Political YouTube Clips Thread

Remove all ads!

T2, there's a difference between valid and reasonable. This guy - a counterterrorism expert no less - is advocating that it could ultimately be a good thing if the US gets hit again. You know, because 9/11 was such a boon for the US.

You believe that he's just saying that both administrations haven't done enough to secure our borders and confront terrorism with as he says, "as much violence as necessary" (I wonder what his views are on enhanced interrogation techniques). That's fine - but since you think all opinions are valid, I'll voice mine: This guy is a jerk.

EDIT: And what Chandos said too - he posted while I was typing.

 

Aldeth, he states it is an absurd situation. He believes it will take such an extreme act to get government to act. He's not advocating the act. Protecting America and her citizens with "as much violence as necessary" is a basic charter of our police forces and military -- he's simply stating the obvious. We should be used to this type of argument on the boards and see it for what it is -- an opinion taken to the absurd to drive the point home.

And, yes, I agree he's a jerk. But then I believe all the radical fringe are typically jerks (including the polar opposite of this guy with the "why can't we all just put down our weapons and get along" BS), but that doesn't mean their points of view do not have some merit.

 

T2, to quote from your quote:

Bolding of "chance" is mine.

In other words, he's actually viewing an attack as an opportunity. That's about as close to advocating an attack as you can get.

 

I guess it depends on how you interpret his comment in context with the discussion. TO me he's saying: "the only chance we have as a country right now [for the White House and Congress to see the error of their ways] is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States."

I put in brackets the subject I believe he was referring to -- this appears to me to be a comment made more from desperation and frustration at the government (and citizens of the US) than a comment to encourage attack by terrorists. He also expresses further disbelief in that it's absurd such drastic acts would be required to get the attention of the people of America (and hence force our politicians to change security policy). Granted, it was poorly phrased and quite extreme, but I think the intent was different than others are interpreting it.

 

We are just going to have to disagree. It sounds to me as if he is advocating an attack on the US in order to have a popular uprising against the government.

 

Which I'm pretty sure is criminal...

 

A "grassroots, bottom-up pressure" to change policy is not a popular uprising against the government by any definition I've ever heard.

The clip was amusing. The guy had a valid point about the security of the southern border, but in the end his radical view becomes the issue -- great entertainment, but poor debating. We see it all the time from radical groups like PETA and the DNC () -- we see it in arguments here in the alleys as well.

 

I think I can see both sides on this one. The thing I find most disturbing in all of this is Glenn Beck's show in general, and how it's being dismissed as "just funny." Beck has one of the most-watched shows on the most-watched cable news channel, and this kind of content is what he shows just about every day. Beck's overarching goal seems to be "scare the sh*t out of white people, whip them into an irrational anti-Obama hysteria and make them paranoid and distrustful of all news sources...except mine." It shouldn't be billed as "news" or "commentary," but "entertainment." And it's not. Beck's guest, though perhaps amusing, was dead serious, and taken seriously by being provided such a powerful platform.

If he were some cook blogger or cranked out some mimeographed newsletter from his basement, Beck wouldn't bother me. But he's very influential and pumps out a lot of alarmist, over-the-top nonsense to a very large and receptive audience. I don't find that funny.

 

We already have a lot of "grassroots bottom-up pressure groups," such as MoveOn or The Young Republican Federation, and while I did not say people were going to take up arms against the government, I don't think he meant just a "grassroots" action group - we already have loads of those.

 

I would say that the guy was using a strong hyperbolic statement to make a point -- from the text it seems that he thinks a country should secure its borders. That hardly seems un-American. He also is stating, obliquely, that the government elite has their heads so far up their wazoos that the only thing, right now, that would mobilize them would be a major attack. That is not the same thing as saying that such an attack is a desireable thing. He'd much rather the elite actually take action before that, but he believes they are too stupid to do it without ridiculous pressure.

Bottom line, it's rhetoric, not treason.

 

LKD,

The part I'm most opposed to is he says America's "only chance" is if another attack takes place. That suggests that unless we get hit again, we're screwed. That America has suffer through another attack in order to save itself - which while perhaps not treasonous is certainly un-American.

 

I agree with LKD. I think that the ranter would far prefer our government elite to get their heads out of their rectums and do what they need to do so we don't have to have a major attack to mobilize people to forcibly remove their heads from said rectums)

I'm still more offended by the original poster (of the video, not Chandos) for trying to paint Beck the way he did. Reading the comments on youtube it appears that the original poster got what he wanted.

 

I think he was a bit too "out there" and I do think that his remark at the end literally means that it's the best thing for the US to be attacked - maybe he did not mean it, but that is how it reads to me. I do not think he is in any way advocating it, though - just thinks that that it would be beneficial in that particular way.

What was most amusing, however, was when he corrected Beck that he, actually, did not serve in two consecutive White House administrations.

Priceless

 

Ah, I see I have misplaced this post originally... moved here!

​

The vid is obviously an answer to Glenn's demented routine (and a routine it is, Beck is not crazy; he simply serves his customers) here:

​

 

The first video is quite entertaining, but the second one was actually kind of frightening. The caller (who I'm ashamed is from my state) clearly didn't understand that there is a difference between healthcare and health insurance.

 

Make no mistake, such errors are common. Nevertheless, Beck's reaction to that was just whacky and incoherent ... as in the part of his rant about the speaker of parliament in Australia, and 'GET OFF MY PHONE!'.

Mr Beck, don't loose your mind already, heads of state are also coming to France, Switzerland, Austria, Germany and Great Britain for medical care.

 

That was all just radio shtick.

EDIT: Grammatical lesson. When you lose weight your pants become loose.

 

Anyone want to bet that Matt Lauer is going to try to have fired whoever it was who booked this interview with Michelle Malkin (the blogger that the left hates the most.) The look on his face at the end is priceless.

 

Matt Lauer HAD to know what he was getting into there. The only person I can think of that would have delivered a more one sided interview was Ann Coulter. (And I suppose Rush Limbaugh, but he never would have DONE the interview, whereas Coulter probably would have.)

If Matt was at all surprised at how that went down, he has no one to blame but himself. It would be like expecting Arianna Huffington to give a balanced interview - that wouldn't happen either.

 

Wow, can we say AWKWARD? I swear, he sounds like he was shell-shocked at the end of that. I think he may end up with PTSD or something.