Glenn Beck VS Alex Jones

[GostHacked]

I guess this is a post for Shady. This video gives Shady and WIN and a LOSS at the same time. A WIN because Alex tells us how bad Obama is (there is no doubt). And a LOSS because Glenn repackages Alex's info for Glenn's audience.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

[Pliny]

I guess this is a post for Shady. This video gives Shady and WIN and a LOSS at the same time. A WIN because Alex tells us how bad Obama is (there is no doubt). And a LOSS because Glenn repackages Alex's info for Glenn's audience.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Alex Jones believes that the Carnegie Foundation and the Ford foundation are the power players behind the scene, along with the builderbergs, the illuminati and the Freemasons. He is a conspiracy theorist. He believes 9/11 was an inside job. Is Glenn Beck a conspiracy theorist? He accuses Obama of growing government and implementing socialist concepts - he is calling for smaller, limited government. Alex Jones doesn't see that corporate influence would be limited by having a smaller government that concerned itself with injustices instead of redistributing wealth.

Jones thinks government is a tool of corporate power players. Beck thinks government is too big. It isn't odd that some of the people responsible for the growth of government would cross over to Jones' conspirators.

[Michael Hardner]

Is Glenn Beck a conspiracy theorist?

As far as he accuses Obama of having secret agendas and unstated radical opinions then yes.

[maple_leafs182]

Glenn Beck is some elitist's bid to hijack and control the tea party movement. The tea party wants change, some people don't want a movement of change running wild.

Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist and he has the right to be. All I hear him say is that there are certain special interest groups that are working together to serve their interests as appose societies interests, which there are. Believe it or not some very powerful people in the world don't believe in equality or democracy.

I'm not saying he is right about everything.

He also often states that the root cause of many of the problems is the Federal Reserve, he believes that private banks have hijacked the banking/monetary/economic system in America and in other countries, which they have.

I stopped listening to Alex because he is a fear monger, he does not offer any solutions, he can be very repetitive and is horrible at hosting interviews. I'll only ever listen to him if he is interviewing someone like Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura or Gerald Celente.

[Pliny]

As far as he accuses Obama of having secret agendas and unstated radical opinions then yes.

Did he say Obama has a secret agenda?

I believe Obama is not entirely open and honest about where he wants to take America. He campaigned on being a centrist but has pushed a leftist socialist agenda. Did he try and keep that secret?

Does he have unstated radical opinions? As far as most Americans are concerned Obama is somewhat radical, the mid-term elections will determine the percentage of Americans who think he is somewhat radical, and, as I said above, Obama is not totally open and honest about his vision for America. I think he knows he will get resistance and so is careful to be very general and demagogic in his statements and his speeches. When he says he wants to be clear he generally isn't.

He knows being tagged as a socialist in America is not where most Americans are. Most Canadians do not consider themselves socialist either - the NDP are as far to the left as most Canadians will tolerate and believe democracy will keep socialism at bay. They don't realize that they are already somewhat socialist and that socialism is a "progressive" means to an inexorable end.

[bloodyminded]

Does he have unstated radical opinions? As far as most Americans are concerned Obama is somewhat radical, the mid-term elections will determine the percentage of Americans who think he is somewhat radical

No they won't. They'll determine whether or not they think he's doing a good job. I rather suspect they'll largely vote "no."

That's not about radicalism. In most ways, his policies are a continuaiton of Bush's second term...from bailouts (supported by both presidential candidates during the election), to domestic spying, to secret "black sites" for detention and interrogation, to the war.

I suppose Bush was a left-wing, socialist radical.

I think he knows he will get resistance and so is careful to be very general and demagogic in his statements and his speeches. When he says he wants to be clear he generally isn't.

I'm inclined to agree.

Edited October 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

Glenn Beck is some elitist's bid to hijack and control the tea party movement. The tea party wants change, some people don't want a movement of change running wild.

Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist and he has the right to be. All I hear him say is that there are certain special interest groups that are working together to serve their interests as appose societies interests, which there are. Believe it or not some very powerful people in the world don't believe in equality or democracy.

I'm not saying he is right about everything.

He also often states that the root cause of many of the problems is the Federal Reserve, he believes that private banks have hijacked the banking/monetary/economic system in America and in other countries, which they have.

I stopped listening to Alex because he is a fear monger, he does not offer any solutions, he can be very repetitive and is horrible at hosting interviews. I'll only ever listen to him if he is interviewing someone like Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura or Gerald Celente.

