Glenn Beck

[Nathan Hale]

As a person who's been involved here and with the Revolution in general since the beginning, I am amazed at how Glenn Beck has changed in our eyes since those early days. Before Dr. Paul was first on the show, people were sending Beck death threats. Then he had on Dr. Paul for an entire hour - and then once a month for the last year. Since Bob Barr began his campaign he's had the man on several times, including one interview that went the whole hour. Glenn Beck may disagree with the revolution's majority on some issues, but in 2008 he's really delivered for us. Thanks Glenn.

[constitutional]

I am amazed at how Glenn Beck has changed in our eyes since those early days.

Yes, he has changed toward the libertarian views somewhat. His view on foreign policy is still the same (Islamofascits).


Before Dr. Paul was first on the show, people were sending Beck death threats.

Do you have any idea how much Beck bashed RP during the primaries even before he got any emails? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=60742) Remember the time when he implied RP supporters are equivalent to domestic terrorists? And then he received a threatening email (if he ever did). You have to take responsibility for what you say.

And don't talk as if one of the RP supporter sent a death threat, it could have been anyone or no one. Like someone said, "Did Ron Paul see his supporter typing the email? Was it a precinct leader, a real supporter, or someone who was attempting to destroy the Ron Paul movement who sent the email? Any proof of this?"


Then he had on Dr. Paul for an entire hour - and then once a month for the last year.
Yes he had Dr. Paul on for an hour. Not sure about once a month. It's nice of him to do that.

Again, I'm glad he has more libertarian views now. He has come a long way but don't talk like RP supporters were wrong by disapproving Beck back then.

[Nathan Hale]

What?

[nate895]

What?

Morons will attack him for being pro-war, saying for that reason alone, he is the equivalent to Hitler or one of his henchmen.

[constitutional]

What?

I updated the post (I had hit submit early while typing).

[ronpaulitician]

One idea at a time.

[BarryDonegan]

the people that come after us.. bob barr, glenn beck, join us in the end. each little thing they don't understand they stare at it longer and longer and cave in.

[Jeremy]

I support Glenn Beck for president in 2012.






=p

[Jeremy]

the people that come after us.. bob barr, glenn beck, join us in the end. each little thing they don't understand they stare at it longer and longer and cave in.

nooooo


Bob Barr introduced RP at CPAC o.0

[ronpaulitician]

they stare at it longer and longer and cave in.
The reversed abyss.

[Andrew Ryan]

Lol remember when he wanted to french kiss Ron?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw_H2M-J8qY

[constitutional]

ha, watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSeHMEjRy0

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

Glenn Beck was saying he is strongly considering voting for McCain now because of Palin.

[georgiaboy]

Glenn Beck was saying he is strongly considering voting for McCain now because of Palin.

link?

after hearing him last week, i call bs on this.

if it's true, Glenn Beck is a puppet of the worst sort.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[revolutionman]

I have formed a theory that many news broadcasters actually are Ron Paul supporters, or Libertarians, but have to say and do certain things to protect their livelihoods.

i think thats why everyone was anti paul during the primaries, and as soon as McCain clinched the Nom, RP became the guest to have if you were talking about constitutional rights or economics.

[Primbs]

If people had listened to Glenn Beck carefully a long time you could tell he would be favorable to Ron Paul on some issues.

Some people went overboard.

[alaric]

I have formed a theory that many news broadcasters actually are Ron Paul supporters, or Libertarians, but have to say and do certain things to protect their livelihoods.

i think thats why everyone was anti paul during the primaries, and as soon as McCain clinched the Nom, RP became the guest to have if you were talking about constitutional rights or economics.

I think a lot of them have been told to shut up. Bill Maher comes to mind, and Keith Olbermann. Both of them wanted to say more.

[Printo]

Glenn Beck has changed a lot over the past year. He is still misinformed about the war but he's learned a lot. There is the crowd on this board that will still hate him & will not give anyone any credit because theyre not Ron Paul. No one is perfect people, Glenn Beck is an ally of this movement. We should take what we get.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[Nathan Hale]

Morons will attack him for being pro-war, saying for that reason alone, he is the equivalent to Hitler or one of his henchmen.

