What you will now see from the Media

[pacelli]

Becoming more relevant every day!

 

[Conza88]

Becoming more relevant every day!

Yeap, mr becky beck beck.

 

[kahless]

Foxnews has dropped some of the Neocon rhetoric while MSNBC and CNN are still cheerleaders for the left. Olbermann never had any credibility. Not much has really changed other than some here stopped drinking the MSNBC Kool Aid.

 

[Pennsylvania]

When has Glenn Beck ever been anything but opposition to the Democratic Party? Have any of us heard his complete denunciation of the Iraq War, ON THE AIR? You know, the same war Ron Paul has been denouncing since its very beginning, as well as every other sham false-flag op TPTB could throw at him? I'm so sick of Beck's opportunistic pandering and I'm sick of seeing decent people sucked into it.

 

[Vessol]

When has Glenn Beck ever been anything but opposition to the Democratic Party? Have any of us heard his complete denunciation of the Iraq War, ON THE AIR? You know, the same war Ron Paul has been denouncing since its very beginning, as well as every other sham false-flag op TPTB could throw at him? I'm so sick of Beck's opportunistic pandering and I'm sick of seeing decent people sucked into it.

I'm a libertarian at heart---I WAS FOR THE PATRIOT ACT!

 

[kahless]

I'm a libertarian at heart---I WAS FOR THE PATRIOT ACT!

"I WAS" past tense.

He came around just like the sheeple are coming around. The tactic of some here to be unforgiving of past mistakes will kill this movement. Even if it is a deception we should use the opportunity rather than knock those that are now giving us a voice.

 

[paulitics]

Foxnews has dropped some of the Neocon rhetoric while MSNBC and CNN are still cheerleaders for the left. Olbermann never had any credibility. Not much has really changed other than some here stopped drinking the MSNBC Kool Aid.

Olbermann and Msnbc spoke out on Bush's ant-constitutional policies. Patriot act, wiretapping, military comissions act, torture. Now, it is dead silence.

Fox news was an around the clock war propaganda machine and an apolgist for anti-constitutional policies in the name of the war on terror.

MSNBC was the anti-establishment channel, and the most libertarian of the 3. Now, Fox is the most libertarian of the 3.

The only thing that has changed is that some are drinking the Fox News koolaid, esp if they are too stuck in the right/left paradigms to notice it.

Conza nailed this one. Even as cynical as I am, the changes are far less subtle than I had expected.

 

[RM918]

"I WAS" past tense.

He came around just like the sheeple are coming around. The tactic of some here to be unforgiving of past mistakes will kill this movement. Even if it is a deception we should use the opportunity rather than knock those that are now giving us a voice.

It's not about being unforgiving. It's about not being naive. People are raising this guy up like he's a hero and telling all their friends to watch and support when they have no proof of how solid his stances are.

 

[paulitics]

When has Glenn Beck ever been anything but opposition to the Democratic Party? Have any of us heard his complete denunciation of the Iraq War, ON THE AIR? You know, the same war Ron Paul has been denouncing since its very beginning, as well as every other sham false-flag op TPTB could throw at him? I'm so sick of Beck's opportunistic pandering and I'm sick of seeing decent people sucked into it.

There has not been complete denunciation of any of it. Today, he was railing on Obama for caving into Russia, by not installing a missle shield in their back yard. Can you imagine Judge Napolitano or Ron Paul saying something like this? No, because the thought does not even enter their mind. The difference is they have core principles, are logically consistant, and are truthful.

 

[kahless]

Olbermann and Msnbc spoke out on Bush's ant-constitutional policies. Patriot act, wiretapping, military comissions act, torture. Now, it is dead silence.

I agree about the dead silence but their coverage of such was fraught with distortion and outright lies. They could have covered this accurately however chose to propagandize.

Fox news was an around the clock war propaganda machine and an apolgist for anti-constitutional policies in the name of the war on terror.

Ok. Like I said they have dropped much of the Neocon rhetoric.

