Beck needs to feel the heat. He's at: me@glennbeck.com

[sofia]

We now know with 100% certainty that Beck (and Palin) are against now......

No need to suck up to him any more. It's time for open hostility between us and the TEA-O-CONS...

to think we can work with them is naive and dangerous...

I wouldn't write anything that can be construed as threatening....but strongly worded e-mails are definitely in order.

What's the point you ask? I think it is in the movement's best interests to draw battle lines. We WANT Beck to come after us.

The longer this confusion persists, the more embedded Beck will become in our movement.

It's time for a divorce...in a nasty and public way....There's no way this marriage to a cheating skunk can ever work to our advantage.

Paulites v. Tea-o-Cons, Case # 1776 me@glennbeck.com

[itshappening]

Beck is our enemy

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Beck is our enemy

and he always has been. For all you people that use the lame defense "He may not be good, but he spreads our message to a large audience", compare it with the Anti-Christ being a fucking religious scholar. He'll bend you little by little with out you knowing and then you'll break and wonder WTF.

There is no excuse for this type of ignorance.

[sofia]

and he always has been. For all you people that use the lame defense "He may not be good, but he spreads our message to a large audience", compare it with the Anti-Christ being a fucking religious scholar. He'll bend you little by little with out you knowing and then you'll break and wonder WTF.

There is no excuse for this type of ignorance.

u said it...

"the devil himself can quote scripture"

Like all good double agent moles....Beck knew what strings to play in order to infiltrate us

[dr. hfn]

emailed him

[JK/SEA]

Well, at least we have one person in here willing to watch beck so the rest of us don't have to. Sure be nice to kill his ratings. I suppose his next move will be to bring Ron into his sacrificial TEA-o-CON altar to offer Ron to his masters.

[JohnEngland]

We now know with 100% certainty that Beck (and Palin) are against now......

No need to suck up to him any more. It's time for open hostility between us and the TEA-O-CONS...

to think we can work with them is naive and dangerous...

I wouldn't write anything that can be construed as threatening....but strongly worded e-mails are definitely in order.

What's the point you ask? I think it is in the movement's best interests to draw battle lines. We WANT Beck to come after us.

The longer this confusion persists, the more embedded Beck will become in our movement.

It's time for a divorce...in a nasty and public way....There's no way this marriage to a cheating skunk can ever work to our advantage.

Paulites v. Tea-o-Cons, Case # 1776 me@glennbeck.com

Not sure why you've included Palin there. I really think she's her own person and does whatever she wants. She endorsed Perry because they've been friends for years. That's what friends do - they support each other, amazingly enough.

She supports McCain because she owes him and she supports Rand because Rand is right for Kentucky and America. Palin also supports Bachmann who, as we know, has been attending meetings with Ron Paul and is starting to get it.

So really, I think Palin is just Palin. There's no "big conspiracy" going on with her.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Not sure why you've included Palin there. I really think she's her own person and does whatever she wants. She endorsed Perry because they've been friends for years. That's what friends do - they support each other, amazingly enough.

She supports McCain because she owes him and she supports Rand because Rand is right for Kentucky and America. Palin also supports Bachmann who, as we know, has been attending meetings with Ron Paul and is starting to get it.

So really, I think Palin is just Palin. There's no "big conspiracy" going on with her.

yeah, good luck with that. welcome to the forums. :)

[Stary Hickory]

Medina did it to herself, she should have "there is no evidence I know of that supports that." or flat out said No. She is dead meat now, it's getting around the net.

(Glenn Beck) Right, here's, then let me be more frank and ask you the question. Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?

(Debra Medina) I don't have all of the evidence there Glenn, so I don't, I'm not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there so I have not taken a position on that.

[disorderlyvision]

Not sure why you've included Palin there. I really think she's her own person and does whatever she wants. She endorsed Perry because they've been friends for years. That's what friends do - they support each other, amazingly enough.

She supports McCain because she owes him and she supports Rand because Rand is right for Kentucky and America. Palin also supports Bachmann who, as we know, has been attending meetings with Ron Paul and is starting to get it.

So really, I think Palin is just Palin. There's no "big conspiracy" going on with her.


:rolleyes:

[JohnEngland]

yeah, good luck with that. welcome to the forums. :)

haha Thanks :)

[sofia]

Not sure why you've included Palin there. I really think she's her own person and does whatever she wants. She endorsed Perry because they've been friends for years. That's what friends do - they support each other, amazingly enough.

She supports McCain because she owes him and she supports Rand because Rand is right for Kentucky and America. Palin also supports Bachmann who, as we know, has been attending meetings with Ron Paul and is starting to get it.

So really, I think Palin is just Palin. There's no "big conspiracy" going on with her.

Because sarah, like Beck, is owned by neo-cons.

Beck speaks daily to neo-con Jonah Goldberg

Sarah speaks daily with neo-con randy Schunnemen ....Bill Kristol created Sarah

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Not sure why you've included Palin there. I really think she's her own person and does whatever she wants. She endorsed Perry because they've been friends for years. That's what friends do - they support each other, amazingly enough.

She supports McCain because she owes him and she supports Rand because Rand is right for Kentucky and America. Palin also supports Bachmann who, as we know, has been attending meetings with Ron Paul and is starting to get it.

So really, I think Palin is just Palin. There's no "big conspiracy" going on with her.

Bachmann is not starting to get it. She is a Neo-Con. Did you miss her recent Israeli comments?

