Beck claims that "six degrees" separate Obama from Mao
October 13, 2009 5:41 pm ET
From the October 13 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Obama is president. Nixon was president. Nixon met Mao.
See? Just two degrees!
Maybe instead of jumping to conclusions you can think "hmm, this isn't making sense, am I taking the wrong things literally or assuming something I shouldn't be?"
Again, these is jokes Colbert does to mock these guys, and here are the repundits actually trying to use them.
Beck works for the same company as Sean Hannity.
Sean Hannity has been connected to Hal Turner.
Hal Turner appeals to white supremacists.
White supremacists like Hitler.
There. Beck to Hitler in four steps. Godwin be damned.
I'm very curious about who this pablum appeals to, and who will admit to being a fan. I think there's one poster here (fishergirl) who admits to thinking Beck is reasonable, but is there anybody else that can explain what they get from something like the clip above?
He was telling the salesman that he wasn't about to pay the extra fee each month to receive HD programming. He said that he knew they had just basic service at work and they got Fox News HD without having the service. He wanted to do the same at home. He doesn't have cable or satellite service.
The kicker is that the poor guy was talking about getting the over the air signal that Fox News broadcasts. He was going to buy an antenna along with the HD TV.
I was going to suggest he go over to the isle with the aluminum disposable baking pans and form fit it to his head and just skip buying the TV and the antenna.
I think your suggestion would have been helpful, just go old school foil helmet and get the HD directly into the brain stem.
Then again, I can't really make fun of the guy, as a lot of stuff on my mp3 player is burned from vinyl.
we live in a very redneck(uneducated,oilfield) area of New Mexico...we only have a handful of black people in our town of 50,000 or so...
they seem like normal people until you bring up things like,"wow it sure is crazy for people to take guns to an event where the POTUS is"... then they go off about how Obama is turning the peace corp into his personal militia.... WOW ... i thought they were nice....
Obama hasn't answered some, no, many questions for me. He has said at least three times, very unambiguously - listen to the context - he wants a single payer healthcare system. What happened to that? He has not answered the question of why or when he switched, and Glenn gives a reasonable answer, later in the segment. I have not seen any one else, not other commentators, not reporters, not Media Matters, cover any other facts or offer any alternative explanation.
Other questions involve his staff, how someone who ran on being bi-partisan managed to surround himself with so many radical people. Why he did a near 180 on the war in Afghanistan in the span of a couple years. What happens when we double our money supply in the span of a few months, how do we avoid hyperinflation (actually, NPR touches on that every once in a while, if not in depth)? And so on.
I want to talk objective facts, and surprisingly few people want to go beyond their "<X> is insane/mentally deficient/etc" bubble of thought. I don't get that impression from these programs, and highly recommend them.
I do my own research. I seek out opinions of many different views to see if there is something I had not considered.
I don't know much about that allegation, but assuming it was true, I wouldn't exactly describe a former membership of a political party by her husband as a decision she made, would you? Obama is by choice surrounding himself with people who have said some pretty radical things, a few have taken them back after the fact, many have not, Van Jones (poisoning colored communities), John Holdren (forced sterilizations are constitutional, since taken back after he took his position), Ezekiel Emanuel (ration healthcare by age), Cass Sunstein (animals should be able to sue and be appointed lawyers) among them. These are decisions he made after he was elected, not just relics of his past (which goes without saying is just as controversial).
Getting your information from a wide variety of sources is a good thing. Doing your own research, and exposing yourself to these different sources, should have told you by now that you're still using some of the sources most reasonable people would have eliminated.
Do you have sound bites for those three instances? In all three times Beck played those, they were clearly out of context. Showing a clip of him saying "I support a single payer system", doesn't cut it.
Other questions involve his staff, how someone who ran on being bi-partisan managed to surround himself with so many radical people. Why he did a near 180 on the war in Afghanistan in the span of a couple years.
Really? Can you show me quotes that are different concerning Afghanistan? From what I've read he's said he's not opposed to wars, just dumb wars. He also said he would not pull out of Afghanistan and that he would put more troops there. He did that.
As for Afghanistan, wasn't he the anti-war candidate? Perhaps he did want to expand the war all along, but that certainly wasn't the impression I got (with comments like a surge wouldn't work, etc). I don't know, maybe I am wrong.
First of all, were you there? Conveniently, you only hear that soundbite. You don't get the whole context. Second of all, that was in 2003, he wasn't running for President then. Third, he hasn't said he supports a single payer system other then that video in 2003.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/
As for Afghanistan, wasn't he the anti-war candidate? Perhaps he did want to expand the war all along, but that certainly wasn't the impression I got (with comments like a surge wouldn't work, etc). I don't know, maybe I am wrong.
He was anti-Iraq war.
