Banks and Standing Armies: Ron Paul on Glenn Beck

Banks and Standing Armies: Ron Paul on Glenn Beck

www.infowars.com

Glenn Beck actually quotes Thomas Jefferson on the fact that “banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

An interesting exchange between Dr. Paul and Beck.

Beck tackles the banking establishment, fed, and bailouts, and even poses the question regarding recent happenings, "Is Obama Bush on steroids?

Dr. Paul, always the voice (albeit a largely IGNORED voice) of reason again states that the policies that are continuing their repetitive careening off the deep end are fast-tracking us to the complete destruction of the dollar and hyper-inflation the likes we may have never seen in our history.

He also mentions that Hillary being picked virtually GUARANTEES no change whatsoever in foreign policy.

Is it just me, or has Beck flipped a 180 in recent times to his stances of a year or two ago? I remember him bashing Dr. Paul on a regular basis, now he's kissing his feet. lol.

Interesting hearing any talking head quoting Jefferson, who has likely been rolling in his grave for the past decade or two with all of the destruction TPTB have wreaked upon this nation...





www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 22-1-2009 by DimensionalDetective]

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
An interesting exchange between Dr. Paul and Beck.

Beck... Interesting?

Beck tackles the banking establishment, fed, and bailouts, and even poses the question regarding recent happenings, "Is Obama Bush on steroids?

That's because Beck's MO is to make something look like something it isn't at all and then act like he's the only one who can see this and it drives him so nuts his head will explode!

Dr. Paul, always the voice (albeit a largely IGNORED voice) of reason again states that the policies that are continuing their repetitive careening off the deep end are fast-tracking us to the complete destruction of the dollar and hyper-inflation the likes we may have never seen in our history.

Which policies?

He also mentions that Hillary being picked virtually GUARANTEES no change whatsoever in foreign policy.

Oh I guess you are right... Hillary was the head of the State Dept under Bush too.

sarcasm=off

Did you even look at the conference at the State Department today? Obama got a standing ovation... not a courteous clap.

Sounds like something is different!

Is it just me, or has Beck flipped a 180 in recent times to his stances of a year or two ago? I remember him bashing Dr. Paul on a regular basis, now he's kissing his feet. lol.

No.. he's just on FoxNews now... he used to be on CNN, now he's on Fox so he's different because of his fellows.

Think about it... what do they really have on the Republican side that can compare to someone who has caused such a radical shift in American thought?

They have to go for their own radicals... hence Ron Paul.

I'm sticking with Obama right now. The big problem with Ron Paul, is that it doesn't matter how right the man is... he can't lead. He can't get anyone behind him... doesn't know how to incite the masses to act, and so will go nowhere.

Sorry, but being right (not that I'm saying he is) doesn't make you a leader.

Interesting hearing any talking head quoting Jefferson, who has likely been rolling in his grave for the past decade or two with all of the destruction TPTB have wreaked upon this nation...

Yeah... keep in mind that most quotes attributed to Jefferson are urban myth.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Sorry, but being right (not that I'm saying he is) doesn't make you a leader.

Yeah, God forbid that we ever choose a leader based on intellect and trust instead of public mass appeal. Only the warmongering, industrial military complex kissing, lobbyist heeding, self interest bearing, evidence manufacturing, public deceiving sweet talkers need apply. I am hoping Obama is different, despite being very cautious on the COLB issue. But other than that, I am very much liking what I am seeing so far.

[edit on Thu Jan 22nd 2009 by TrueAmerican]

reply to post by TrueAmerican



I was talking about his electability.

You can't get elected simply on being right.

You need to "move the crowd" as well.

And Ron Paul doesn't know how to move the masses.

I'm just saying... being right, doesn't make you a leader.

It's like my wife always asks me... "Do you want to be happy? Or do you want to be right?"

I prefer... happy.


But back to Ron Paul....

After Obama... man it's going to take one great communicator for the republicans to be able to compete with this brand.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
But back to Ron Paul....

After Obama... man it's going to take one great communicator for the republicans to be able to compete with this brand.

There IS no better communicator than Ron Paul, if you value truth over pretty faces and these fake "leaders" that you claim Ron Paul never was. And you're right. He never was one of the fake leaders. He is the true leader needed, full of ethics, compassion, constitutional knowledge beyond all others, and I believe the only man that would have been completely uncorruptable for the job that ran. He would have eyed lobbyists with a vary weary eye.