[Elwar]

Medina did it to herself, she should have "there is no evidence I know of that supports that." or flat out said No. She is dead meat now, it's getting around the net.

(Glenn Beck) Right, here's, then let me be more frank and ask you the question. Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?

(Debra Medina) I don't have all of the evidence there Glenn, so I don't, I'm not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there so I have not taken a position on that.

And when Glenn kept forgetting her name and then pulled his "no...I told you to tell us who you are..." in his onimous voice...?

Flat out...Glenn Beck attacked a candidate that is pro-liberty.

Were you defending Stephenapolis when he told Ron Paul that there wasn't a chance of him winning? Was that Ron Paul's fault?

[sratiug]

email sent

[JohnEngland]

Because sarah, like Beck, is owned by neo-cons.

Beck speaks daily to neo-con Jonah Goldberg

Sarah speaks daily with neo-con randy Schunnemen ....Bill Kristol created Sarah

Yeah, this is the one big problem I have with Palin. Before the 2008 election, I thought she was cool and a good public servant for Alaska.

However, because McCain is big on warmongering etc., he and his team must have had a big influence on Palin when it came to foreign policy because, let's face it, she was a blank slate waiting for people to put stuff on it.

Since she's endorsed Rand, she obviously still has a connection to liberty - so why don't we try to influence her, the way Team McCain did?

I can't think of any better start than getting her to read "Meltdown", by Thomas Woods. That book changed everything for me and it really makes one realize the stupidity of war.

Maybe if she goes to Kentucky to campaign for Rand, someone can hand her a copy of the book?

I think it's worth trying to educate Palin - like it or not she's a big public figure and it would be nice to have her on the winning team :)

[JohnEngland]

Bachmann is not starting to get it. She is a Neo-Con. Did you miss her recent Israeli comments?

Didn't realize. But no-one is perfect, right ;)

I mean, didn't Schiff say something about bombing Iran (I'm not sure, but that's what I heard)? But he's still a good guy who gets the economy.

[RM918]

Yeah, this is the one big problem I have with Palin. Before the 2008 election, I thought she was cool and a good public servant for Alaska.

However, because McCain is big on warmongering etc., he and his team must have had a big influence on Palin when it came to foreign policy because, let's face it, she was a blank slate waiting for people to put stuff on it.

Since she's endorsed Rand, she obviously still has a connection to liberty - so why don't we try to influence her, the way Team McCain did?

I can't think of any better start than getting her to read "Meltdown", by Thomas Woods. That book changed everything for me and it really makes one realize the stupidity of war.

Maybe if she goes to Kentucky to campaign for Rand, someone can hand her a copy of the book?

I think it's worth trying to educate Palin - like it or not she's a big public figure and it would be nice to have her on the winning team :)

See, people always have this thing about believing Palin is simply naive and misinformed, innocently strung along by guys like McCain and Kristol.

I find it very, very hard to believe she's THAT stupid and still be in her position. I don't think she's quite as dumb as people would believe.

[TastyWheat]

My response:

I just want to extend my warmest thanks Glenn. After your transformation into a Constitutionalist and a more liberty-minded conservative, I was very skeptical of your authenticity. Overall I was very pleased with your new direction but I was always hesitant to take your words in full faith. Today, I can gladly say all of my doubts were put to rest as you finally exposed yourself as the scum-sucking, neo-conservative, anti-liberty shill that you really are.

Your questioning Debra Medina as being a "truther" was completely uncalled for. Like her I was very shocked that you or anyone else could ever think she was one of that crowd. Nothing in her history should've suggested her as being a 9/11 Truther and you should've denounced those kinds of attacks rather than give them legitimacy. You have every right to question your guests, especially those that are running for public office, but your obvious attempts to paint her as a conspiracy theorist did nothing to help the freedom movement and the restoration of our Republic. What assumptions are we to draw from this? Are truthers incapable of lowering our tax burden, shrinking the size of state government, standing fast against the overreaching arm of the federal government, lifting restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights, and staying out of our lives? Even if she gave a straight answer of 'yes' I wouldn't support her any less. I share some of her skepticism and I am not pointing fingers in any one direction. Is Raymond McGovern, 27-year CIA veteran, also a truther because he called the 9/11 report "a joke"? Couldn't her viewpoint just as easily lead her to the conclusion that the government covered up an episode of gross negligence to avoid embarrassment and/or a loss of the Presidency for George Bush? If the actual interview wasn't bad enough, you decided to cut it short, having all of the dirty little sound bites you were looking for. Then you proceeded to laugh, immediately declaring the end of her campaign and sounding rather smug, as if you did all of us a favor, but you really only helped out the establishment.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to be so petty and completely ignore the issues that are of importance to Texans and are actually relevant to the office of Governor. I will no longer support you, any of your sponsors, or any of your affiliated groups. Hatred can be just as motivating as hope, and you have no idea how bad it's going to sting after swatting this hornet's nest.

[paulitics]

^^ that's poetic^^

[sofia]

See, people always have this thing about believing Palin is simply naive and misinformed, innocently strung along by guys like McCain and Kristol.

I find it very, very hard to believe she's THAT stupid and still be in her position. I don't think she's quite as dumb as people would believe.

Palin may be uneducated....but she is veeeeeery cunning.

Benny Franklin: "Cunning proceeds from lack of capacity."

[ravedown]

emailed.