The Tea party movement is a grassroots movement. They have no leader that they are tied to. As long as Sarah Palin and other prominent conservatives forward their cause of smaller government, less federal intervention and less taxation they will support them. Career politicians be they Republicans or Democrats, that don't hold those concepts will not get support form the Tea party. One just has to look at the ousting of Mike Castle in Delaware by Christine O'Donnell to see that incumbents are not popular if they appear to be of the Washington political establishment. That's where the Tea party is.

The left doesn't like it as they prefer big government.

I stopped listening to Conspiracy theorists altogether because they generally run off on unrealistic tangents without much foundation. Besides the power structure is quite evident. Who actually pulls what strings is not really that important but if it is necessary to do something the international governmental and economic agencies are what the heirarchy uses to accomplish what it wishes to accomplish. Their prime concerns, besides maintaining their elite position and the heirarchy (which is showing signs of stress), are population control, resources and pollution.

Our governance is tending towards centralization and political integration with global concerns and our common welfare being the driving force behind that centralization. Any decentralization of power is looked at as being a step backward from our "progress" and not in the interests of the collective good. But de-centralization is our only defense against tyranny. I believe Americans are the only ones that have any realization of this while the rest of the world "progressively" marches in lock step toward growth of a central authority. Obama, in my opinon, is just trying to get America on board, as it fits in with his world view.

[Pliny]

No they won't. They'll determine whether or not they think he's doing a good job. I rather suspect they'll largely vote "no."

That's not about radicalism. In most ways, his policies are a continuaiton of Bush's second term...from bailouts (supported by both presidential candidates during the election), to domestic spying, to secret "black sites" for detention and interrogation, to the war.

I suppose Bush was a left-wing, socialist radical.

Well, radical is just a term meaning a notable departure from the norm. They will definitely be determining whether or not he is doing a good job and I agree the answer will be "no". Perhaps you would prefer to call those voting "no" the radicals?

Bush had socialist advisers of that I have no doubt but they were more of a right-wing persuasion.

Bush wasn't a radical and I believe him when he says he was for capitalism.

He wasn't a great leader in any respect but he was at least somewhat humble.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Pliny

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, radical is just a term meaning a notable departure from the norm. They will definitely be determining whether or not he is doing a good job and I agree the answer will be "no". Perhaps you would prefer to call those voting "no" the radicals?

It's not so much about Obama as the US Congress....this is their time...Obama can scramble for 2012.

Bush had socialist advisers of that I have no doubt but they were more of a right-wing persuasion.

Bush wasn't a radical and I believe him when he says he was for capitalism.

He wasn't a great leader in any respect but he was at least somewhat humble.

Bush said what he was going to do and did it, all else be damned.

[Michael Hardner]

Did he say Obama has a secret agenda?

By calling Obama a socialist and a racist, yes.

I believe Obama is not entirely open and honest about where he wants to take America. He campaigned on being a centrist but has pushed a leftist socialist agenda. Did he try and keep that secret?

That is only true if Socialism is used to describe tax increases, and more government control - not as a theory of strong government control and ownership overall.

This is a stupid argument, though, and I'm not having it again. People who want to repeat the big lie will never be convinced. I had the same debate with left wingers who called GW Bush a fascist.

[LonJowett]

Didn't Glenn Beck mock that family whose house burned down and the fire department refused to put it out because they didn't pay a $75 fee?

I guess that's all anyone really needs to know about Glenn Beck.

[maple_leafs182]

The Tea party movement is a grassroots movement. They have no leader that they are tied to. As long as Sarah Palin and other prominent conservatives forward their cause of smaller government, less federal intervention and less taxation they will support them. Career politicians be they Republicans or Democrats, that don't hold those concepts will not get support form the Tea party. One just has to look at the ousting of Mike Castle in Delaware by Christine O'Donnell to see that incumbents are not popular if they appear to be of the Washington political establishment. That's where the Tea party is.

The left doesn't like it as they prefer big government.

I stopped listening to Conspiracy theorists altogether because they generally run off on unrealistic tangents without much foundation. Besides the power structure is quite evident. Who actually pulls what strings is not really that important but if it is necessary to do something the international governmental and economic agencies are what the heirarchy uses to accomplish what it wishes to accomplish. Their prime concerns, besides maintaining their elite position and the heirarchy (which is showing signs of stress), are population control, resources and pollution.