Frankly, I think you, along with many others, just never understood where he was coming from because it was just too much trouble to research facts for yourself, and connect these facts with what he was, and is, still saying. Instead you prefer a "real" leader. Well, you got a "real" leader. I just use a different dictionary. Oh well, we'll see what happens. And for starters, maybe you could explain this.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
But back to Ron Paul....

After Obama... man it's going to take one great communicator for the republicans to be able to compete with this brand.

There IS no better communicator than Ron Paul, if you value truth over pretty faces and these fake "leaders" that you claim Ron Paul never was. And you're right. He never was one of the fake leaders. He is the true leader needed, full of ethics, compassion, constitutional knowledge beyond all others, and I believe the only man that would have been completely uncorruptable for the job that ran. He would have eyed lobbyists with a vary weary eye.

Frankly, I think you, along with many others, just never understood where he was coming from because it was just too much trouble to research facts for yourself, and connect these facts with what he was, and is, still saying. Instead you prefer a "real" leader. Well, you got a "real" leader. I just use a different dictionary. Oh well, we'll see what happens. And for starters, maybe you could explain this.

Star for you brother. How do you move a mass of people when you have been blacked out from the media in which they depend on? I have seen youtube videos where Dr. Paul gives speeches that moved me more than anything Obama, Bush, or Mc Cain gave. Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is ok, but to be fair, he got ALOT more mass media coverage than Paul and his ideas did.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
But back to Ron Paul....

After Obama... man it's going to take one great communicator for the republicans to be able to compete with this brand.

There IS no better communicator than Ron Paul, if you value truth over pretty faces and these fake "leaders" that you claim Ron Paul never was.

Dude, if Ron Paul was a Leader, then he would have commanded the majority of the masses, just like Obama did.

Ron Paul never came close.


I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm trying to get you to see the reality that a leader can't get elected on being right.

I know you don't like "pretty faces" but guess what... it's a cold hard fact that people trust pretty faces inherently.

It's like Jon Stewart on the daily show. The day of the Inauguration he played clips of Obamas Speech, and clips of Speeches Bush has given in the past and they said very similar things... to this Jason Jones said..

"Well maybe it's like cheese, it's wonderful melted on Italian food, but is disgusting on Chinese food"

Now obviously Obama said things that were contrary to Bush as well... but Stewart has a point... We like it more when Obama says it than Bush.

Like it or not, you have to wake up to the fact that the only people who will ever get elected are those who can motivate the masses.

Simply being "right" doesn't mean anything when it comes to elections.

And you're right. He never was one of the fake leaders. He is the true leader needed, full of ethics, compassion, constitutional knowledge beyond all others,

Beyond all others? Wow... was he a Professor of Constitutional law like Obama was? Now maybe you "felt" he was more in line with the constitution than others were...

and I believe the only man that would have been completely uncorruptable for the job that ran. He would have eyed lobbyists with a vary weary eye.

Once again... no man is uncorruptable. If you think so, then you are just living in a dream world neo

Frankly, I think you, along with many others, just never understood where he was coming from because it was just too much trouble to research facts for yourself,

Once again you prove my point. A great leader doesn't require the constituents to do research. A great leader motivates the masses... end of story.

You are basically saying Ron Paul didn't win because everyone is stupid.

And although that's great for sour grapes... it doesn't solve the problem that Ron Paul, although very intelligent and I do believe very well intentioned... just could not lead like Obama did.

If he could have...then he would have at least been competitive in the election.

and connect these facts with what he was, and is, still saying. Instead you prefer a "real" leader. Well, you got a "real" leader. I just use a different dictionary. Oh well, we'll see what happens. And for starters, maybe you could explain this.

I'm not saying Obama is a "real" leader. I'm saying that it is obvious that he knows how to lead ... did you see the 2 million people at the inauguration which has never happened?

Did you see no arrests at all that day?

I'm simply pointing at what he has accomplished as far as motivating the masses..

If Ron Paul could do that, he would be a leader... but history has proven that he has not been able to do that yet.

I think you just Like Ron Paul and don't have the ability to be realistic about this.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by LeTan


Star for you brother. How do you move a mass of people when you have been blacked out from the media in which they depend on?