MSNBC was the anti-establishment channel, and the most libertarian of the 3. .

Sorry, but this sentance is absolutely absurd. You must have been watching a different channel. MSNBC has been pushing big government and critical of anything remotely Libertarians to point of associating those beliefs with that of outright domestic terrorists since the 90s.

 

[kahless]

There has not been complete denunciation of any of it.

Not true since I have heard him denouce some of it even just last Saturday come out against CIA kidnaping, etc.

Today, he was railing on Obama for caving into Russia, by not installing a missle shield in their back yard. Can you imagine Judge Napolitano or Ron Paul saying something like this? No, because the thought does not even enter their mind. The difference is they have core principles, are logically consistant, and are truthful.

I did not hear the radio show today. Beck may have or may not have blown some credibility he gained these last few months for the purpose of getting a few Obama jabs in. I would like to hear his reasoning technically why we need a system in those locations to protect our homeland and if this is to protect the European Union why should WE, a practically bankrupt nation pay for it. EDIT: The need in those locations were for protection against long range nukes that could hit us here. Why would we not want that?

Regardless of this one issue he is still one of the few that is not openly hostile to us, is giving us a voice on some issues and thus we need to use him to our advantage.

 

[paulitics]

Not true since I have heard him denouce some of it even just last Saturday come out against CIA kidnaping, etc.



I did not hear the radio show today. On the surface, if true then today Beck may have blown some credibility he gained these last few months for the purpose of getting a few Obama jabs in. I would like to hear his reasoning technically why we need a system in those locations to protect our homeland and if this is to protect the European Union why should WE, a practically bankrupt nation pay for it.

Regardless of this one issue he is still one of the few that is not openly hostile to us, is giving us a voice on some issues and thus we need to use him to our advantage.

Yes, he is against CIA kidnapping, which I commend him for. He could gain instant credibility with the libertarians and some democrats by making this a huge issue, and pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama, Clinton, and other prominant Dems who don't have a problem with rendition.

The problem is that in the same breath, he will defend torture. 3 or 4 months ago, when Cheney was on his torture tour around the country, Beck defended the heroic Jack bauer's in the CIA for doing what was "right" despite the law.
90% of his show is attacking democrats, and not the glaring corruption and evil of the neocons that has wrecked our country.

The problem is that he lacks credibility because he is all over the place in his beliefs. Extremely important and urgent issues like the the 4th amendment, wiretapping, patriot act abuses, etc Judge Napalotano talks about every day. With Glenn Beck, it is maybe once a month at best (and being extremely generous with that), and the rest of the time he just bashes the Dems. Do you see the difference?

 

[kahless]

Yes, he is against CIA kidnapping, which I commend him for. He could gain instant credibility with the libertarians and some democrats by making this a huge issue, and pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama, Clinton, and other prominant Dems who don't have a problem with rendition.

The problem is that in the same breath, he will defend torture. 3 or 4 months ago, when Cheney was on his torture tour around the country, Beck defended the heroic Jack bauer's in the CIA for doing what was "right" despite the law.
90% of his show is attacking democrats, and not the glaring corruption and evil of the neocons that has wrecked our country.

The problem is that he lacks credibility because he is all over the place in his beliefs. Extremely important and urgent issues like the the 4th amendment, wiretapping, patriot act abuses, etc Judge Napalotano talks about every day. With Glenn Beck, it is maybe once a month at best (and being extremely generous with that), and the rest of the time he just bashes the Dems. Do you see the difference?

The issue sounds like he is not covering what you want him to cover but yet is giving us a voice on other issues.

Why are you against the missile defense shield? I understand the part about Russia not being our enemy but it is my understanding the stated purpose is to prevent a long range nuke from Iran. Why would we not want this?

I have heard people say if we change our foreign policy then they would not want to nuke us but there is no guarantee with the lunatics in Iran. Why not have that protection?