"He was for war when necessary, not dumb wars. At an anti-war rally on October 2, 2002, Obama said, "I don't oppose war in all circumstances. When I look out on this crowd today, I know there is no shortage of patriots or patriotism. What I do oppose is a dumb war.""
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2966537&page=1
Perhaps he did want to expand the war all along, but that certainly wasn't the impression I got (with comments like a surge wouldn't work, etc). I don't know, maybe I am wrong.
Well, you are wrong. He said during the campaign that he would send in 2 brigades if President, and he did. Now he is sending 13,000 more.
"During the campaign, Obama vowed as president to send two more brigades -- about 7,000 combat troops -- to Afghanistan. He has done that and more, sending 21,000 troops to Afghanistan in March while vowing a new, robust strategy to keep the Taliban from returning to power."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/10/05/analysis_campaign_vow_meets_harsh_afghan_reality/
Diamonds,
It took me less then 10 minutes to find this information. Glenn Beck isn't telling you the truth.
If you listen to his entire thought, however, he makes it very clear that single payer will not be a viable solution to America's health coverage problems. Why? Because we have a giant private insurance system in place, augmented by government programs like Medicare and VA health. In order to keep this private system honest, the public option, run nonprofit has been proposed.
I hope this has helped, diamonds.
Obama did say he would like to have a single payer system, but then he went on to say that it was probably not going to be possible, and hence, why this hasn't been brought into the discussion about health care that we've been having for months on end now. He also stated that he didn't think it possible to have in America, since insurance companies were so entrenched within our society, and country. He has answered that question many times over. A single payer system was never proposed as a workable solution for this health care reform. Not by Obama, and not by Congress.
Obama ran on being bi-partisan, and tried to be, only to have the hand slapped back at him by the republicans. Which radicals are you talking about in his administration? There really aren't any.
Obama did NOT do a 180 on Afghanistan, he stated during his campaign, and after, that Afghanistan must have more manpower and soldiers put into it, because we've been ignoring it since we invaded Iraq. Obama has ordered 20,000 additional troops to be deployed, and another 12000 on top of that. He is currently discussing further moves, or additional troops to be deployed to Afghanistan with his Joint chiefs, SECDEF, and theatre commander. What 180 are you talking about? He's doing exactly what he said he wanted to do. And remember, McChrystal has NOT asked for the additional 40,000 troops, yet. He wrote a memo saying that 40,000 "might" be the number needed, but he has not formally requested that additional number, as I said, yet.
I don't know much about inflation, or hyper inflation, but what I do understand, is that the way to combat that is for the Fed to raise the interest rates, being that we're coming out of a recession, that's not going to happen right yet, but it will happen a little bit over time, because right now, a lot of interest rates are near 0. We can avoid hyperinflation by raising interest rates, is how I understand it, and this is the course of action that will probably be taken, this will also raise the value of the dollar around the world as well, again, avoiding hyperinflation. That's just one mechanism, and I'm sure there are others that I'm ignorant of.
If you want to talk about facts, drop Beck. He has none.
He envisioned a transition to a single payer system, far as I recall, he envisioned it a decade, 15 years, twenty years out, however. Like you say, that doesn't imply Obama ever wanted to transform the healthcare system overnight. He did say it needs to be a slow long term process if it is to happen at all. The only reason I can think of he is ignoring those statements and supporting less radical reforms is to please the moderates. Perhaps it is a question that will never be answered: If he takes back what he said, that won't change much will it? If his ultimate goal in his heart is single payer, it won't be up to him, and he would not have broken his word because he wouldn't be the one to pass it. I don't think Beck ever misrepresented what Obama said, what I see are misrepresentations about Beck's opinion and general nit-picking over who said what.
If you want to be bi-partisan that doesn't mean "I will listen to you but make no attempt to make concessions or actually implement it, though if one single person in the opposite party happens to agree I will gladly call it bi-partisan support and accept responsibility for my 1337 negotiating skills." I think independents had a very different idea of "bi-partisan" than Obama did, if indeed he is being bi-partisan right now (Why not try being non-partisan? I am sick of the party system as are many people).
I was under the impression, personally, that Obama would have dealt with Afghanistan differently. There was already an agreement to be out of Iraq with no action on Obama's part, I figured he would have done the same thing in Afghanistan. My fault.
As I understand, you can't just raise interest rates and make money magically disappear, the money has to come from someone after all. Whenever government prints the money, directly taxes, takes out a loan, or pays off interest, it is taking the value from someone and given to another, someone is getting taxed. Inflating the money robs currency of its value and there is no intervention (you still have $20 in your bank either way, with value or valueless), whereas deflating the money actually has to come from someone, making it far more unpopular. This country has never, ever, and as far as I know no country even, reduced the money supply after lowering rates, anywhere close to what Bernanke is proposing, because it is just nonsensical. We have thought hyperinflation was impossible with modern knowledge of economics, yet it springs up not even a year ago in Zimbabwe (naturally blamed on evil companies charging higher and higher prices, completely forgetting that paying for higher prices would have been literally impossible had they not been printing the money that was increasing prices). I really hope I am wrong about this all, though that doesn't mean abandoning the truth just to live in bliss. Regardless, this is uncharted territory, to be sure.