His original post was different than when i posted "what"

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

link?

after hearing him last week, i call bs on this.

if it's true, Glenn Beck is a puppet of the worst sort.

GLENN: ... I may have found my pick for President. I want to explain this over the next few days. But it may be now John McCain because of Sarah Palin's experience on taking her own party on but not the way John McCain does.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/14589/

[Menthol Patch]

Glenn Beck is an insane hot headed idiot.

[nate895]

Morons will attack him for being pro-war, saying for that reason alone, he is the equivalent to Hitler or one of his henchmen.


Glenn Beck is an insane hot headed idiot.

Who could have guessed?

[ronpaulitician]

I seem to recall him calling us terrorists in a very irresponsible, public way.
You recall incorrectly.

[max]

Morons will attack him for being pro-war, saying for that reason alone, he is the equivalent to Hitler or one of his henchmen.

"morons?"...

dude, its not like he's right on certain issues and wrong on something trivial..

This war is BANKRUPTING us, not to mention 5000 dead US troops....a million dead Iraquis....and now Beck wants to confront Iran and Russia!

Tell me, if a husband who beats the livng shit out of his wife everyday is otherwise a good provider, a loving father, loyal, and an honest man etc....would you be happy having your sister or daughter married to him??? Would you say "He's OK, but morons attack him because he beats the shit out of my daughter"...think about it

Being pro-war cancels out everything else...the issue is too crucial...Beck is a piece of shit with blood on his hands

[ronpaulitician]

Being pro-war cancels out everything else...the issue is too crucial...Beck is a piece of shit with blood on his hands
I guess I used to be a piece of shit with blood on my hands, too.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[max]

I guess I used to be a piece of shit with blood on my hands, too.

no my friend.....you were just a well meaning American who had once been duped by the likes of scum like Beck (who knows better)...

I once ADORED jerkoff Rush Limbaugh!!!!...so i wont judge you

welcome to the world of truth

[ronpaulitician]

Feel free to correct me then. I don't like to run around saying things that would make me incorrect. I was watching his show that evening as it broadcast.

Did my eyes and ears deceive me?
Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rc4OJWH1nE)
Transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/12/gb.01.html)

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[Carole]

Only a few days ago Beck brought up the "weird" scary followers issue again. He still sometimes maligns the followers of Ron Paul thereby, once again, marginalizing Dr. Paul. He blows hot and cold on Paul. Now he is for McInSane since Palin was selcted as VP nominee.

[ronpaulitician]

I stand corrected.
He insinuated
a) "to insinuate" != "to call"
b) he was talking about a fringe element within the Ron Paul movement
c) even when he was talking about that fringe element, he in no way inferred they were terrorists or idolized terrorists


As I told you last week, Ron Paul raised over $4 million in one day. That`s huge news. His supporters raised the cash on November the 5th to commemorate Guy Fawkes. This guy was a British terrorist who tried to overthrow the government by blowing up Parliament and killing everybody in it. Paul`s supporters called the donations, and I`m quoting, a "money bomb."

Fawkes was caught the very last minute, some say with his hand on a torch about to light the gunpowder under Parliament.

Now, the vast majority of Paul`s supporters take this little metaphor the way it`s intended, as a rallying cry to create a dramatic political shift. It`s really not the way I would go, you know, tying my movement in with a historical terrorist attack, especially in post-9/11 America. But hey, you know, I`m a libertarian at heart. I get it. You raise money however you want, as long as you`re not blowing other people up.

But America, here`s what you need to know tonight. Ron Paul`s supporters are tapping into something that`s very real. It`s something that I`ve talked about on this program for a very long time: the rising tide of disenfranchisement in this country. And it`s coming from all sides of the political spectrum.

If that feeling of disenfranchisement leads to political discussion, then our system works perfectly. But if fringe elements take that disenfranchisement and turn it into violence, we endanger the freedoms we`re supposedly all fighting for.

There's really nothing in there (or the rest of the piece) that warrants a recollection of Beck calling Ron Paul supporters terrorists. Beck's point is that disenfranchisement CAN lead to acts of violence. I can't really disagree with that. I also think that, as in any group, there probably are a couple of nutjobs among Ron Paul supporters that could use violence as a tool to promote their viewpoint.