Our governance is tending towards centralization and political integration with global concerns and our common welfare being the driving force behind that centralization. Any decentralization of power is looked at as being a step backward from our "progress" and not in the interests of the collective good. But de-centralization is our only defense against tyranny. I believe Americans are the only ones that have any realization of this while the rest of the world "progressively" marches in lock step toward growth of a central authority. Obama, in my opinon, is just trying to get America on board, as it fits in with his world view.

The conspiracy involves all of us. Every morning we wake up and put our faith in the economic system, the political systems and other established systems of the world and we truly believe that they will lead to more prosperity, equality, freedom and a higher standard of living. That is a lie and that is the conspiracy.

Our current economic system is a system based on the management of our scarce resources...let's end scarcity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydQO6fPHsyY

Machines building cars.

We should be using this type of technology in agriculture. I think ending something like poverty or at the very least having right to food would be considered prosperous.

Instead of using the most advanced technology for the common good we generally use it for military purposes. This is going to sound lame but we should be making weapons of mass creating instead of weapons of mass destruction. Governments should be at the forefront of technology.

We are an analog society living in a digital age.

[Pliny]

By calling Obama a socialist and a racist, yes.

Obama is a socialist. The racist thing is iffy.

That is only true if Socialism is used to describe tax increases, and more government control - not as a theory of strong government control and ownership overall.

Socialism is a mechanism of progressivism to achieve the totalitarian socialist state. I don't think Obama realizes this. I'm sure he has great faith in government to resolve the problems of society and engineer it to prosperity for all.

All socialists believe this but the socialists being the engineers have the added benefit of being in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.

This is a stupid argument, though, and I'm not having it again. People who want to repeat the big lie will never be convinced. I had the same debate with left wingers who called GW Bush a fascist.

Bush wasn't a fascist but he sure didn't do much to stem the "progressive" socialist growth of government. Tax cuts are an empty gesture if not coupled with spending cuts.

Of course, Obama isn't going to attempt repealing the Homeland Security act and would love to end the Bush tax cuts so his deficit doesn't look so big. But he won't do anything that makes government smaller and that includes not ending Bush policies that grew government which is why th eleft is upset with him continuing Bush policies.

Nasty Pelosi was going to end deficit spending but that didn't happen. Whatever she says she wants to happen you can pretty much count on the opposite happening, including draining the swamp. Maybe, come to think of it, she was right and the swamp will be drained at the mid-terms.

I like the Tea Party.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

We should be using this type of technology in agriculture. I think ending something like poverty or at the very least having right to food would be considered prosperous.

We are using technology in agriculture.

The United nations Charter of Human Rights guarantees everyone the right to the essentials of life; food, clothing and shelter.

That doesn't mean someone doesn't have to make it though.

Instead of using the most advanced technology for the common good we generally use it for military purposes.

I think by "we" in this context you mean "government".

This is going to sound lame but we should be making weapons of mass creating instead of weapons of mass destruction. Governments should be at the forefront of technology.

Governments are at the forefront of technology - if they are going to use it, if not they won't invest.

We are an analog society living in a digital age.

We are humanity caught in an endless cycle of freedom, liberty and tyranny. We should be getting tired of it soon and maybe we'll find something more interesting like soaring into space or maybe less interesting like being put out to pasture.

[Pliny]

It's not so much about Obama as the US Congress....this is their time...Obama can scramble for 2012.

It's about the policies of the Obama administration mainly. Yes, it's the midterms and ultimately Congress will pay the price. Obama is helping in the campaign by appealing to voters to "stay the course" and not turn back. Will that get the Democrats anywhere.

Bush said what he was going to do and did it, all else be damned.

I agree, to his credit, he was a pretty straight shooter but he was a poor leader perhaps because of poor advisers.

[maple_leafs182]

We are using technology in agriculture.

I mean we should be mass producing food with machine labour not man labour. Create abundance of food so we don't have to sell or buy food any more.

I think by "we" in this context you mean "government".

No, me and you, all of us. This is the sort of stuff we should be working towards.

I know, it's a crazy thought, people working together to make life better for everyone.

Governments are at the forefront of technology - if they are going to use it, if not they won't invest.

Who is responsible for allowing your house to be heated and cooled, a technician, technology is what solves problems, governments don't. Technology is what frees humanity and increase our standard of living. Governments will never solve poverty or pollution, technology will.

We are humanity caught in an endless cycle of freedom, liberty and tyranny. We should be getting tired of it soon and maybe we'll find something more interesting like soaring into space or maybe less interesting like being put out to pasture.

We really are, right now we are in tyranny, we need to end that cycle. What hasn't changed the whole time throughout history, we have always lived in a world of scarcity. That is what needs to change.