[__27__]

It was a setup, plain and simple. Medina was surging in polls and they had to protect Perry.

[BuddyRey]

I'm definitely gonna mail him in the morning.

[Liberty_Tree]

Beck is shill.

[sofia]

bump....
the more Beck talks about this....the more he exposes himself

[Bruno]

bump....
the more Beck talks about this....the more he exposes himself

speaking of which - will he address all the email he has gotten on the subject on today's show?

[catdd]

I hope he reads mine on the air.

[itshappening]

Melt his lines

[rprprs]

My emailed contribution:


Glenn,

I can assure you, I know how inconsequential this email will seem to you and I labored long over the wisdom in sending it. You will, undoubtedly, chalk it up to just another one of those crazy and misguided Medina supporters who are no doubt flooding your inbox. It will, most likely, only help to solidify your distaste for us and, in your mind, reflect badly on the candidacy of our favored candidate.

Nonetheless, I cannot remain silent, as you did a great disservice to the cause of constitutionally-limited government, conservatism, liberty, the people of Texas and, by extension, the citizens of this great country.

I am no '911-Truther' and neither is Debra Medina, despite your attempts to paint her as such. Your phone interview with her yesterday was inexcusable in its blatant and transparent bias. It was apparent from the outset that you were on a mission to to discredit the candidate and derail her campaign. Despite your often 'over-the-top' antics, so many were hopeful that you were finally coming around to a truly principled liberty-oriented view of limited government. Unfortunately, yesterday's radio program dispelled all hopes of that and reveled your true colors. It was nothing less than shameful.

As a direct result of your unwarranted personal attack and character assassination, some are now claiming that Debra Medina is "done". I hope they are wrong, but I can't say that with any assurance. Only the wisdom of the people of Texas and their ability to recognize your increasingly apparent agenda will determine that. What I can unequivocally say, however, is that, in my home, only one person is 'done' - and that is Glenn Beck. I shall not watch or listen again... EVER.

Sincerely,

(my real name and address)

[LibertyEagle]

Bachmann is not starting to get it. She is a Neo-Con. Did you miss her recent Israeli comments?

Did you miss Thomas Woods' comments about her?

[tsopranos]

I think this calls for Jim Traficant to kick Beck in the crotch! Anyone have the time make a GIF of this? lol

“If they lie again, I’m gonna go over and kick ‘em in the crotch.”

YouTube - James Traficant Hearing; Kick Them In The Crotch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5Os1400uc)

[Brett]

Not sure why you've included Palin there. I really think she's her own person and does whatever she wants. She endorsed Perry because they've been friends for years. That's what friends do - they support each other, amazingly enough.

She supports McCain because she owes him and she supports Rand because Rand is right for Kentucky and America. Palin also supports Bachmann who, as we know, has been attending meetings with Ron Paul and is starting to get it.

So really, I think Palin is just Palin. There's no "big conspiracy" going on with her.

I agree with all this.

Beck isn't against Medina. He tossed her a softball question and she completely missed it. Beck couldn't believe her answer, he wasn't snickering with joy that she fell for an elaborate trap. He was astonished she couldn't bluntly state what she needed to state to win.

[catdd]

Anyone know how to contact Traficant?

[CapitalistRadical]

I agree with all this.

Beck isn't against Medina. He tossed her a softball question and she completely missed it. Beck couldn't believe her answer, he wasn't snickering with joy that she fell for an elaborate trap. He was astonished she couldn't bluntly state what she needed to state to win.


Agreed. There was nothing even elaborate about it. I'm not a truther, but even if I were, and I were running for dogcatcher, I'd deny everything. This is basic politics 101.

I don't know or care if Medina is a truther, but if she doesn't have the street smarts to deliver a convincing alibi to cover her tracks, she's worthless in any state capital. Perhaps she's better off as a policy wonk.

The liberty movement will not be advanced by running naïve candidates like this. We need to demand more savvy from them. It's hard enough to push forward the actual agenda. Purity is not enough, will need people that can also win!

[tpreitzel]

Agreed. There was nothing even elaborate about it. I'm not a truther, but even if I were, and I were running for dogcatcher, I'd deny everything. This is basic politics 101.

I don't know or care if Medina is a truther, but if she doesn't have the street smarts to deliver a convincing alibi to cover her tracks, she's worthless in any state capital. Perhaps she's better off as a policy wonk.

The liberty movement will not be advanced by running naïve candidates like this. We need to demand more savvy from them. It's hard enough to push forward the actual agenda. Purity is not enough, will need people that can also win!

oh, you mean, lie ... ;)

[catdd]

Explain why Sarah Palin can say the same thing and remain the FOX Princess but Medina can't.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Agreed. There was nothing even elaborate about it. I'm not a truther, but even if I were, and I were running for dogcatcher, I'd deny everything. This is basic politics 101.

I don't know or care if Medina is a truther, but if she doesn't have the street smarts to deliver a convincing alibi to cover her tracks, she's worthless in any state capital. Perhaps she's better off as a policy wonk.

The liberty movement will not be advanced by running naïve candidates like this. We need to demand more savvy from them. It's hard enough to push forward the actual agenda. Purity is not enough, will need people that can also win!

TL;DR

Lie - Obfuscate - Become the Enemy - Conceal your beliefs - Obscure - Suppress - Deceive - Dissimulate

Corruption is the problem, and you promote corruption. Awesome. Politics 101 folks.