 

[paulitics]

The issue sounds like he is not covering what you want him to cover but yet is giving us a voice on other issues.

Why are you against the missile defense shield? I understand the part about Russia not being our enemy but it is my understanding the stated purpose is to prevent a long range nuke from Iran. Why would we not want this?

I have heard people say if we change our foreign policy then they would not want to nuke us but there is no guarantee with the lunatics in Iran. Why not have that protection?

Would you want Russia putting a missle defense shield at our border in Mexico? At the same time, would you be ok with it, if Russia had an alliance with half the world and had built up troops in Mexico? Of course, Russia would just be protecting Mexico from Ecuador who could strike at any moment.

Short answer. It is none of our business, we are on the other side of the world. Let them deal with their own problems.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

Why are you against the missile defense shield? I understand the part about Russia not being our enemy but it is my understanding the stated purpose is to prevent a long range nuke from Iran. Why would we not want this?

The question is not why would we not want this. You should be asking what right do we have to put missiles in other countries. It pisses people off. What if Iran put a defensive missile shield in Venezuela? You think we might get a little anxious?

 

[paulitics]

The issue sounds like he is not covering what you want him to cover but yet is giving us a voice on other issues.

Kieth Olbermann gave us voice on other issues. He was the only guy in the media consistantly covering the assault on our Bill of Rights during the Bush years. What good is that now?

Perhaps economics is more important to you than civil liberites, but you need to understand that civil liberties is paramount to protecting economic freedom. In fact, economic tyrrany can't last long unless civil liberties are severely restricted, but economic liberty will prevail as long as civil liberties remain intact.

99% of all media pundits are logically inconsistant, which makes them prone to lying, hypocrisy, partisanship. They are doing a damn good job, dividing this country up.

 

[Mini-Me]

The issue sounds like he is not covering what you want him to cover but yet is giving us a voice on other issues.

Why are you against the missile defense shield? I understand the part about Russia not being our enemy but it is my understanding the stated purpose is to prevent a long range nuke from Iran. Why would we not want this?

To add something to 1000-points-of-fright's post, consider the fact that the USA is now known to start preemptive wars. Installing a missile defense shield somewhere could very well be seen as a setup for launching an attack (by us, Israel, etc.) without fear of retaliation.

I have heard people say if we change our foreign policy then they would not want to nuke us but there is no guarantee with the lunatics in Iran. Why not have that protection?

During the Cold War, the doctrine of "mutually assured destruction" is what saved us all from nuclear war. Although the world is a very different place today, the same basic idea exists. Creating such a one-sided advantage would essentially erase the "mutually" part and make a lot of people very, very nervous. This would certainly upset the current geopolitical balance and could even lead to war, either by one side becoming overconfident or the other side becoming too fearful of imminent attack by an overconfident opponent. Remember, we came close to nuclear war as recently as 1995...all over a misunderstanding and poor communication.

In the long term, I think a missile defense shield here is a good idea. That said, in this particular case, it would be best to cooperate with other countries (even unfriendly ones) in terms of advance notice, releasing design plans, heavy diplomacy, etc. That way, many countries with differing interests could take steps toward protect themselves (and ultimately the survival of the human race) without making someone nervous enough to start a war. In other words, such a move would safely change the nuclear warfare status quo from, "mutually assured destruction," to, "mutually assured futility."

 

[kahless]

Would you want Russia putting a missle defense shield at our border in Mexico? At the same time, would you be ok with it, if Russia had an alliance with half the world and had built up troops in Mexico? Of course, Russia would just be protecting Mexico from Ecuador who could strike at any moment.

Short answer. It is none of our business, we are on the other side of the world. Let them deal with their own problems.

The question is not why would we not want this. You should be asking what right do we have to put missiles in other countries. It pisses people off. What if Iran put a defensive missile shield in Venezuela? You think we might get a little anxious?

