and represented a step in the right direction for many conservatives. However the media discredited him at every turn, said he could never win and excluded him from debates. The guy breaks the single day record for fundraising and the media is claiming he can’t win because he has no support or is somehow irrelivant? Almost every conservative I talked to about Ron Paul said the same thing about wasting a vote, or they didn’t think he could win even though most of the times the liked his positions MORE than any of the other candidates.

There was even a website with a little quiz and then a candidate matrix. Based on how you answered the questions, it would align you with all of the primary candidates from both parties. Almost every republican I had take the quiz found themselves very closely aligned with Ron paul, and even the die hard democrats I had take it found that they were closer on the chart to ron paul than any other candidate including Hillary or Barak. Yet the media over and over, laughed at Ron Paul and his supporters, told the general public that this silly old man and his “followers” would never win. Bloggers called his supporters paultards, Joked that he had two first names. You know with all the important issues facing our country, these were the newsworthy aspects of Ron Pauls campaign. Oh yea, add to the fact that he schooled everyone in the first few debates, and when the people voted him the winner, the news teams said, No Ron Paul did not win this debate, he just has people who know how to text or vote in our online poll. Holy Shit, well do we really want people who don’t know how to do these simple things to be picking our candidate?

Anyways sorry for the rant, but the candidates are definately “picked” for the american public.

V

31

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
beachguy498 wrote:
I still say thet Obama was installed, not elected. The dems had their eye on him before he won his spot in the senate.

I suspect one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that any at-all recent US president wasn’t picked and groomed by various powerful entities well before election, probably along with other equally-acceptable-to-them candidates.

For example, I recall how strange I found it, back in '91, how the media was falling all over themselves declaring Clinton the “frontrunner” for the Democratic nomination – before there ever was the first primary election.

Simply by calling a candidate the frontrunner or promoting him as being likely to win, this pretty much guarantees that a high percentage of primary voters will vote for that individual, as they like voting for the winner and hate “wasting their vote” by voting for someone that they know, from the media, “has no chance.”

GW Bush could surely be said to have probably been pre-selected as an acceptable candidate by some with enormous influence; ditto for GHW.

Reagan had to work FOREVER to get it, and had a lot of opposition for a very long period of time within the Republican establishment, so perhaps not there. It might be that he overcame the Republican establishment, but not without having to bargain with them: e.g., accepting GHW Bush as Vice President.

Carter? A similar story to Clinton with regard to the media.

Ford? Well, picked by Nixon anyway, and never elected.

Nixon? For sure.

We can go back further, but what is the point.

I am not saying that behind-the-scenes decisions pick THE president, but the final two candidates wind up both being among those previously found acceptable and pushed to prominency.

If the Soviets had been equally smart, they could have had a phony political dispute and split the Communist Party into, for example, the Stalinist and Leninist parties.

The first would favor taxation of vodka; the second, subsidy of vodka.

By election time every few years, both the Stalinist and Leninist candidates would be perfectly acceptable to the regime. Wouldn’t matter to them which the people “elected.”

But the people would get to vote! Hooray!

They could have fooled them for decades yet to come.

However, they thought that having a vote with one name on the ballot would fool people – this however was slightly underestimating the gullibility of the voter.

The above is personal opinion only.

I agree with you on all points. An eye opener for many of us older farts was when JFK was taken out in 1963. Has there been a straight up honest election since? Or how far back does it go to get “the chosen one” in office? Obama has about as much credibility as president or less than my mailman would have in the position.

BG

[/quote]

Interestingly, Right after he tried to bring legislation to do away with the fed. And who since then put it in thier campaign that that was a goal? (with real support) Ron Paul, and we saw how he was treated during his primaries. Luckily they could resort to these tactics and didn’t have to assasinate him like they did JFK. (they being TPTB of course)

V

32

Are you guys trying to tell me that Glenn Beck is for real? I kind-of figured he was some kind of parody. I don’t get Letterman’s humour, but he has an audience to show when to laugh. I just assumed that Beck was similar, but without the laughter track.

You mean he’s serious? Wow.

33

Again…

If you have time, one needs to see the whole interview.

Now…I don’t know if Beck was blowing smoke up Katie’s ass or not…but I DO agree with him when he says that Political Discourse in this Country is being defined too much by the EXTREMES of the Left and the Right.

Mufasa

35

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Again…

If you have time, one needs to see the whole interview.

Now…I don’t know if Beck was blowing smoke up Katie’s ass or not…but I DO agree with him when he says that Political Discourse in this Country is being defined too much by the EXTREMES of the Left and the Right.

Mufasa

Be careful, Muf, runnin’ 'round agreeing with Beck. You don’t want to be perceived as plumb craaaaaaaaaaazy, do you?
[/quote]

LOL!

He was “measuring” Katie’s questions…but in the end, he did come off as “sincere”?

Now…I don’t watch of listen to his show; so I don’t know if the answers he gave were completely counter to what he actually “preaches”.

Mufasa

36

I suspect Beck is questioning the foreign policy of “progressive republicans.”