We need to do this -

Truth sayers - Unapologetically principled - Authentic - Genuine - Legitimate - Attenuate with veracity - Candor - Substance - Verisimilitude - Sincere - Open.

[Brett]

Explain why Sarah Palin can say the same thing and remain the FOX Princess but Medina can't.

Beck had Medina on the program because of emails we sent. Beck asked about 9/11 truthers because of emails other people wrote. I'm sure Beck would be delighted to interview Palin, and if he had cause (with that recently surfaced video he might) to ask her, he would. If Palin gave the same kind of answer Medina did people would react the same.

Some obscure video on We Are Change is way different then a Beck interview.


Lie - Obfuscate - Become the Enemy - Conceal your beliefs - Obscure - Suppress - Deceive - Dissimulate
So Medina's after statement about 9/11 takes her along this same path, correct?

And me saying I am not a truther is not a lie. And if Medina is a truther, I'm on the same boat as Beck, I could not support her.

[catdd]

Beck has had Palin on his show several times and never once asked Palin about that issue even though he is supposed to feel very strongly about it - so has FOX.
Are you trying to say he is not aware of it?

[CapitalistRadical]

oh, you mean, lie ... ;)

If she were a truther, yes, she will have to lie if she wants to gain any office in the land and be useful to us. Judging by her hummina-hummina-hummina, she seems to have some sympathies in that direction.

It's the same with any unpopular opinion or lifestyle. There's no time in a campaign fight the second fight for acceptance of your deviation. Maybe she likes marijuana, maybe she has an open marriage, maybe she worships Zeus, maybe she thinks Hitler only killed 5,999,999 Jews. Whatever it is, it must be stuffed in the closet if she's serious about winning office.

[tsopranos]

Beck asked about 9/11 truthers because of emails other people wrote.

Do you really believe this? If so, you are delusional.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Beck had Medina on the program because of emails we sent. Beck asked about 9/11 truthers because of emails other people wrote. I'm sure Beck would be delighted to interview Palin, and if he had cause (with that recently surfaced video he might) to ask her, he would. If Palin gave the same kind of answer Medina did people would react the same.

Some obscure video on We Are Change is way different then a Beck interview.


So Medina's after statement about 9/11 takes her along this same path, correct?

And me saying I am not a truther is not a lie. And if Medina is a truther, I'm on the same boat as Beck, I could not support her.

I don't care what you are. I care that people share their beliefs openly and honestly. Whether or not she is a truther, I don't care.

[catdd]

Sarah Palin doesn't have to lie but Medina does. Fuckin status quo pandering.

[Brett]

Do you really believe this? If so, you are delusional.

How so?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If she were a truther, yes, she will have to lie if she wants to gain any office in the land and be useful to us. Judging by her hummina-hummina-hummina, she seems to have some sympathies in that direction.

It's the same with any unpopular opinion or lifestyle. There's no time in a campaign fight the second fight for acceptance of your deviation. Maybe she likes marijuana, maybe she has an open marriage, maybe she worships Zeus, maybe she thinks Hitler only killed 5,999,999 Jews. Whatever it is, it must be stuffed in the closet if she's serious about winning office.

And people wonder why politics is corrupt. Do you honestly think you will get honest people elected when the entry is necessitated on lies and corruption? GREAT PLAN FOLKS.

[Brett]

And people wonder why politics is corrupt. Do you honestly think you will get honest people elected when the entry is necessitated on lies and corruption? GREAT PLAN FOLKS.

The campaign trail has nothing to do with how you act in office. Just look at Obama and Bush.

[Immortal Technique]

A caller just called him out for his support of the bail out

[CapitalistRadical]

And people wonder why politics is corrupt. Do you honestly think you will get honest people elected when the entry is necessitated on lies and corruption? GREAT PLAN FOLKS.

Consider the converse. Politicians only have to lie when they have something unpopular to hide. So run Boy Scouts, without questionable opinions like 9/11 truth, and no skeletons in their closets.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The campaign trail has nothing to do with how you act in office. Just look at Obama and Bush.

Precisely. You get lied to and expect a different result once they are elected. They lie to you in the beginning and forevermore. A liar, will always be a liar. Besides, we all know how corrupt Bush and Obama were. If that is your arguement, it is a poor one and actually feeds into my arguement.

Continue supporting a corrupt system. I happen to believe that if people were open, honest, and sincere in every area people will gravitate and listen to you. You have credibility and legitimacy, and people trust those who are honest and consistent. See: Ron Paul.

[catdd]

A caller just called him out for his support of the bail out

I hope he gets ripped to shreds. And that's a good idea to flame him for things other than Medina so it doesn't play into his hand.

[tpreitzel]

If she were a truther, yes, she will have to lie if she wants to gain any office in the land and be useful to us. Judging by her hummina-hummina-hummina, she seems to have some sympathies in that direction.

It's the same with any unpopular opinion or lifestyle. There's no time in a campaign fight the second fight for acceptance of your deviation. Maybe she likes marijuana, maybe she has an open marriage, maybe she worships Zeus, maybe she thinks Hitler only killed 5,999,999 Jews. Whatever it is, it must be stuffed in the closet if she's serious about winning office.