Oh... I'm sorry does the media control the internet?

Does it control your text messages?


Puhlease stop it with this "blacked out from the media" BS.

Obama reached people with the Internet and constant text messaging and the reaction of the people who received those.

I have seen youtube videos where Dr. Paul gives speeches that moved me more than anything Obama, Bush, or Mc Cain gave.

That's great.. it moved you. But it obviously didn't move as many people as Obama did. Simple as that.

Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is ok, but to be fair, he got ALOT more mass media coverage than Paul and his ideas did.

BECAUSE HE WAS LIKED MORE!

Geesh... can't you see that the more popular someone is the more media coverage they will get?

It's not a vast ___ wing conspiracy.

Look... I know many Obama supporters who saw him in 2004 dem convention who said "I don't care what party he runs for... he needs to run... I'd vote for him"


You see the issue is this... Ron Paul, for all of his intelligence comes off like a whiner. Not saying he is... just his persona. Not his fault.

A leader has to inspire people, not generate fear or anger in them.

You can gain some notoriety with concern and fear, but you won't really lead. The nation was tired of "WE HAVE TO DO THIS OR THE END OF THE WORLD WILL COME"... they don't want to hear that, plain and simple.

What they want to hear is "YES WE CAN". And that slogan, epitomizes the reason why Obama's leadership outshined anyone else on the campaign trail.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]

I like Glenn. He seems to be an intermediary outlet for some of the more "conspiratorial" issues. It's funny to hear Glenn and Alex Jones complain about each other when in any given day their radio show is exactly the same. A few times they even had the same guests on the same day.

I suppose each one is still earning a paycheck and needs to draw viewers/listeners to generate that ad revenue. It's tough to balance credibility with marketability but Glenn does it alright. He also has a challenge that Alex doesnt and that's maintaining mainstream appeal. Glenn is essentially in the mainstream. Not as popular as Olberman or Dobbs but he's in it. Alex doeant have to worry about mainstream appeal at all. His audience is largely fringe and he knows it. Glenns audience is mainstream and he knows it. Glenn lets a little fringe subject matter seep into his mainstream audience and that's great by me regardless of the motivation behind it.

It's sad that a Hollywood whore is more likely to become President of the USA than an individual who knows what the problems are and has solutions.

It's also sad that anyone would forfeit "right" for "happy." That's like a form of prostitution with your integrity.

Hmm, well one thing you might consider, is that the very place Ron Paul shined was on the internet. The place where research can be done easily, and without the screening of the MSM so much if one pursues other sites outside of that. If that condition had been present for the television aspect of the coverage, things may have turned out way different. I mean jeez, he won bunches of online polls, nearly every one I saw!

But the truth of the matter is he had both the MSM and his own GOP working against him, and in many cases being labeled a kook. No one took him seriously until they started losing money and the housing bubble burst. Oh but then, yeah, NOW they wanted his opinion, when no one else's seemed to make much sense. Filled his schedule for months, now that they could exploit his knowledge without risking any emotional attachment.

I could see how he'd come off as a whiner to you. But some of us just aren't as tritely dismissed.

And btw, if you think Obama can hold a candle to Ron Paul's constitutional research, it just shows the lack of yours.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Hmm, well one thing you might consider, is that the very place Ron Paul shined was on the internet.

Just not as good as Obama shined on the Internet.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere


It's also sad that anyone would forfeit "right" for "happy." That's like a form of prostitution with your integrity.

Really?

So if given the choice to have a happy family or to be right and your family miserable you would choose the latter?

See this is the problem with the concept of right.

An extreme need to be right is coupled with an extreme sense of insecurity.

The fearful are the one's who have to feel right. This is why "God fearing" people are often "Fundamentalists".

They have to be right.. can't stand not being right. It doesn't matter how miserable people are as long as we are right.


Go ahead and take your righteousness... I'll take the happiness of my family and my self over that any day.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Whats so bad about being right? I think you're referring to some obsessive need to have other people know you're right. That's completely different. I dont care if I'm the only in the universe who knows I'm right as long as I'm right. When you're wrong you go out and find out why and hopefully come back right.

Maybe being wrong all the time or perpetually ignorant makes it easier to be happy but I've never not been happy searching for the right answer.