[GostHacked]

The Tea party movement is a grassroots movement. They have no leader that they are tied to. As long as Sarah Palin and other prominent conservatives forward their cause of smaller government, less federal intervention and less taxation they will support them. Career politicians be they Republicans or Democrats, that don't hold those concepts will not get support form the Tea party. One just has to look at the ousting of Mike Castle in Delaware by Christine O'Donnell to see that incumbents are not popular if they appear to be of the Washington political establishment. That's where the Tea party is.

The left doesn't like it as they prefer big government.

It may have started out as grassroots (which I have my doubts), but it was quickly hijacked by the GOP.

I stopped listening to Conspiracy theorists altogether because they generally run off on unrealistic tangents without much foundation. Besides the power structure is quite evident. Who actually pulls what strings is not really that important but if it is necessary to do something the international governmental and economic agencies are what the heirarchy uses to accomplish what it wishes to accomplish. Their prime concerns, besides maintaining their elite position and the heirarchy (which is showing signs of stress), are population control, resources and pollution.

The question of who pulls the strings is very important, I think. What other strings are they pulling and to what end? But the rest stands true to me.

Our governance is tending towards centralization and political integration with global concerns and our common welfare being the driving force behind that centralization. Any decentralization of power is looked at as being a step backward from our "progress" and not in the interests of the collective good. But de-centralization is our only defense against tyranny. I believe Americans are the only ones that have any realization of this while the rest of the world "progressively" marches in lock step toward growth of a central authority. Obama, in my opinon, is just trying to get America on board, as it fits in with his world view.

Centralization is a bad concept. In terms of power, it has taken the power out of each country, giving it to a central authority, practically eliminating the sovereignty of that country and the ability to govern itself. We can look at the European Union as an example of how wrong centralization can be. Brussles controls everything in the EU. They can make policy for all of Europe. The borders of these countries don't actually exist anymore. You can travel between the countries without passports, and all using one currency. You are no longer French, Spanish, German, Dutch, ect .. you are all European.

Centralization allows the very few to control the entire planet.

There has been a North American Union in the works for some time, and we already have an African Union. Eventually all these unions will then fall under one more move of centralization and that is the concept of a one world government. People on the other side of the planet will be making the rules and decisions for all of us, with 'out best interests in mind'. I'm not buying it. The ineffective UN will be part of and evolve into that one world government. Under a one world government, I would no longer be Canadian.

I think the human race is too diverse and too complex to have a one world government work effectively.

[GostHacked]

I mean we should be mass producing food with machine labour not man labour. Create abundance of food so we don't have to sell or buy food any more.

We already mass produce food to that point. What I keep saying is that many countries lack some infrastructure to transport food. There is no shortage of food in westernized nations. My office overlooks a warehouse filled to the brim with food.

No, me and you, all of us. This is the sort of stuff we should be working towards.

I know, it's a crazy thought, people working together to make life better for everyone.

As long as we can accept each others differences, then yes this can work.

Who is responsible for allowing your house to be heated and cooled, a technician, technology is what solves problems, governments don't. Technology is what frees humanity and increase our standard of living. Governments will never solve poverty or pollution, technology will.

Maybe we should be electing scientists and technicians to government instead of ineffectual blowhard windbags.

We really are, right now we are in tyranny, we need to end that cycle. What hasn't changed the whole time throughout history, we have always lived in a world of scarcity. That is what needs to change.

Scarcity does increase demand and cost of said item. Makes it more valuable, and sought after.

[Pliny]

I mean we should be mass producing food with machine labour not man labour. Create abundance of food so we don't have to sell or buy food any more.

I guess you haven't been to a farm lately.

No, me and you, all of us. This is the sort of stuff we should be working towards.

I know, it's a crazy thought, people working together to make life better for everyone.

How are "we", me and you, spending on the military? As far as I know the government collects taxes and then chooses where it wants to spend it. There are lots of things they pick that I wouldn't choose to spend money on.

Who is responsible for allowing your house to be heated and cooled, a technician, technology is what solves problems, governments don't. Technology is what frees humanity and increase our standard of living. Governments will never solve poverty or pollution, technology will.

So government should not spend money to solve poverty or pollution? I'm up with that.

We really are, right now we are in tyranny, we need to end that cycle. What hasn't changed the whole time throughout history, we have always lived in a world of scarcity. That is what needs to change.

Yeah. I never seem to have enough money. What else is scarce? Work?

I don't know what you are looking at, we have never been so well off.

