Glenn Beck VS Alex Jones

[Michael Hardner]

Isn't Ron Paul just a different type of outsider ? Fine, he's more intelligent than Palin, he opposes the war and so on - but he has some distinctly strange views.

I don't like the emergence of all of these eccentrics hoping to lead the world's last superpower.

[maple_leafs182]

Isn't Ron Paul just a different type of outsider ? Fine, he's more intelligent than Palin, he opposes the war and so on - but he has some distinctly strange views.

I don't like the emergence of all of these eccentrics hoping to lead the world's last superpower.

What views do you find strange?

[Michael Hardner]

What views do you find strange?

He's a free-market zealot, for one thing. From Wiki:

"As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention. "

Also something about auditing the gold in Fort Knox ?

[maple_leafs182]

Ron Paul talking about the Federal Reserve and monetary/banking policy.
This is in 2007, he warns of the possibility of a coming recession or depression and the collapse of the dollar. It is a very good watch.

He was right about the recession. The dollar is hitting record lows against gold and many currencies around the world, the Canadian dollar is near par with the US dollar. The US dollar is collapsing.

That is what the tea party wants, someone honest.

[bloodyminded]

That is what the tea party wants, someone honest.

Then why their self-evident and outspoken love affair with straight-shootin' geniuses like Palin and her younger, witchy clone?

[GostHacked]

Then why their self-evident and outspoken love affair with straight-shootin' geniuses like Palin and her younger, witchy clone?

The Tea Party if once a grassroots (which I am highly suspicious of) is no longer grassroots. It's been hijacked by the GOP and other entities supporting the GOP. There is little to no substance with either Palin or her witchy clone.

Maple Leafs

.He was right about the recession. The dollar is hitting record lows against gold and many currencies around the world, the Canadian dollar is near par with the US dollar. The US dollar is collapsing.

That is what the tea party wants, someone honest.

He was indeed correct. However the powers that be (on both sides) do not want someone honest, because you'd have many things come out of the closet in which many politicians would rather have kept in the closet.

[Pliny]

He was indeed correct. However the powers that be (on both sides) do not want someone honest, because you'd have many things come out of the closet in which many politicians would rather have kept in the closet.

Didn't Nasty Pelosi say she was going to "drain the swamp"?

Maybe this is her way of doing it.

Screw up as much as you can, be as arrogant as you can be, and legislate whatever you think people don't want.

[GostHacked]

Didn't Nasty Pelosi say she was going to "drain the swamp"?

Maybe this is her way of doing it.

Screw up as much as you can, be as arrogant as you can be, and legislate whatever you think people don't want.

I wonder how much legislation gets rammed through without any debate by congress or without having members actually read or have the material available for them to read. In many cases they are told to vote without even reading the bill they are voting on. That seems pretty shady to me.

[Oleg Bach]

I will always be skeptical of any 'grassroots' movement in this day and age.

WHAT does "grassroots" actually mean? The terms gives me the impression of a bunch of down to earth farmers entering politics and bringing practicality and honesty...Like Mr. Smith goes to Washington. BUT - all so-called grass roots movements start off well and then the suits take over.

[Pliny]

Oh, sure it does. As far as they have ever been some independent movement--which isn't really the case, at least not since they picked up steam (because they picked up steam only with the help of powerful financiers and Conservative statists) they have been co-opted. They are not distinct from the Republican Party. And that party, powerfully successful, politically shrewd, and astoundingly wealthy--now owns them.

Powerful financiers and Conservative statists can climb aboard if they like. Try and change the direction of the tea party from advocating small government and they won't. I agree that the Republicans have been the only party that promised that in the past but never came through and grew government, perhaps at a slower pace than Democrats, but still grew it. The TEA party is holding them to that promise. The far-left Democrats, the core of it's base is exposed as a complete fraud and the Republican party can finally part with it's progressive ways.

You think some middle-class whiners, who despise "socialism" while demanding they keep their medical benefits ( Too funny, yes?) are going to enact a sea-change in one of the great political success stories in the modern era?

Yes. The whiners do despise "socialism". Let me ask you something. What would you do with people that have been promised and have paid into an entitlement who have become dependent upon that entitlement but it is no longer economically feasible to provide it?

You find it funny? If rioting in the streets is what you want then continue to provide for and increase the entitlement class. The current protest marches in France; Europe the land of entitlement, about raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 and the riots in Greece are examples of what you'll see in any nation's future that can no longer afford the entitlement class...funny? Yeah, a real riot!

It just tells me you aren't serious about what you are talking about and never really gave it any thought at all. You are simply just dismissing dissenting views as originating from dullards and malcontents. Well, prepare for some surprises in your comfy world.

Palin is one of their heroes. That alone tells you that government statism is intrinsically involved. The new candidates are a minor shake-up, and will have no serious and lasting effects on policies. Especially since, in power, they'll do as their told.