37

[quote]hedo wrote:
I don’t think there is any question at all that Obama kept his true intentions well hidden during the campaign. The media essentially annointed him after the Iowa caucuses. No matter what came out about him it was minimized or explained away…and they didn’t look to deeply in the first place.

McCain was at least a known and vetted candidate.[/quote]

I saw right through Obama’s BS and the machine behind him. I was chastised as an idiot and a conspiracy theorist for noticing in advance everything you pointed out in your post.

It was so Ironic how the media make Palin to be an inexperienced fool, but Obama in reality is more of a Rookie then her but alas it’s all swept under the rug.

38

[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
Are you guys trying to tell me that Glenn Beck is for real? I kind-of figured he was some kind of parody. I don’t get Letterman’s humour, but he has an audience to show when to laugh. I just assumed that Beck was similar, but without the laughter track.

You mean he’s serious? Wow.[/quote]

Not only is he serious he’s right on most issues and is the only one in the media to take them on. Yes, he’s a little loony and all but he’s a human being and does not hide behind a still emotionless persona we’ve all gotten used to. He has passion for his cause and clearly has a following in the millions and growing.

39

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
beachguy498 wrote:
I still say thet Obama was installed, not elected. The dems had their eye on him before he won his spot in the senate.

I suspect one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that any at-all recent US president wasn’t picked and groomed by various powerful entities well before election, probably along with other equally-acceptable-to-them candidates.

For example, I recall how strange I found it, back in '91, how the media was falling all over themselves declaring Clinton the “frontrunner” for the Democratic nomination – before there ever was the first primary election.

Simply by calling a candidate the frontrunner or promoting him as being likely to win, this pretty much guarantees that a high percentage of primary voters will vote for that individual, as they like voting for the winner and hate “wasting their vote” by voting for someone that they know, from the media, “has no chance.”

GW Bush could surely be said to have probably been pre-selected as an acceptable candidate by some with enormous influence; ditto for GHW.

Reagan had to work FOREVER to get it, and had a lot of opposition for a very long period of time within the Republican establishment, so perhaps not there. It might be that he overcame the Republican establishment, but not without having to bargain with them: e.g., accepting GHW Bush as Vice President.

Carter? A similar story to Clinton with regard to the media.

Ford? Well, picked by Nixon anyway, and never elected.

Nixon? For sure.

We can go back further, but what is the point.

I am not saying that behind-the-scenes decisions pick THE president, but the final two candidates wind up both being among those previously found acceptable and pushed to prominency.

If the Soviets had been equally smart, they could have had a phony political dispute and split the Communist Party into, for example, the Stalinist and Leninist parties.

The first would favor taxation of vodka; the second, subsidy of vodka.

By election time every few years, both the Stalinist and Leninist candidates would be perfectly acceptable to the regime. Wouldn’t matter to them which the people “elected.”

But the people would get to vote! Hooray!

They could have fooled them for decades yet to come.

However, they thought that having a vote with one name on the ballot would fool people – this however was slightly underestimating the gullibility of the voter.

The above is personal opinion only.

Bill I agree with this 100%. If you only look at the republican primaries of the past election you can clearly see it in action. Ron Paul had MASSIVE grassroots support on a very conservative platform and represented a step in the right direction for many conservatives. However the media discredited him at every turn, said he could never win and excluded him from debates. The guy breaks the single day record for fundraising and the media is claiming he can’t win because he has no support or is somehow irrelivant? Almost every conservative I talked to about Ron Paul said the same thing about wasting a vote, or they didn’t think he could win even though most of the times the liked his positions MORE than any of the other candidates.

There was even a website with a little quiz and then a candidate matrix. Based on how you answered the questions, it would align you with all of the primary candidates from both parties. Almost every republican I had take the quiz found themselves very closely aligned with Ron paul, and even the die hard democrats I had take it found that they were closer on the chart to ron paul than any other candidate including Hillary or Barak. Yet the media over and over, laughed at Ron Paul and his supporters, told the general public that this silly old man and his “followers” would never win. Bloggers called his supporters paultards, Joked that he had two first names. You know with all the important issues facing our country, these were the newsworthy aspects of Ron Pauls campaign. Oh yea, add to the fact that he schooled everyone in the first few debates, and when the people voted him the winner, the news teams said, No Ron Paul did not win this debate, he just has people who know how to text or vote in our online poll. Holy Shit, well do we really want people who don’t know how to do these simple things to be picking our candidate?

Anyways sorry for the rant, but the candidates are definately “picked” for the american public.

V[/quote]

You’re right they are picked and people’s thinking is steered by such media actions. Im glad finally People like Glenn Beck call the media outlets out on this crap.

I love how he shows important issues taking place and exposing them, then showing all the media outlets in this country and how many times they ren with those stories. He blatantly exposes their affiliations. Obama and his administration avoid fox news like the plaque.

Im so tired of all the media outlets spoon feeding us their BS to direct our thinking.

This ofcourse brings up a worrisome point. If most of the info people have about politics and issues comes from sources controlled by the conglomerates, and this info is used by people to form their own thoughts and opinions…Then how much of those thoughts are the persons own ORIGINAL thoughts? Is there subtle suggestive “directing of thinking” taking place?

I say YES. Propaganda was not just a tool of the communists.