This reminds me of room 101 and the 2+2 bit. I'll tell you it's 5 all day long if it's what you want to hear. That doesnt mean I believe it's 5 or that it magically becomes 5. It's still 4 and knowing that makes me happy.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Whats so bad about being right? I think you're referring to some obsessive need to have other people know you're right. That's completely different. I dont care if I'm the only in the universe who knows I'm right as long as I'm right. When you're wrong you go out and find out why and hopefully come back right.

No I'm talking about an obsessive need to "feel right".

Many people just can't function if what they are doing isn't based on some sort of subjective reasoning that they believe in.

And many will sacrifice the happiness of themselves and others just to feel right.

Not in the eyes of others, but in their heart of hearts.

Maybe being wrong all the time or perpetually ignorant makes it easier to be happy but I've never not been happy searching for the right answer.

Oh don't get me wrong. I love to research as well. But I always suspect that what I believe is right, has a high probability of being wrong.

This reminds me of room 101 and the 2+2 bit. I'll tell you it's 5 all day long if it's what you want to hear. That doesnt mean I believe it's 5 or that it magically becomes 5. It's still 4 and knowing that makes me happy.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

Knowing that makes you happy...

That's the catch phrase right there.

Knowing that I'll be happy no matter what makes me happy :-)

Good chat though...

DD , frankly, americans are blinded by pro-obama propaganda thrown around by MSM ....

i fear that obama may not alter Bush policies , as he is CFR member too(contrlled by rockefeller)

if i were you , i would be making prepartions to leave USA for other nations like australia,Sweden etc . which are peaceful

reply to post by HunkaHunka


You do realize that if Ron Paul had just as much media coverage as Obama I am almost sure he would have won? Yes, Obama could still be known as a better speaker, but given an equal amount of air time would have EASILY let Ron Paul win.

Obama only beat McCain by 2% regarding the popular vote. Ron Paul could have easily won with any type of money Barrack Obama spent.

While I at first agreed with you when you say being right does not make a good leader, does being wrong and speaking well make you a good one? Does being a good speaker with mass media coverage make you a good leader?

I am sure Ron Paul would have incited many crowds of people if given the chance by the media. The difference between him and Obama is that he would have spoken the blatant truth and told the people the obvious that all other candidates failed to do. Now THAT would have incited the masses.

I am sorry you think a good speaker makes a good leader. I am sorry you would rather want a good speaker than someone who actually tells the truth and could make a real difference in the White House.

With that all put aside, Obama could still work miracles. I doubt it, but it could happen. Even when that happens (if it does), it would be the same as picking a bench warmer for a sports team and finding out that the player is a prodigy. Luck on our part if this be the case with Obama. Since he IS president, I do hope something like that would happen, but I am doubtful.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by FritosBBQTwist]

Look at Paul go!
right again.

Being a communicator does not make you honest.
These days, the ability to gain an audience is directly proportional to how much "love" mainstream media has for you.

For the MSM, Obama was the money, he played well on the boob tube.
Paul was the UFO of candidates, if you will. mention his name, you were waved off as a kook. Even at the very beginning of the primaries, the talking heads were saying "we aren't covering him, because he doesn't stand a chance".
Of COURSE, he doesn't stand a chance, because you aren't covering him.
That's how it works now. Pathetic, but true.

But now...hmmm..Paul is a regular. Why is that?

I would say that Paul diagnosis is correct but his cure is by far worse then the disease . I wouldn't trust as Paul put it a metal or natural resource backed currency as far as I could poke a stick . Any such funny money would be inflationary because of the costs involved with mining the metals and other natural resources that used to back up a currency or be used as currency itself . You would either end up with a shortage of money or high inflationary environment. When the Spanish Empire wanted to pay its solders(SP?) they just kept mining more Gold from South America . If you think think that to many wars are fought over natural resources presently just wait until they have a bigger implication in economics .

I am going to give Hillary a fair crack in her job . If anything is her undoing it will her hunger for power and or internal politics in the White House .

reply to post by HunkaHunka


You might be absolutely right about why Ron Paul didn't win -- but I hope you do realize that it only shows the very low depths the American society in general, have fallen. I'm not sure why you would try and defend that point -- really isn't something to be 'happy' about.

Also I think you underestimate just how big Ron Paul's campaign was, considering the circumstances. You do know he raised the most amount of money ever in a single day? That's pretty much just from the online grass roots. Funny that.