You are aware (or are you? Maybe you closed your ears?) that, for example, Rand Paul has changed many of his ideas literally 180 degrees, in total alliance with Republican Party mandates?

Ask yourself that question again? He hasn't changed any of his ideas. He is seeking some compassion for those who are now dependent upon the system. You can't pull the rug out form under their feet just like that. You have to either wean people off their habit or tyrannically remove the drug. Rand Paul is offering solutions that involve curtailing entitlements that the federal government should never have initiated because, one; it isn't constitutionally their mandate, and two; it leads to dissent, division, injustices, class warfare and ultimately economic and social collapse.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I wonder how much legislation gets rammed through without any debate by congress or without having members actually read or have the material available for them to read. In many cases they are told to vote without even reading the bill they are voting on. That seems pretty shady to me.

Nasty Pelosi re 2000 page Obamacare: "You have to pass the bill before you can find out what's in it."

[Pliny]

WHAT does "grassroots" actually mean? The terms gives me the impression of a bunch of down to earth farmers entering politics and bringing practicality and honesty...Like Mr. Smith goes to Washington. BUT - all so-called grass roots movements start off well and then the suits take over.

This did happen with the Reform Party in Canada. They traded principle for power.

Re-education though is a slow process. First, true information must be presented and compared to existing false information. The false information will not stand up to the comparison. Politically special interests, those with power and/or entitlements will resist any change and discredit the true information any way they can. I am not simply talking about trading ideologies. I am talking about realizing human potential. Challenging those who try to contain and limit humanity, who suck it's vitality and energy out of their own fears. Those who would oppress their fellow man out of some misconception of it being for the collective good.

Progressives are those who are heating the proverbial pot eventually boiling the unwitting frog.

At least the Conservatives have dropped the term "progressive" from the party name. That may be the only change brought by the reform party but it's a start and a good one.

[bloodyminded]

Powerful financiers and Conservative statists can climb aboard if they like.

They're not climbing on board. It's now their movement.

Try and change the direction of the tea party from advocating small government and they won't.

They already have; unless you mean, as I suspect you do, that "advocating" means only uttering banal phraseology, and has nothing to do with actions. Theory trumps reality, eh?

I agree that the Republicans have been the only party that promised that in the past but never came through and grew government, perhaps at a slower pace than Democrats, but still grew it.

If the Republicans "grew...at a slower pace than the Democrats," then by what mystery of physics did they achieve the same size?

The far-left Democrats, the core of it's base is exposed as a complete fraud and the Republican party can finally part with it's progressive ways.

1. That you think the "core of...[the] base" of the centrist, business-centric financial-political powerhouse called the Democratic Party is "far left," then you honestly, sincerely, have no clue at all what you're talking about.

The Democrats are "far left"?

2. You blame what you perceive as Republican issues on the "far left Democrats."

So no one is responsible for their own actions--except for the "far left."

Conservatives can't help they way they behave; they've been "forced" into it, presumably by God, and had no say in their own behaviour.

That's awesome.

Yes. The whiners do despise "socialism".

Except in the ways they benefit from it, and jealously guard it.

At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about — and nowhere do we see that dynamic as clearly as here in Kentucky, where Rand Paul is barreling toward the Senate with the aid of conservative icons like Palin.

Taibbi's right. And until you can explain this open-faced hypocrisy--without blaming the hypocrisy of those you support on "progressives," as if no one else is responsible for their own actions--this remains clear.

It just tells me you aren't serious about what you are talking about and never really gave it any thought at all. You are simply just dismissing dissenting views as originating from dullards and malcontents. Well, prepare for some surprises in your comfy world.

Why? Are the gun-totin' bible-thumpers coming for the leftists next? Perhaps they could kill a million lefties, like General Suharto did with US help in the mid-sixties. No doubt you cnsider this a fine program, even as you spout sanctimonious moral platitudes about how the slack-jawed knuckledraggers aren't getting enough respect.

Ask yourself that question again? He hasn't changed any of his ideas.

Oh:

Early in his campaign, Dr. Paul, the son of the uncompromising libertarian hero Ron Paul, denounced Medicare as "socialized medicine." But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. "Physicians," he said, "should be allowed to make a comfortable living."

Those of us who might have expected Paul's purist followers to abandon him in droves have been disappointed; Paul is now the clear favorite to win in November. Ha, ha, you thought we actually gave a shit about spending, joke's on you. That's because the Tea Party doesn't really care about issues — it's about something deep down and psychological, something that can't be answered by political compromise or fundamental changes in policy. At root, the Tea Party is nothing more than a them-versus-us thing. They know who they are, and they know who we are ("radical leftists" is the term they prefer), and they're coming for us on Election Day, no matter what we do — and, it would seem, no matter what their own leaders like Rand Paul do.