[ronpaulitician]

Only a few days ago Beck brought up the "weird" scary followers issue again.
We ARE weird (but only because "normal" is abnormal).

[acroso]

Beck must have the brain of a mouse. Give him his next reward stimulus and he'll forget what he had been talking about for the last 2 days.

[max]

a) "to insinuate" != "to call"
b) he was talking about a fringe element within the Ron Paul movement
c) even when he was talking about that fringe element, he in no way inferred they were terrorists or idolized terrorists



There's really nothing in there (or the rest of the piece) that warrants a recollection of Beck calling Ron Paul supporters terrorists. Beck's point is that disenfranchisement CAN lead to acts of violence. I can't really disagree with that. I also think that, as in any group, there probably are a couple of nutjobs among Ron Paul supporters that could use violence as a tool to promote their viewpoint.

clever word manipulation by Glen Beck and you fell for it!

By talking about Ron Paul and terrorists in the breath, he creates a linkage in the simple mind of his fans. Get it?

His statement that "most of us RP fans arent terrorists" is a transparent ploy that does nothing to mitigate the damage of his associating "some of us" with dometic terror.

[Carole]

I have formed a theory that many news broadcasters actually are Ron Paul supporters, or Libertarians, but have to say and do certain things to protect their livelihoods.

i think thats why everyone was anti paul during the primaries, and as soon as McCain clinched the Nom, RP became the guest to have if you were talking about constitutional rights or economics.
Actually, I think they do it for ratings, not because they "really" like what Dr. Paul says. :)

[Kludge]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:5F_eqJG0nso0iM:http://www.superhonda.com/photopost/data/519/58744banned.jpg

Thank the Heavens! Who can I send the cookies to?

[revolutionary8]

Beck is NOT "one of us", but you (Nathan) already knew that.

Are you a conservative or a liberal? Do you classify yourself with these (or similar) epithets?

What is the difference between conservatives and liberals?

Noah Webster, a brilliant Founding Father, master of twenty-six languages, and author of the first American dictionary (published in 1828) once said when referring to the Bible:

“In the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which, in particular passages, … obscure the sense of the original languages…. The effect of these changes is that some words are not understood … and being now used in a sense different from that which they had … present wrong signification of the false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced… mistakes may be very injurious.” (Noah Webster, via Quoty)

This same etymological metamorphosis has occurred throughout the English language. Today, many words carry a meaning far different from their original intent.

So what exactly is a ‘conservative’ or a ‘liberal’? Is a ‘liberal’ today different from one two centuries ago? Do these labels accurately reflect the values and beliefs of each person who so classifies themselves?

Why does this back-and-forth struggle for power continue in our system—the very “spirit of party” that President Washington warned us of in his farewell address—whether between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats? What purpose does it serve? What are the consequences of such battles?

Nancy Levant opines on this issue:

What does it mean to be “conservative?” What does it mean to be “liberal?” Furthermore, who invented the contemporary definitions of political conservatism and liberalism? I will tell you who defined them – your television sets and their talking heads, which are owned, operated, and forced to say what their elite owner’s pay them to say. Hence, you now have 2 political parties, which have been totally “re-created” by corporately owned media to 1) relay to you your political opinions, and 2) to insist upon your political illusions. Herein lies the problem; you don’t really know or understand your political opinions, as they have been “manufactured” for you for decades. Furthermore, there is not one iota of difference between Democrat and Republican ideologies. Our belief in ideological differences has played us like cheap violins AND grew and implanted the one-world government directly beneath our nation and noses.

Does this view hold any water? Has the media had a notable impact on political ideologies and platforms? Have such opinions been manufactured for the citizenry?

Levant continues in her article illustrating how both conservatives and liberals have rescinded their label as Americans, allowing the talking heads and unprincipled politicians to drive our government toward socialism, communitarianism, and world government.

This process is known as the “Hegelian dialectic”.

The Hegelian dialectic is a process through which two opposing viewpoints or ideals arrive at some consensus, a veritable “middle ground”. One side, “synthesis”, is at opposition with the other side, “antithesis”. Through the dialectic process the two sides capitulate and agree to a “synthesis”, a sort of meld between their two opposing view points—a compromise.