And precisely what does "Maybe she likes marijuana, maybe she has an open marriage, maybe she worships Zeus, maybe she thinks Hitler only killed 5,999,999 Jews" have to do with explaining to Beck that people have the right to question their government? ;)

You're falsely assuming that Debra said she agreed that the government played a role in the tragedy of 9/11 which she did not. While Beck continued to rudely yak over her response, she did say that legitimate questions remained unanswered about the tragedy, e.g. omissions from the 9/11 Commission Report, and the people have the right to question their government. In other words, she was sympathetic with the outstanding questions and didn't have an opinion because she didn't have all the facts. Her answer was true. Stating anything else would have been a lie, and she doesn't need to lie even if the media will distort her remarks. ;) Time will tell if the electorate in Texas will see through this baseless attack.

[catdd]

Legitimate questions like not one black box was recovered from any of the crashes. That alone should be enough to warrant an investigation, it's just no possible.

[CapitalistRadical]

Continue supporting a corrupt system. I happen to believe that if people were open, honest, and sincere in every area people will gravitate and listen to you. You have credibility and legitimacy, and people trust those who are honest. See: Ron Paul.

I learn from the fact that there is one Ron Paul against 500 corrupt ones. I don't like those numbers. Clearly, Ron Paul is not the rule. I'm sick of my candidates maxing out at 2% of the vote. That's useless!

Your purity is very welcome by the political establishment, however. You keep on believing in your righteousness, and they'll keep on winning seats. Every decade they'll throw you a 3% margin here or there, a glimmer of hope that maybe someday 4% will be possible.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I learn from the fact that there is one Ron Paul against 500 corrupt ones. I don't like those numbers. Clearly, Ron Paul is not the rule. I'm sick of my candidates maxing out at 2% of the vote. That's useless!

Your purity is very welcome by the political establishment, however. You keep on believing in your righteousness, and they'll keep on winning seats. Every decade they'll throw you a 3% margin here or there, a glimmer of hope that maybe someday 4% will be possible.

You assume that electoral politics is the only way to liberty, and you assume that lying achieves means. You believe in "Ends justify the means", a dangerous line of thinking. You assume false things. The establishment likes you.

We should run candidates everywhere, but they must be open, honest, sincere, unapologetic for their views whatever they may be, and they must be consistent. Anything else is a loss. Anything else will turn to corruption.

[CapitalistRadical]

You're falsely assuming that Debra said she agreed that the government played a role in the tragedy of 9/11 which she did not.

In modern soundbite political culture, equivocation or nuance on controversial questions is taken as a weak attempt to hide the unpopular opinion. We all know this. We don't like it, and we wish the level of discourse were higher, but we know what it's like. Politicians are always asked to address rumors, of connections with Holocaust denial, or drug use, or sexual dalliances, and any stuttering or philosophizing is interpreted as an admission of guilt.

[tpreitzel]

I learn from the fact that there is one Ron Paul against 500 corrupt ones. I don't like those numbers. Clearly, Ron Paul is not the rule. I'm sick of my candidates maxing out at 2% of the vote. That's useless!

Your purity is very welcome by the political establishment, however. You keep on believing in your righteousness, and they'll keep on winning seats. Every decade they'll throw you a 3% margin here or there, a glimmer of hope that maybe someday 4% will be possible.

And precisely what has winning popularity contests based on liars given us? ;)

[Deborah K]

I’ve been a fairly regular viewer of yours for nearly four years now. I’ve seen you do what you did to Medina one other time and that was to Ron Paul. You viciously maligned him, clearly without bothering to research his life, principles and record. And you have done the same to Medina. What is this – How to attack a liberty candidate 2.0?

While she clearly mishandled your out-of-left-field questions, she has since cleared up the misunderstanding. Just wondering, did you do any research at all on her? Ever watched any of her debates? Read anything she’s written? Or did you just go nutzoid when you heard unfounded “rumors” that she was a truther. No evidence needed, guilty until proven innocent.

You were on the attack from the beginning because you already had your mind made up for you.

GLENN: Tell me a little bit about yourself because, you know, the tea party people, they are coming out of the woodwork. People are just popping up, and I think that's good but it's also a little dangerous because we don't know anything about you. Tell me who you are.

MEDINA: Registered Nurse, long time Republican Party grassroots activist from South Texas, entered the gubernatorial race a year ago today…….

GLENN: Okay. The question was tell me about you. Who are you?

MEDINA: Registered Nurse, grassroots activist, 20 years in Republican Party, grassroots politics from south Texas…

You were so hell-bent against her from the beginning that even when she answers your question, instead of politely asking for more info on her background, you are rude to her.

The interview was disgraceful. You let yourself be duped again for failure to do your own research on yet another liberty candidate. YOU are the one who doesn’t get it.

[tsopranos]

How so?

What would prompt supporters of Medina, who already know where she stands on the political issues that are relevant to a Texas governorship race, to ask about what her opinions are on the 9/11 truth movement?

What about the people that might be genuinely interested in hearing more about where Medina stands on certain political issues? Do you think they were mass emailing Beck about her opinion on 9/11 truth?

I don't think so, the question was totally out of place. It was planned. Nobody emailed him about this. Beck is a shill little bitch, end of story.

[tpreitzel]

In modern soundbite political culture, equivocation or nuance on controversial questions is taken as a weak attempt to hide the unpopular opinion. We all know this. We don't like it, and we wish the level of discourse were higher, but we know what it's like. Politicians are always asked to address rumors, of connections with Holocaust denial, or drug use, or sexual dalliances, and any stuttering or philosophizing is interpreted as an admission of guilt.