Trust me, Pliny, in no time the Tea Partiers will be voting for people with the "Revolutioanry" ideals of subsidizing Goldman-Sachs.

They're already halfway there, by voting for Paul, who opposes cutting government largesse--to himself and his followers, I mean. Low-income folks, minorities, the elderly, inner cities...all these are possibly still fair game.

What Paul--and yourself--really want is selective socialism, only for the "right" people. This is literally Paul's stance at this point.

Here's a brief history of Paul's (very rapid) transformation:

Paul was transformed from insurgent outsider to establishment stooge in the space of almost exactly one year, making a journey that with eerie cinematic precision began and ended in the same place: The Rachel Maddow Show. When he first appeared on the air with the MSNBC leading lady and noted Bible Belt Antichrist to announce his Senate candidacy in May 2009, Paul came out blazing with an inclusive narrative that seemingly offered a realistic alternative for political malcontents on both sides of the aisle. He talked with pride about how his father's anti-war stance attracted young voters (mentioning one Paul supporter in New Hampshire who had "long hair and a lip ring"). Even the choice of Maddow as a forum was clearly intended to signal that his campaign was an anti-establishment, crossover effort. "Bringing our message to those who do not yet align themselves as Republicans is precisely how we grow as a party," Paul said, explaining the choice.

Then:

Unsurprisingly, the GOP froze Paul out, attempting to exclude him from key party gatherings in Kentucky like the Fayette County Republican Party Picnic and the Boone County Republican Party Christmas Gala. "We had the entire Republican establishment of the state and the nation against us," says David Adams, who mobilized the first Tea Party meetings in Kentucky before serving as Paul's campaign manager during the primaries.

Then:

In the primary almost a year later, Paul stomped Grayson, sending shock waves through the national party. The Republican candidate backed by the party's Senate minority leader had just received an ass-whipping by a Tea Party kook, a man who tried to excuse BP's greed-crazed fuck-up in the Gulf on the grounds that "sometimes accidents happen." Paul celebrated his big win by going back to where he'd begun his campaign, The Rachel Maddow Show, where he made a big show of joyously tearing off his pseudolibertarian underpants for the whole world to see — and that's where everything changed for him.

Then:

Paul's libertarian coming-out party was such a catastrophe — the three gaffes came within days of each other — that he immediately jumped into the protective arms of Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party. "I think he's said quite enough for the time being in terms of national press coverage," McConnell said, explaining why Paul had been prevailed upon by the party to cancel an appearance on Meet the Press. Some news outlets reported that Paul canceled the appearance after a call from Karl Rove to Adams, who concedes that he did speak with Rove around that time

[quite the anti-establishment figure, ain't he?

Then:

Soon after, McConnell threw yet another "Bailout Ball" fundraiser in Washington — only this time it was for Rand Paul. The candidate who just a year before had pledged not to accept money from TARP supporters was now romping in bed with those same politicians. When pressed for an explanation of Paul's about-face on the bailouts, Adams offers an incredibly frank admission. "When he said he would not take money from people who voted for the bank bailout, he also said, in the same breath, that our first phone call after the primary would be to Senator Mitch McConnell," says Adams. "Making fun of the Bailout Ball was just for the primary."

With all the "just for the primary" stuff out of the way, Paul's platform began to rapidly "evolve." Previously opposed to erecting a fence on the Mexican border, Paul suddenly came out in favor of one. He had been flatly opposed to all farm subsidies; faced with having to win a general election in a state that receives more than $265 million a year in subsidies, Paul reversed himself and explained that he was only against subsidies to "dead farmers" and those earning more than $2 million. Paul also went on the air with Fox News reptile Sean Hannity and insisted that he differed significantly from the Libertarian Party, now speaking more favorably about, among other things, judicious troop deployments overseas.

Beyond that, Paul just flat-out stopped talking about his views — particularly the ones that don't jibe with right-wing and Christian crowds, like curtailing the federal prohibition on drugs. Who knows if that had anything to do with hawkish Christian icon Sarah Palin agreeing to headline fundraisers for Paul, but a huge chunk of the candidate's libertarian ideals have taken a long vacation.

"When he was pulling no punches, when he was reciting his best stuff, I felt like I knew him," says Koch, the former campaign volunteer who now works with the Libertarian Party in Kentucky. "But now, with Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove calling the shots, I feel like I don't know him anymore."

Hardcore young libertarians like Koch — the kind of people who were outside the tent during the elder Paul's presidential run in 2008 — cared enough about the issues to jump off the younger Paul's bandwagon when he cozied up to the Republican Party establishment. But it isn't young intellectuals like Koch who will usher Paul into the U.S. Senate in the general election; it's those huge crowds of pissed-off old people who dig Sarah Palin and Fox News and call themselves Tea Partiers. And those people really don't pay attention to specifics too much. Like dogs, they listen to tone of voice and emotional attitude.