As the following graphic illustrates, the process continues over and over, leading each continuing thesis and antithesis to meet at some synthesis, pushing the agreements in one continual direction.


http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/images/hegel.gif
Much like the balance effect, the Hegelian dialectic moves society in a single direction, often one that has been planned and sought after. In our era, that end goal is communitarianism, socialism, and central planning. Individual liberty and self-governance is squandered as government largess continues to balloon and invade every facet of our lives.

The question then follows, who pre-determines the direction society is to move? Who crafts the thesis and antithesis in order to push us towards a synthesis? Why are we so blind to this gradual shift in policy and values that we do not see that both sides of the aisle have caused our erosion of personal liberty and stewardship?

Make no mistake: politicians claiming to adhere to completely opposite viewpoints and morals are aiding those who strive to push America towards a predetermined synthesis.

The antidote for the Hegelian dialetic is a difficult one—one that most people renounce and oppose: idealism. The dialectic is only enabled through compromise of ideals and capitulation of values. In our recent progressive and continually pluralistic society, traditional values and moral-based stances are frowned upon and ridiculed. It is because of this that otherwise good men lower their standards, yield to opposing forces, and narrow their vision.

America was founded—and its Declaration of Independence made to the world—because of a desire to shun the antithesis and provide each citizen a true thesis of limited government, individual liberty, and personal stewardship.

Whether self-proclaimed conservatives or liberals, we should all be Americans first. We should all renounce the “spirit of party” that plagues our society and divides us into ideological opposites, for this fosters the Hegelian dialectic and leads our nation to the desired objectives of an elite few. “We the people” must refuse such a process and infuse the political process once again with principle-based patriotism.

Now, Nathan, I expect you to refute the "theory" of the Hegelian Dialectic just as much as you refute the Theory of the NAU, calling it a "Conspiracy Theory" and all, but we will see how big you try n go with that.

edit for a pointer: Your man Beck believes in the NAU.
Good luck with that "dialectic".;)
Glen Beck is a vehicle.
That's it.
Nathan,
do you work for CATO?


"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

[RevolutionSD]

As a person who's been involved here and with the Revolution in general since the beginning, I am amazed at how Glenn Beck has changed in our eyes since those early days. Before Dr. Paul was first on the show, people were sending Beck death threats. Then he had on Dr. Paul for an entire hour - and then once a month for the last year. Since Bob Barr began his campaign he's had the man on several times, including one interview that went the whole hour. Glenn Beck may disagree with the revolution's majority on some issues, but in 2008 he's really delivered for us. Thanks Glenn.

Glenn Beck still wants to kill brown people in the middle east. No thanks. :mad:

[ronpaulitician]

clever word manipulation by Glen Beck and you fell for it!

By talking about Ron Paul and terrorists in the breath, he creates a linkage in the simple mind of his fans. Get it?

His statement that "most of us RP fans arent terrorists" is a transparent ploy that does nothing to mitigate the damage of his associating "some of us" with dometic terror.
Bull.

He was opening up the lines of communication, and some fringe supporters did apparently react by proving Beck's latter "if" scenario true. I think that overall, though, the vast majority of supporters convinced Beck that his initial suspicion about us was true.

[revolutionary8]

Bull.

He was opening up the lines of communication,
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Nathan Hale]

Beck is NOT "one of us", but you (Nathan) already knew that.

I never said he was one of us. I just said that he gave us a lot of media play. But hey, don't let me interrupt your straw man building contest.


Now, Nathan, I expect you to refute the "theory" of the Hegelian Dialectic

I'll admit, I didn't even read the article. I didn't read the article because you posted it to refute something that I wasn't saying.


just as much as you refute the Theory of the NAU, calling it a "Conspiracy Theory" and all, but we will see how big you try n go with that.

Sorry to disappoint.


edit for a pointer: Your man Beck believes in the NAU.

Your point? You say these things as though they refute something I've said.


Glen Beck is a vehicle.

Of course. But he's a vehicle that gives us a lot of mileage, and I'm reporting my recognition of that.


That's it.
Nathan,
do you work for CATO?

No.


"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

My point exactly.

[Nathan Hale]

Glenn Beck still wants to kill brown people in the middle east. No thanks. :mad:

I was commending him for his support, not for his stance on killing brown people in the middle east.