These replies above have also been my opinion. However I began to change my opinion when I hear that they are needed protect the US from a long range intercontinental missile from Iran or rogue terrorist groups that are determined to get their hands on one. The host countries welcome these systems and we could save a U.S. city of millions. I also remember something about diplomacy to get Russia involved to convince them of the intention was not protection from them but the intended purpose above.

How could this then not be in our best interests?

 

[paulitics]

These replies above have also been my opinion. However I began to change my opinion when I hear that they are needed protect the US from a long range intercontinental missile from Iran or rogue terrorist groups that are determined to get their hands on one. The host countries welcome these systems and we could save a U.S. city of millions. I also remember something about diplomacy to get Russia involved to convince them of the intention was not protection from them but the intended purpose above.

How could this then not be in our best interests?

Iran can't launch an interconintental missle across the atlantic, nor if they had the capability would they dare. It's an absurd notion along the same lines as Saddaam Hussein attacking us on 911, and having the weapons to blow up the world.

Our real intent is that of meddling in the affairs of that part of the world when we shouldn't be. Russia has stated that if the shield was built, they would consider that an act of war and would shoot it down. That is their policy. Do you want a war with Russia? This would trigger one, as Russia has stated. I don't know if I want to call their bluff.

It sounds like you agree or are at least sympathetic with the necons on foreign policy. These are the same guys that got us in to two quagmires that is nothing but a giant black hole of fraud with trillions of our $$$ gone.

 

[kahless]

Iran can't launch an interconintental missle across the atlantic, nor if they had the capability would they dare. It's an absurd notion along the same lines as Saddaam Hussein attacking us on 911, and having the weapons to blow up the world.

Our real intent is that of meddling in the affairs of that part of the world when we shouldn't be. Russia has stated that if the shield was built, they would consider that an act of war and would shoot it down. That is their policy. Do you want a war with Russia? This would trigger one, as Russia has stated. I don't know if I want to call their bluff.

It sounds like you agree or are at least sympathetic with the necons on foreign policy. These are the same guys that got us in to two quagmires that is nothing but a giant black hole of fraud with trillions of our $$$ gone.

Like I said I agree with the points made here but since this is a self defense issue against losing a U.S. city I do not believe this is a Neocon issue. There are conflicting reports on Iran's capability but forgetting them for a minute it could be Pakistan or Russia that loses a nuke to a terrorist group or rogue region. A not all that far out scenario considering instability in Pakistan where they have had to repel direct attacks on thier nuclear installations.

I also vaguely remember something about possibly including Russia in the shield and involving them in command and control. I am not sure if that was ever presented or it just did not fly with Russia or with the Pentagon. If we are involving them at that point it negates all the points made above and gives legitimacy to fear of such a rogue launch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/world/europe/19iht-nato.4.7966307.html

U.S. officials said the offer to Russia contained three main elements:

First, the antimissile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic would be deployed on the basis of threat. The United States and Russia would jointly decide the nature of the threat.

"Our missile defense program is threat-based," said Fried. "If that threat went away, or more realistically was greatly attenuated then obviously we would be much freer to make programmatic adjustments. Our program with the Poles and Czechs is threat-based.

"Russia is interested in this idea," said Fried. "It has concerns about Iran, too. This could be a beginning in defining together the threats."

The second element would involve Russian plans to build its own shield in Gabala, Azerbaijan, which Putin announced in July at a G-8 summit meeting in Germany in response to the U.S plan. Obering said "this could be linked up to the U.S. plan through sharing data."

"By being able to share data across those networks, even at the very preliminary level, to be able to cut radars and that type of thing, you get increased capability," Obering said. "Then, if you actually tie it to where you could get a radar data all the way through from one U.S radar, for example, or a European radar into the Russian system and vice versa, that's when you start getting this expansion of capability."

Third, Russia would also be able to monitor what the U.S. was doing in Poland and the Czech Republic, provided both countries agreed. The plan is that Russia could send liaison officers to these countries. "We said we would be in a position to offer things with respect to our own facilities and command and control elements," Fried said.