Obama is being bipartisan in a very real way - the major example of this is that he called upon congress to reach an agreement about the healthcare legislation. He in all respects handed out an olive branch and asked democratic congressman to work with their counter-parts and the pandering to Olympia Snowe among others is the result of this. Snowe actually voted for the bill out of the finance committee today. A huge step in such a strongly divided political climate. Obama did not run on a non-partisan independent ticket - his supporters ie the people that voted for him and helped him on the campaign trail are large democrat and liberal. iF HE becomes non-partisan, he will alienate his strongest supporters and most certainly lose the next election. Its the same reason bUSH NEVER gave a second thought to what dems wanted. At least Obama is trying. Honestly, I think Obama is veering far to the center with many of his policies - he is far more centrist now in many opinion than he ever was on the campaign trail. His bank bailout without any regulation implemented is an excellent example of what Bush would have done and not at all part of a liberal agenda. His refusal to squash the dont ask dont tell policy is another example of a centrist attitude as every liberal in this country wants that gone.
He misrepresented it because he doesn't provide context to it. Besides that 2003 video, Obama has said repeatedly that he favored a single payer system if we could start from scratch. But they can't. So, he wants to build upon what we already have.
You have ONE instance where he says 'I support a single payer system', from an edited video in 2003....against several instances where he says he'd favor it IF they could start from scratch.
If you want to be bi-partisan that doesn't mean "I will listen to you but make no attempt to make concessions or actually implement it, though if one single person in the opposite party happens to agree I will gladly call it bi-partisan support and accept responsibility for my 1337 negotiating skills."
Have you been watching the debacle that is the Baucus Bill? The Democrats (and Obama) have conceeded to the Republicans MANY times. They have bent over backwards for Olympia Snowe. How many votes did we get from Republicans on that bill? Um...ONE. Snowe.
So, to say they haven't made any concessions is flat out wrong.
Who exactly is radical on Obama's staff? You said that and then, offer up no names and why you consider them radical. Beck loves throwing names out there left and right but most if not all of it is completely fabricated or extremely over-exaggerated like his ties with ACORN or the whole ridiculous Jennings "debate." ACORN is one of the largest supporters of impoverished and minority groups in urban centers and Obama was a lawyer and activist for similar groups in Chicago so because they have similar goals, they lent their support to him during the election. Its just like any other company supporting a politician.
Obama had a consistent campaign platform that he would reduce troop levels in Iraq while doing what was necessary to focus our efforts on Afghanistan - this was his position for day one. You clearly were not following the debates if you think it wasn't.
FOX is so clearly not objective - they rail on obama every single chance they get. Beck goes harps on and on about absolute nonsense like FEMA camps and the birther theory and that obama is a racist and a socialist and a communist and a fascist. What could possibly be considered neutral about this? They bring on guests who consistently back their political agenda and actually debate with the very few that don't like obama's own press secretary. They plan, promote and extensively cover as well as cheer on a protest which was more a protest against obama then, anything about healthcare. I haven't heard them once mention any grand scheme about goldman sachs essentially controlling congress yet, FOX spends weeks covering a group like acorn and beck actually calls out for his listeners to garner evidence against ACORN. News should report facts and offer some commentary while ensuring that it is taken as opinion if any. They should not fabricate the news or create the news or promote conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality - FOX does all of this and more.
Mr. Beck, you do know that Chairman Mao is dead, right? And that Van Jones is actually not currently a communist? And that communism is not illegal? And that putting pictures on a blackboard doesn't magically cause a conspiracy to arise between those who are pictured, especially considering one of them is dead?
Who am I kidding? Of course he knows. He just wants the money, and he appears on a network that won a lawsuit granting them the right to lie to the public using public airwaves. Chalkboard? $200. Magnetically backed portraits? $15 each. Having absolutely no credibility whatsoever and getting PAID for it? Priceless.
Now he freely admits it!
Six degrees of separation ties people who come into contact with others by relationships, working together, meeting one another, etc.
He's just saying people supposedly "admired" someone.
If Beck admires Henry Ford, or Charles Lindberg, then he's 2 steps from Hitler! Both Ford and Lindberg admired Hitler (before WWII).
Like Ed Schultz just said on Psycho Talk, "show me your degree!"
And why exactly are you bringing this up? Glenn, I think the best thing we can say for you is that you are confused. How ludicrous can you get?
Here is six degrees of Glen Beck:
Dang I can only find four!