But you don’t think that Beck is a republican hack?[/quote]
Zeb, don’t you think a requirement for being a Republican hack would be to support the Republican Party?[/quote]
There’s a lot of ways to support the republican party. When Beck talks about debt he slams Obama, but you rarely hear of him speak of GW’s transgressions in this area. While I like both Beck and Hannity and acknowledge that their rhetoric is different, I see little difference in their positions when you cut to the heart of it.
…you rarely hear of him speak of GW’s transgressions in this area… [/quote]
You’re dead wrong here. I’ve heard it dozens of times. Literally.[/quote]
I’m not saying that he’s never slammed the republican party, my point is it always comes out of his mouth associated with the democratic party. For example, “both parties have put us in the position that we are in.” He then goes on to single out the democrats, by name. Now don’t get me wrong, I agree with him. But a tacit head nod toward one party while castigating the other is hardly balanced. If this tiny difference separates him from Hannity, well okay I suppose that is a difference.
…you rarely hear of him speak of GW’s transgressions in this area… [/quote]
You’re dead wrong here. I’ve heard it dozens of times. Literally.[/quote]
I’m not saying that he’s never slammed the republican party, my point is it always comes out of his mouth associated with the democratic party. For example, “both parties have put us in the position that we are in.” He then goes on to single out the democrats, by name. Now don’t get me wrong, I agree with him. But a tacit head nod toward one party while castigating the other is hardly balanced. If this tiny difference separates him from Hannity, well okay I suppose that is a difference.
[/quote]
Dems are in power now.
He was (apparently) saying much the same when the Repubs were in power.
George Bush gets so much crap - what’s the point of adding to the chorus at this point? On the other hand, Obama has had such a free ride from most of the press and pundits (until lately, perhaps), that focusing on the Dems to compensate for the lack of criticism is warranted, in my opinion.
Moreover, while it’s true that the Repubs/Bush have some blame in this, the “blame both parties/leaders” approach is liable to be misleading IMO. Obama is far-worse than Bush in nearly all respects; and, conversely, I do think, when all is said and done, that Bush is a patriot and loves this country. I’m afraid I cannot say the same for Bambi.
He was (apparently) saying much the same when the Repubs were in power.[/quote]
Wrong, I’ve listened to Beck for a long time. He may have mentioned GW’s problems but never, ever in the fashion that he goes after Obama. And I really like that about him.
He was (apparently) saying much the same when the Repubs were in power.[/quote]
Wrong, I’ve listened to Beck for a long time. He may have mentioned GW’s problems but never, ever in the fashion that he goes after Obama. And I really like that about him.
[/quote]
I’ve heard he was highly critical GW - but right, not ANYWAY near with the passion and focus and persistence, etc. wrt Obama; but again, there’s a reason for that: Obama is far more extreme and far more dangerous on many levels.
He was (apparently) saying much the same when the Repubs were in power.[/quote]
Wrong, I’ve listened to Beck for a long time. He may have mentioned GW’s problems but never, ever in the fashion that he goes after Obama. And I really like that about him.
[/quote]
Man I don’t know…I remember him railing against the Bush administration when they were in office…a lot.
Bush wasn’t an enemy of the United states. He did not have ill designs on his own country, he was just wrong on some things. Obama is a dime a dozen America hating leftist. I don’t mean he wants to see the cities in ruins. He wants to see the United States pay for her alleged injustices both domestic and international. That cannot be achieved without crumbling her foundations which are in the view of people like him by definition racist and unfair.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< Well, my friend, Glenn, if you don’t have troops, bases, materiel, ships, planes, etc. in forward positions you aint gonna be letting many folks “have it” very easily. >>>
[/quote]
Or less expensively.
Oversimplification was the first word that came to mind.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Beck’s show today. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/index.php/topic,201.new.html#new
I have the one from yesterday where he talks about military spending. I’ll need some clarification form him on that before I decide how far off he is on that.[/quote]
Speaking of yesterday’s show on the military, I think Beck’s heart is in the right place but he was guilty of over simplification. I think you know what I mean.
For instance, (not an exact quote) “Bring all our troops home from everywhere. Then if anyone screws with us we let 'em have it…”
Well, my friend, Glenn, if you don’t have troops, bases, materiel, ships, planes, etc. in forward positions you aint gonna be letting many folks “have it” very easily.
You simply can’t just patrol our 12 mile limit and yet put a thumpin’ on every motherfucker that comes along and screws with us.
Logistics are a bitch.[/quote]
Why are they screwing with us? If we left them alone why would they come and attack us?
We should all be able to agree that we don’t need to be in Germany anymore, how much longer should we be in Korea. All empires end by over reaching themselves. Why do we need to be in Japan.
