Political YouTube Clips Thread

Remove all ads!

I will give Obama credit for this. Although, I'm not quite sure it is as important as CNN seems to think it is.

 

Yeah, I think I'm more embarrased for CNN airing that than impressed with Obama. I put it about on par with them saying he has a better haircut or is more fit than previous presidents. It may be quite true, but I don't really think it matters.

I'm sorry, but Obama's 'swagga' isn't going to fix the economy, or conclude any wars, or settle talks with North Korea.

 

Maybe not, but at least he'll be able to call Ahmadinejad a "motherf***ker" and get away with it.

 

That's odd – I watched that video 3 times and couldn't find the part where the people in the report claimed Obama's 'swagga' was going to fix the economy, conclude wars, or settle talks with North Korea. Must be a YouTube error.

 

Come on, Spluge, was expect better from you. Since it was discussing Obama's "swagga", the correct term is "muthaf*cka". I'll use it in context: One Somali pirate says to another, "Maybe we should stop hijacking US ships. That Obama guy is a bad muthaf*cka."

 

I may have to subscribe to this guy

 

DR, please. My point was that news should be reserved for things that, y'know, actually matter, such as: a plan to fix the economy, conclude any wars, or settle talks with North Korea. Obama's 'swagga', while possibly unique and unusual, does not have any significance to the vast majority of Americans. Hell, I'll bet there are more than a few black people that feel belittled because of that news article. It should never have even been scripted, much less recorded and aired.

TGS, that video's mention of the Associated Press article goes along the same lines. Next thing you know, ABC will be running a special on how Obama's breath is minty fresh.

 

In general, sure. But Clinton playing the sax, Bush clearing brush at his Crawford ranch, Reagan being an avid equestrian...these are all interesting facets of the personality of the most powerful man in the world. These were also covered by the news media, quite regularly, also to the interest of the public. Do these things matter? No, but they are interesting. Not all news relating to the President and his family has to be political, nor should it be - we get enough of that as it is. This stuff "matters" insofar as people want to know their president is a human being. And on a slow news day, like the day this aired, they're interesting factoids. You're acting as if CNN was treating 'swagga' like breaking news, which it clearly was not.

So I got your point, and my point was that yours was moot.

 

See, I disagree with you on the role of the news. The news should relay news, not comforting platatudes. They messed up when they covered Clinton and his Sax, they messed up when they covered Bush and his ranch, and they messed up when they covered Reagan and the birds. The news media has become far too much about entertaining the public and far too little about actually educating them on anything, and I think this needs to be remedied.

 

Oh I agree with you on that account Nog, and so would most people. The news networks - particularly the big-3 cable news outlets: FOX, CNN and MSNBC - put ratings over journalism on the priority ladder years ago. They are in the business of selling ad revenue via entertainment, not responsibly educating the public. Good luck getting that business model to change any time soon.

But I still see the value in public interest stories, especially when they relate to the President, and would argue that they can be newsworthy (just in a "not on the front page" kind of way). These are nice things to know, and no other network is really going to cover that stuff, especially for just a 2-minute segment. It's harmless time-filler, providing a nice occasional break from all the seriousness, and is nothing to get worked up or indignant over.

And FYI - equestrians like horses, not birds.

 

Wicky Wicky

 

Jesse Ventura 1, Elizabeth Hasselback and Dick Cheney, 0.

 

Take a gander at this:



What a disgrace these guys are to this country.

 

Oh no he didn't!

I had to listen to this twice because I was sure I was not hearing this correctly. Has the FBI showed up to arrest this guy yet? His comments are borderline treasonous. In order to save the US we need OBL to attack us again? WTF?

 

I'm not quite sure that "these" is the correct term. I hear the other guy saying all sorts of crazy things, but I'm not quite sure that Beck is agreeing with anything he is saying. I have a feeling that this may be an "editing hatchet job", but I'm not sure.

 

Apparently this is a transcript of the whole interview (scroll down past the YouTube link). I'll also post it below.

Spoiler

BECK: OK. Something, a story that -- I mean, you have been talking about forever and I have been with you the whole time saying something doesn't make sense here. The most dangerous place in the world is the U.S.-Mexico border.

Now, the Obama administration is going to get serious about it. He's going to send 1,500 National Guards to the border. Let me actually give you all the details: 1,500 unarmed National Guard volunteers. We have money to study to the mating habits of Argentinean men in bars and we have to ask for volunteers to protect our border?

Let's bring in Michael Scheuer. He's the former CIA counterterrorist analyst and the author of "Marching Toward Hell." One that actually -- Michael Scheuer is the guy who I have disagreed with on many occasions, but I think he is an honorable man and he never pulls punches. He'll tell you exactly what he believes.

And, Michael, I appreciate that. I thought of you today. I thought -- when I read this story -- Michael Scheuer has to be hemorrhaging, just having some sort of a brain aneurysm. How does this make sense, Michael?

MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER CIA COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: It doesn't, Glenn. It is -- you know, I am so old, I remember going to school and being taught that a sovereign country controls its borders.

BECK: Wow.

SCHEUER: Not for racist reasons, but for reasons of national security. And this is perfectly consistent with Republicans and Democrats.

BECK: It is.

SCHEUER: They send our soldiers into harm's way and they're targets, they're not killers.

BECK: Yes.

SCHEUER: It's an extraordinary waste of human lives, but, of course, the Democrats specialize in that.

BECK: Well, I have to tell you -- and, Michael, the reason why I really didn't like you the first time is because you start speaking out right after 9/11. I don't know, maybe it was a year after or something, and you said, they're not serious about getting Obama -- I mean, Osama.

And I was still, I was still in a place where I believed the lie, and I listened to you and I thought, how dare him say that? That's absolutely -- but then I listened to you, and I believe you.