Edited October 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

Nasty Pelosi re 2000 page Obamacare: "You have to pass the bill before you can find out what's in it."

I think that happened to the Patriot Act as well.

[maple_leafs182]

The Tea Party if once a grassroots (which I am highly suspicious of)

It was grassroots, I saw it come to be.

Then why their self-evident and outspoken love affair with straight-shootin' geniuses like Palin and her younger, witchy clone?

I never really listen to speeches from Palin, she supported McCain, I lost interest in her right there. I think Palin is an attempt to co opt the movement.

O'Donnell supports smaller government, Ron Paul has been preaching that message for years, that is why they support her.

He was indeed correct. However the powers that be (on both sides) do not want someone honest, because you'd have many things come out of the closet in which many politicians would rather have kept in the closet.

That is exactly why the Tea Party will gravitate to him next election like they did the last election, they are tired of all the lies and deceptions.

Come the November mid term election, the Republicans will take control. The people will think that change will actually be coming like they did when Obama came into office, they will be left disappointed again, nothing will change.

These next few years watch to see protesting rise in America as the economy continues to unravel and the dollar collapses.

[GostHacked]

It was grassroots, I saw it come to be.[./quote]

It may just be grassroots, but I still highly have my doubts.

I never really listen to speeches from Palin, she supported McCain, I lost interest in her right there. I think Palin is an attempt to co opt the movement.

Which is good, because she is nothing more than a windbag. A cold windbag.

That is exactly why the Tea Party will gravitate to him next election like they did the last election, they are tired of all the lies and deceptions.

More people will gravitate to him, but the powers that be won't let him get into the white house. And never undersestimate the sheepness of people. We have examples of posters here in terms of how they support certain candidates.

Come the November mid term election, the Republicans will take control. The people will think that change will actually be coming like they did when Obama came into office, they will be left disappointed again, nothing will change

It's what I have been saying here for some time. Obama or whatever it does not matter who is POTUS. They do not run the country and have not been for some time.

These next few years watch to see protesting rise in America as the economy continues to unravel and the dollar collapses.

Only if there is not a new ep of Jersy Shore.

[Pliny]

I think that happened to the Patriot Act as well.

It's been SOP for awhile now.

[GostHacked]

It's been SOP for awhile now.

Which should scare the hell out of anyone. Rules are being put on people without the voter members of said rule knowing what the rule actually is and what it's reprocussions are. I would suspect this happens all over the world in almost every country.

If that is the case, then it's almost like all the rules end up to be a stack of cards.

[Pliny]

They're not climbing on board. It's now their movement.

You are looking at it through Chomsky's eyes of the large scale institutional establishment and believe it to be rock solid.

I think with the economic entitlement collapse occurring in Europe, China and India emerging as formidable economic markets, Iran threatening the rest of the world and the TEA party in the States that there is a definite shift in the winds.

Those who don't see it are holding on to the world structure you see.

While you, I think correctly, see that right and left are largely an obfuscation foisted upon the western political scene to keep the masses entertained and busy arguing there is no other frame of reference offered replacing the model from which to proceed. The large scale institutional establishment to you is firmly in control. Is it a great conspiracy? What do you think the large scale institutional establishment has as a goal? I can only see that being it's further solidification but I see it unraveling. Judging from what you are saying you see it's unraveling as an impossibility.

I'm not going to argue your points about Rand Paul. They are mostly opinion and the left's portrayal of how they wish their loyal followers to see the right - in Chomsky's words, an obfuscation at worst. Some points may even be correct opinions but let's just say talking about eliminating people's entitlements is a touchy subject. Mention anything about cutting spending and someone will scream. I don't see any plans for Democrats wanting to cut spending. They keep asking where the Republicans will cut and every time they get an answer they use it to scare the entitlement crowd. "Rand Paul wants to get rid of medicaid,..agghhhh...pull out your hair." "The Tea party wants to get rid of the Department of Education...aghhh...the world will end." It certainly would be the end of Mr. Chomsky's world.

As for the far left being the base of the democratic party, they are big government advocates and we can't pretend capitalists are exclusive to it although you seem to imply all capitalists are right wing. If you want to get away from referencing the right-left paradigm I'm all for it. The political spectrum should go from anarchy to the totalitarian state anyway. We could then remove some of the obfuscation of who is for big government and who isn't - most of the Democrats and Republicans can be placed on the big government side for sure with different interests maybe but they believe in government intervention in all aspects of society, social engineering, economic control and manipulation which at a national level of government develops into a system of entitlements and privileges for special interests - political parties being the prime special interests.

So if you do wish to get out of the obfuscatory cloud that is politics you will have to clear away some of the debris first.