We should embrace what our original foreign policy was, free trade and never be an agressive force. We are bankrupt we can’t be the policeman of the world anymore. All those funds going over seas are doing nothing but pissing people off and killing buisness.
It is absolutely beyond utterly laughable to believe that if you just leave everybody alone they’ll leave you alone. It is a joke on a personal level and a joke on the geopolitical level. All of recorded human history is testimony to the contrary.
Why would one pick a fight with the strongest military in the world if they where not messing with them.
I am not saying you don’t have a military which is what you guys are trying to spin my words into what I am saying is if you go and send a couple missles into Yemen expect a kid from Yemen to try and blow himself up on a plane here.
You are all really eager to steal my money to go and piss off a bunch of people so that you can steal more of my money to piss of a bunch of people so you can steal more of my money and go piss off a bunch of people, you begining to see the infinite cycle you are creating that is only fueling the military industrial complex and pissing off the rest of the world and killing our soldiers.
If you want to throw your money away on foreign entanglements fine, where do I opt out.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Why would one pick a fight with the strongest military in the world if they where not messing with them.
I am not saying you don’t have a military which is what you guys are trying to spin my words into what I am saying is if you go and send a couple missles into Yemen expect a kid from Yemen to try and blow himself up on a plane here.
You are all really eager to steal my money to go and piss off a bunch of people so that you can steal more of my money to piss of a bunch of people so you can steal more of my money and go piss off a bunch of people, you begining to see the infinite cycle you are creating that is only fueling the military industrial complex and pissing off the rest of the world and killing our soldiers.
If you want to throw your money away on foreign entanglements fine, where do I opt out.[/quote]
I really do believe that you will one day see the error of this way of thinking. In today’s world waiting for foreign entanglements to become domestic ones before acting would be both suicidal and astronomically expensive. EVEN IF there were less international antagonism toward us. I see posts from some of you guys and now Glenn Beck chimes somewhat in and I sit staring, at a loss on where to start. It’s the right wing version of hippie peacenik-ism. It is not even possible for there to be more historical evidence of the wholesale folly of this view. It’s like arguing that pigs can fly. How do you approach refuting something like that?
[quote]John S. wrote:
Why would one pick a fight with the strongest military in the world if they where not messing with them.
I am not saying you don’t have a military which is what you guys are trying to spin my words into what I am saying is if you go and send a couple missles into Yemen expect a kid from Yemen to try and blow himself up on a plane here.
You are all really eager to steal my money to go and piss off a bunch of people so that you can steal more of my money to piss of a bunch of people so you can steal more of my money and go piss off a bunch of people, you begining to see the infinite cycle you are creating that is only fueling the military industrial complex and pissing off the rest of the world and killing our soldiers.
If you want to throw your money away on foreign entanglements fine, where do I opt out.[/quote]
I really do believe that you will one day see the error of this way of thinking. In today’s world waiting for foreign entanglements to become domestic ones before acting would be both suicidal and astronomically expensive. EVEN IF there were less international antagonism toward us. I see posts from some of you guys and now Glenn Beck chimes somewhat in and I sit staring, at a loss on where to start. It’s the right wing version of hippie peacenik-ism. It is not even possible for there to be more historical evidence of the wholesale folly of this view. It’s like arguing that pigs can fly. How do you approach refuting something like that?[/quote]
Who is saying wait for it to come to our door step? We have satilites do we not? we can keep an eye on the world. In the digital age anything anyone says anywhere can be heard by everyone. If we hear chatter of some nation trying to attack us, and we see them starting to mobilize there forces we go out there and whoop there ass. But to think in this day and age where our military from here in America can be anywhere in the world in under a week that we need bases all around the world is insane, its stealing my money for something we don’t need.
Cut the bases around the world and look at the massive amount of money we will have flow back into our private sector. And since we won’t be in endless wars we will actually be able to spend all our money on new technowledgy making us safer.
If you do not agree with this then maybe we can come up with a compromise where my tax money for the military is only spent on home defence? Let me decide which part I want to fund and let you decide what part you want. Something tells me the bases over seas would be closed up really fast if that happened.
Repeated redeployments would NOT be less expensive than maintaining forward bases and would put us at a logistical and strategic disadvantage. Almost everything I’ve ever read or heard from people who’s lives have been given to modern warfare and who are experts in these areas reinforces this.
We are not going broke because of military spending which is one of the few actually mandated expenditures in our constitution. We would have vast piles of money for everything, including even more military spending if we had not set in place all these disastrous and obscenely expensive social programs. Yes, there is plenty of waste in the military, but social spending, at least the way we have been doing it, IS a waste. It’s worse than a waste.
Look, the Ron Paul vision of the world is just wrong. He is brilliant in many ways on domestic issues, but his positions on defense are dangerous and would save us no money in the end.