The first world nations have never had governments so fat and arrogant. The recent economic downturn kind of shook them up a little but they are no less arrogant.

There will never be a world without scarcity of some sort. You are thinking of heaven or Nirvana or something. Or you are thinking of machines doing all the work and men can lay around emulating their governments by being fat and arrogant and entitled.

You are saying we should make some things scarce, like work. That is a road to no where if I ever saw one. Work has a bad name and gets it from people running around saying we should work less and get paid more. So people want to work less hours in the day and less days in the year and they want to get paid more for it. And that is the road to prosperity.

What happened to enjoyment and pride in one's work and what he produced? Certainly, technology will provide the means to develop economies of scale, i.e., increase production beyond what the individual alone is capable of which increases plenty and reduces scarcity. But that does not mean that work should be made obsolete and we should now live in ostentacious luxury.

You are going to university. Are you majoring in the humanities?

[dre]

Did he say Obama has a secret agenda?

I believe Obama is not entirely open and honest about where he wants to take America. He campaigned on being a centrist but has pushed a leftist socialist agenda. Did he try and keep that secret?

Does he have unstated radical opinions? As far as most Americans are concerned Obama is somewhat radical, the mid-term elections will determine the percentage of Americans who think he is somewhat radical, and, as I said above, Obama is not totally open and honest about his vision for America. I think he knows he will get resistance and so is careful to be very general and demagogic in his statements and his speeches. When he says he wants to be clear he generally isn't.

He knows being tagged as a socialist in America is not where most Americans are. Most Canadians do not consider themselves socialist either - the NDP are as far to the left as most Canadians will tolerate and believe democracy will keep socialism at bay. They don't realize that they are already somewhat socialist and that socialism is a "progressive" means to an inexorable end.

I believe Obama is not entirely open and honest about where he wants to take America. He campaigned on being a centrist but has pushed a leftist socialist agenda

Left wing adgenda?

Lets see... So far hes transfered hundreds of billions from taxpayers into the pockets of wealthy corporations. Instead of implementing Universal Healthcare he wrote a massive corporate welfare bill that forces people to patronize private health insurers. And hes ratcheted up the spending on a war that has gone nowhere for eight years, and tried to start a war with Pakistan. And lets not forget hes extended the practice of torture, kept the patriot act.

Nothing about his adgenda is left wing at all. Hes just another in a long line of corporate shills in the US government.

[DogOnPorch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1s4fj-5zlk

For 700 billion...I'll come to you!!!

Edited October 8, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Shady]

I guess this is a post for Shady. This video gives Shady and WIN and a LOSS at the same time. A WIN because Alex tells us how bad Obama is (there is no doubt). And a LOSS because Glenn repackages Alex's info for Glenn's audience.

I'm not sure why it's a loss for me. I don't listen to Alex Jones (whoever the hell he is) and I don't watch or listen much to Glenn Beck either. However, I did notice one glaring inaccuracy from the video you provided. Glenn Beck blames Republicans almost as much as he does Democrats. He insists there's barely much difference between the two parties. So in that sense, the person in your video doesn't really know what he's talking about. Other than that, I couldn't really care less about either of them.

[maple_leafs182]

Think passed governments, money, all of it.

This planet is full of resources, many are scarce. That being said, the proper management and utilization of these resources is the most important thing we can do. How well we relate to our surrounding is what will determine if we survive.

Poverty, disease, pollutions, these problems are true problems. How do I know, because they are problems common to all of us. We should be using what resources we have to try and solve these problems.

I don't mean just the physical resources but our mental resources as well.

I get that if we had completely automated farms so humans would never have to work to get food besides maintaining these machines or implementing advancements in technology, that would eliminate jobs. Hell, the economy would collapse, although it already is collapsing.

Look at what we would gain, we would be ending starvation and come closer to solving poverty.

That is social prosperity.

You are going to university. Are you majoring in the humanities?

I'm taking economics and political science. haven't decided my major yet.

[bud]

the neocons have stolen the tea party movement. fox has been a major tool for this theft.

[bud]

Glenn Beck blames Republicans almost as much as he does Democrats. He insists there's barely much difference between the two parties.

but then he tells you to go vote for republicans.

a major cornerstone of the original tea party movement was to stay away from wars and to get out of iraq/afghanistan/pakistan/yemen and hundreds of other locations around the world. the original tea party movement also says that aid, such as $3billion a year, should not be given to israel. glenn beck/palin and the other so-called teabaggers have a different idea when it comes to those things.