Nonsense ... First, I didn't hear her stutter. I heard her attempt to explain her thoughts on the larger issue of 9/11, i.e. people have the right to question their government and legitimate questions remain outstanding, while Beck repeatedly interrupted her which she apparently didn't hear. Furthermore, your assertion that "any stuttering or philosophizing is interpreted as an admission of guilt" is just nonsense. ;) True, the media might spin "any stuttering or philosophizing is interpreted as an admission of guilt", but Debra's remarks certainly were NOT an admission of anything approaching "guilt". :)

[CapitalistRadical]

You assume that electoral politics is the only way to liberty, and you assume that lying achieves means. You believe in "Ends justify the means", a dangerous line of thinking. You assume false things. The establishment likes you.

We should run candidates everywhere, but they must be open, honest, sincere, unapologetic for their views whatever they may be, and they must be consistent. Anything else is a loss. Anything else will turn to corruption.

Actually, I don't think electoral politics will amount to much of anything really. It's certainly not the most effective way that liberty will be achieved. But I believe that if you're going to play a game, you must play to win!

Let Medina be a lesson to other candidates. Take the game seriously, or don't waste our liberty money. If we wanted toy candidates just for the sake of proving points, we would work within the LP.

Nevertheless, our viewpoints converge in as much as liberty candidates honestly don't hold beliefs labeled as conspiracy theories. Simple! Then they can be honest and still have a reasonable chance.

[catdd]

It is the exact same tactics they used against Dr. Paul to discredit him and I had the same "kicked in the gut" feeling when I heard what Beck said after the interview. It was a textbook smear job - FOX style.






I’ve been a fairly regular viewer of yours for nearly four years now. I’ve seen you do what you did to Medina one other time and that was to Ron Paul. You viciously maligned him, clearly without bothering to research his life, principles and record. And you have done the same to Medina. What is this – How to attack a liberty candidate 2.0?

While she clearly mishandled your out-of-left-field questions, she has since cleared up the misunderstanding. Just wondering, did you do any research at all on her? Ever watched any of her debates? Read anything she’s written? Or did you just go nutzoid when you heard unfounded “rumors” that she was a truther. No evidence needed, guilty until proven innocent.

You were on the attack from the beginning because you already had your mind made up for you.

GLENN: Tell me a little bit about yourself because, you know, the tea party people, they are coming out of the woodwork. People are just popping up, and I think that's good but it's also a little dangerous because we don't know anything about you. Tell me who you are.

MEDINA: Registered Nurse, long time Republican Party grassroots activist from South Texas, entered the gubernatorial race a year ago today…….

GLENN: Okay. The question was tell me about you. Who are you?

MEDINA: Registered Nurse, grassroots activist, 20 years in Republican Party, grassroots politics from south Texas…

You were so hell-bent against her from the beginning that even when she answers your question, instead of politely asking for more info on her background, you are rude to her.

The interview was disgraceful. You let yourself be duped again for failure to do your own research on yet another liberty candidate. YOU are the one who doesn’t get it.

[Dojo]

What would prompt supporters of Medina, who already know where she stands on the political issues that are relevant to a Texas governorship race, to ask about what her opinions are on the 9/11 truth movement?

What about the people that might be genuinely interested in hearing more about where Medina stands on certain political issues? Do you think they were mass emailing Beck about her opinion on 9/11 truth?

I don't think so, the question was totally out of place. It was planned. Nobody emailed him about this. Beck is a shill little bitch, end of story.

Yeah, This reminds me of the Democratic Presidential Candidate debate, when Kucinich was asked if he saw a UFO, I was shocked then too, What kind of DEBATE question was that? I don't think these questions do anything but make the person asking the question look like a fool. But that's me.

[tpreitzel]

I’ve been a fairly regular viewer of yours for nearly four years now. I’ve seen you do what you did to Medina one other time and that was to Ron Paul. You viciously maligned him, clearly without bothering to research his life, principles and record. And you have done the same to Medina. What is this – How to attack a liberty candidate 2.0?

While she clearly mishandled your out-of-left-field questions, she has since cleared up the misunderstanding. Just wondering, did you do any research at all on her? Ever watched any of her debates? Read anything she’s written? Or did you just go nutzoid when you heard unfounded “rumors” that she was a truther. No evidence needed, guilty until proven innocent.

You were on the attack from the beginning because you already had your mind made up for you.

GLENN: Tell me a little bit about yourself because, you know, the tea party people, they are coming out of the woodwork. People are just popping up, and I think that's good but it's also a little dangerous because we don't know anything about you. Tell me who you are.

MEDINA: Registered Nurse, long time Republican Party grassroots activist from South Texas, entered the gubernatorial race a year ago today…….

GLENN: Okay. The question was tell me about you. Who are you?

MEDINA: Registered Nurse, grassroots activist, 20 years in Republican Party, grassroots politics from south Texas…

You were so hell-bent against her from the beginning that even when she answers your question, instead of politely asking for more info on her background, you are rude to her.

The interview was disgraceful. You let yourself be duped again for failure to do your own research on yet another liberty candidate. YOU are the one who doesn’t get it.

Basically correct. The interview was disgraceful and I'm confident the electorate in Texas will see through it.

[CapitalistRadical]

Nonsense ... First, I didn't hear her stutter. I heard her attempt to explain her thoughts on the larger issue of 9/11, i.e. people have the right to question their government and legitimate questions remain outstanding, while Beck repeatedly interrupted her which she apparently didn't hear.