We are doing the same thing. A lot of people, they watch and they just think this show is anti-Obama. It's not. I was saying the same thing about George W. Bush, about the war, and George W. Bush about the -- about the border. It makes no sense!

SCHEUER: Glenn, I -- our government elite does not care about the future of American society or our country.

BECK: So, OK, that's .

SCHEUER: It's just as simple as that.

BECK: That's a wild charge to make. So, tell me what you think they are doing? What is their end game then? If they don't -- I mean, to say the president on either side or anybody in Congress doesn't care is quite a charge.

SCHEUER: Well, the component of that is they care more about their offices than they care about American -- about the American people. Listen, what the Democrats want is what Mrs. Clinton laid out when she first went to Mexico. She blamed the violence in Mexico on the availability of guns in the United States.

What this is that they're going to eventually move against the Second Amendment in the United States, which is the bugbear of all the Democrats. They want guns only in the hands of the government. They will sell to the American people the idea that if we control guns more, Mexico will be safer, and there will be less violence coming into the United States.

BECK: Michael, let me have a conversation that I should have with you off the air. Let me have a frank conversation. I think we are headed for extraordinarily dangerous times. I think we are I think we're headed -- we're headed toward civil unrest. God knows what? Please, America -- please, keep things under control and look at Martin Luther King and Gandhi as an example. Michael, you say something like that, and that's dangerous stuff to say.

SCHEUER: Well, I think the founders, Glenn, went out of their way in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers to make sure minorities had a voice in our country and were protected from the oppression of the majority. It's a very odd situation, but now the minority -- those folks who go to Harvard and Yale and the prestigious universities who think they know everything and who want the government to control everything -- are in power. The majority of Americans who are just interested in security and getting by are being dictated to, interfered with, and generally neglected in terms of security by the minority that rules this government. It turns the founders on their heads.

BECK: So what -- so these -- I can't imagine who is going to volunteer for this National Guard. I mean, I know a lot of people who would volunteer to go watch the border if we were serious. But to send National Guard to protect us from violent drug cartels and not arm them and not pay them -- I mean, I don't even understand that. I don't even understand .

SCHEUER: And ignoring illegal immigrants, Glenn. We're in the absurd position right now of having the minutemen, who are private citizens and armed, if the National Guard volunteers get in trouble, private citizens are going to have to come to the aid of the military. It's an absurd situation.

BECK: And let me tell you something, if something happens down there, I mean, if I'm a national guardsman and I was protecting myself, do you really think -- I mean, I wouldn't trust that I wouldn't be thrown into solitary confinement for two months. These people will sell anybody out for their agenda. They don't care.

SCHEUER: Glenn, the Republicans and the Democrats have both prosecuted U.S. citizens on the southwest border for defending their families and homes against illegal -- violent illegal immigrants -- migrants.

BECK: Michael ...

SCHEUER: It is absolutely ...

BECK: I tell you, you have been -- you were in the White House under Clinton. You were in the White House under Bush. You are you -- if anybody looks look up Michael Scheuer. He has -- he's got quite a history. He has been around the block a few times. Do you really ...

SCHEUER: Well, I haven't been in the White House, Glenn, but I was in the -- I was in the CIA at a senior level.

BECK: Well, yes, you weren't part of -- yes, I didn't mean to say you were working at the White House.

SCHEUER: No.

BECK: You've been -- you've been in the White House with the president. You have been in the room with the president and you have been making, you know, suggestions. Do I have that right?

SCHEUER: I have been with very senior people, yes, sir.

BECK: Yes, sir. OK. So you have seen this. Do you really, honestly believe that we have come to a place to where those very senior people in the highest offices of the land, Congress and the White House, really will not do the right thing in the end, that they won't see the error of their ways?

SCHEUER: No, sir, they will not. Not -- the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grassroots, bottom-up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. Only -- it's an absurd situation. Again, only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

BECK: Which is why I was thinking this weekend if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now.

SCHEUER: Absolutely.

BECK: Michael Scheuer, as always, sir, thank you very much.

As much as I hate to say it, I am inclined to agree with Snook (not because I hate to agree with Snook, but because I think Beck is an idiot). The interview was about the government not being serious about protecting its borders (and not just the current government), which Beck agrees with. Scheuer then makes his bin Laden comment, and while Beck doesn't call him crazy, he also doesn't agree with him.

 

Well, watch Glenn Beck nodding his head - it appears in agreement - near the end of the clip. I can't say that 100 percent for sure that he agrees, but he gives that impression. Although, Snook is correct that his final comment doesn't indicate that he necessarily agrees, but may just be following this moron's "logical conclusion."

 

Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with what he said. I don't see any reason for Beck to disagree with the statement either. IMO the first amendment rights are absolute and I fully support anyone in stating their opinion -- and the man's opinion was valid; he believes it would take another massive strike against the US for the government to get off their asses and reasonably defend the borders. He also believes the strike would need to come from OBL -- I'm not sure if he was meaning OBL would be the only one capable of such an act or the only one who would illicit the response he wants from the government. What's really sad is he may be right.

As Splunge pointed out, Scheuer is attacking the lack of effort from both parties, and both administrations. I don't believe Scheuer is supporting terrorism or even encouraging it -- he's certainly not "unAmerican." I don't think he's a moron either; he's an alarmist with good points, albeit rather extreme, but after a career in the CIA I imagine anyone would see demons everywhere.

The extreme points of view are always the most entertaining (and so are shown on TV and make the most viewed YouTube clips). I don't mind listening to both sides and then finding reasonable middle ground.

 

The Constitution does not disallow criticism of speech. Criticism IS freedom of speech. And calling a guy who believes America should be attacked, "a moron" is also freedom of speech, whether you approve of it or not.