I heard the tape and I was cringing for her. When somebody asks a question like that, the correct answer is “No! Not at all!”. Don't even bring up the legitimacy of questioning government, because it blurs the denial! She has terrible advisers. Or I should say had, because I think this is the fork in her.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I heard the tape and I was cringing for her. When somebody asks a question like that, the correct answer is “No! Not at all!”. Don't even bring up the legitimacy of questioning government, because it blurs the denial! She has terrible advisers. Or I should say had, because I think this is the fork in her.

False: The correct answer is to be forthright and honest. If you get an off the wall question bring up how it is not relevant to the pursuant office, then answer the question with what you believe. Period.

[CapitalistRadical]

False: The correct answer is to be forthright and honest. If you get an off the wall question bring up how it is not relevant to the pursuant office, then answer the question with what you believe. Period.

Why?

[tpreitzel]

I heard the tape and I was cringing for her. When somebody asks a question like that, the correct answer is “No! Not at all!”. Don't even bring up the legitimacy of questioning government, because it blurs the denial! She has terrible advisers. Or I should say had, because I think this is the fork in her.

LOL! Really, your dramatizing the events just as the media is doing, but we've been over this ground already. ;) We'll just have to wait and see.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why?

Because lying is immoral? Lying begets more lying. Lying promotes corruption.

[CapitalistRadical]

Because lying is immoral? Lying begets more lying. Lying promotes corruption.

Lying isn't always immoral. There are special systems, such as theater, where it is expected and acceptable. What if Democratic politics is one of them?

[Elwar]

I heard the tape and I was cringing for her. When somebody asks a question like that, the correct answer is “No! Not at all!”. Don't even bring up the legitimacy of questioning government, because it blurs the denial! She has terrible advisers. Or I should say had, because I think this is the fork in her.

From her later interview she said that the question she heard was whether or not people had the right to question 9/11.

Should her answer have been "No! Not at all!"?

[CapitalistRadical]

From her later interview she said that the question she heard was whether or not people had the right to question 9/11.

Should her answer have been "No! Not at all!"?

From this (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0211/Debra-Medina-self-destructs-on-Glenn-Beck-radio-show):


"So Beck asked her straight up: "Do you believe the government was in any way involved in the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?"

Easy answer, right? Nope.

"I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard," Medina replied. "There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that."

The correct answer, for anybody open to win public office, is "No! Not at all!" If you just want to prove a philosophical point, waste our bomb money and get 2% of the vote, answer whatever you want. Question 9/11, tell us about your UFO sightings, maybe you think space aliens built the pyramids too. Be honest!

I really don't think the establishment wants a movement of people willing to fight for liberty using the effective tactics of the system. They are happy with a fringe movement of extremists that hobble themselves with purity. They'll never get in the way!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

From this (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0211/Debra-Medina-self-destructs-on-Glenn-Beck-radio-show):



The correct answer, for anybody open to win public office, is "No! Not at all!" If you just want to prove a philosophical point, waste our bomb money and get 2% of the vote, answer whatever you want. Question 9/11, tell us about your UFO sightings, maybe you think space aliens built the pyramids too. Be honest!

I really don't think the establishment wants a movement of people willing to fight for liberty using the effective tactics of the system. They are happy with a fringe movement of extremists that hobble themselves with purity. They'll never get in the way!

CSM propaganda. Medina's response to the question was this:

I don't, I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn. So I don't I'm not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I've not taken a position on that.

[SovereignMN]

Did you miss Thomas Woods' comments about her?

Yes. What were they?

[tpreitzel]

From this (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0211/Debra-Medina-self-destructs-on-Glenn-Beck-radio-show):



The correct answer, for anybody open to win public office, is "No! Not at all!" If you just want to prove a philosophical point, waste our bomb money and get 2% of the vote, answer whatever you want. Question 9/11, tell us about your UFO sightings, maybe you think space aliens built the pyramids too. Be honest!

I really don't think the establishment wants a movement of people willing to fight for liberty using the effective tactics of the system. They are happy with a fringe movement of extremists that hobble themselves with purity. They'll never get in the way!

Again, what does "Question 9/11, tell us about your UFO sightings, maybe you think space aliens built the pyramids too. Be honest!" have to do with Medina explaining that legitimate questions remain outstanding about 9/11 and consequently, she didn't have an informed opinion on the matter? I'll answer. Nothing. ;) You falsely continue to equate Debra's response with all sorts of unrelated nonsense.

Lastly, take your own advice. Be honest! Please, don't run for office! This country's legacy has been tarnished enough by liars. ;) What over dramatization of Debra's remarks will be next? We're all waiting.

1. UFO sightings
2. Aliens Built the pyramids
3. Maybe Debra likes marijuana
4. Maybe Debra has an open marriage
5. Maybe Debra worships Zeus
6. Maybe Debra thinks Hitler only killed 5,999,999 Jews
...

I probably missed some past and future tense. :)

[Elwar]

From this (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0211/Debra-Medina-self-destructs-on-Glenn-Beck-radio-show):



The correct answer, for anybody open to win public office, is "No! Not at all!" If you just want to prove a philosophical point, waste our bomb money and get 2% of the vote, answer whatever you want. Question 9/11, tell us about your UFO sightings, maybe you think space aliens built the pyramids too. Be honest!

I really don't think the establishment wants a movement of people willing to fight for liberty using the effective tactics of the system. They are happy with a fringe movement of extremists that hobble themselves with purity. They'll never get in the way!

From this:
YouTube - Debra Medina on KLIF 570 Pt.1 Feb. 11th, 2010. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSyL6APEPtk&feature=player_embedded)

"I thought I was being asked about people asking the question and I think that they are valid questions. And I've not read the commission report but I've certainly heard the allegations that there are big bodies of evidence that we've not been given access to...I'm concerned about the large volumes of evidence that have been kept from people that are in that report that are redacted as Confidential, that concerns me."

[CapitalistRadical]

You falsely continue to equate Debra's response with all sorts of unrelated nonsense.

In the minds of millions, questioning 9/11 is kooky. Deal with it.

[ctiger2]

Bachmann is not starting to get it. She is a Neo-Con. Did you miss her recent Israeli comments?

Correct. Bachman is a typical politician who wants to get re-elected. The only reason she's hanging out with Ron Paul is because she recognizes he's popular and she wants to appeal to his passionate followers. Not going to work though...

[tpreitzel]

In the minds of millions, questioning 9/11 is kooky. Deal with it.

No, in the minds of millions (polls), questioning the official lies of 9/11 is totally logical. Again, you're dramatizing the issue and stretching her remarks in another direction now, i.e. equating "questioning 9/11 is kooky" with Medina's remarks that she didn't have all the facts and thereby didn't have an opinion on the matter of whether our government was involved in 9/11. ;)

[Deborah K]

In the minds of millions, questioning 9/11 is kooky. Deal with it.

No, claims that the gov't brought down the towers is considered kooky. Not questioning 9/11. Ever heard of Abel Danger? Did you know Michael Scheuer left the CIA after 22 years because of the 9/11 commission? He's not a truther, but I would venture a guess that he thinks the report was nothing more than an exercise in CYA.

[CapitalistRadical]

No, in the minds of millions (polls), questioning the official lies of 9/11 is totally logical. Again, you're dramatizing the issue and stretching her remarks in another direction now, i.e. equating "questioning 9/11 is kooky" with Medina's remarks that she didn't have all the facts and thereby didn't have an opinion on the matter" of whether our government was involved. ;)

Oh, OK, so, 9/11 Truth is not considered kooky, and also, Medina's answer didn't sound like she questioned the official version?

I think you need to read some threads (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/11/heartache-tea-party-candidate-in-texas-a-911-truther/comment-page-1/#comments)on mainstream conservative web sites to recalibrate your understanding of rank-and-file opinion around these issues. Failing that, I'm not really going to be able to explain to you how this is playing outside of the libertarian community.

[CapitalistRadical]

No, claims that the gov't brought down the towers is considered kooky. Not questioning 9/11. Ever heard of Abel Danger? Did you know Michael Scheuer left the CIA after 22 years because of the 9/11 commission? He's not a truther, but I would venture a guess that he thinks the report was nothing more than an exercise in CYA.

The fact that educated people like you have legitimate questions is really different from the PR issue of how it plays publicly and can be spun in the hands of an opposing campaign. Did the FBI yet release all of the frames of the video of the plane striking the Pentagon?

[tpreitzel]

Oh, OK, so, 9/11 Truth is not considered kooky, and also, Medina's answer didn't sound like she questioned the official version?

Again, "questioned the official version" isn't the same as stating our government was involved in 9/11. ;)



I think you need to read some threads (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/11/heartache-tea-party-candidate-in-texas-a-911-truther/comment-page-1/#comments)on mainstream conservative web sites to recalibrate your understanding of rank-and-file opinion around these issues. Failing that, I'm not really going to be able to explain to you how this is playing outside of the libertarian community.

No, some "rank-and-file" simply need to stop listening to spin and indoctrination. ;)

[sofia]

In the minds of millions, questioning 9/11 is kooky. Deal with it.

men of high intellect and character don't give a rat's ass about what the masses think.

[CapitalistRadical]

Again, "questioned the official version" isn't the same as stating our government was involved in 9/11. ;)

Failing to immediately deny a controversial position can be spun by the opposition as agreement, and even if you didn't agree with me theoretically, you see it playing out before your eyes right now! Politics is about image, not substance. I realize that you don't like that, but you might as well accept the truth. More importantly, Medina should have accepted this truth, and immediately distanced herself from anything controversial.

Feel free to go educate the GOP base in Texas. Convince them that it is legitimate to have an open mind on who was responsible for 9/11. Good luck with that.

Instead, I'll send my money to the Liberty candidate that knows how to win campaigns, and saves the questions that you don't think are kooky for their friends over beer.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Failing to immediately deny a controversial position can be spun by the opposition as agreement, and even if you didn't agree with me theoretically, you see it playing out before your eyes right now! Politics is about image, not substance. I realize that you don't like that, but you might as well accept the truth. More importantly, Medina should have accepted this truth, and immediately distanced herself from anything controversial.

Feel free to go educate the GOP base in Texas. Convince them that it is legitimate to have an open mind on who was responsible for 9/11. Good luck with that.

Instead, I'll send my money to the Liberty candidate that knows how to win campaigns, and saves the questions that you don't think are kooky for their friends over beer.

You do know ending Property Tax is controversial right? I guess we should just distance ourselves from any libertarian principles...

[tpreitzel]

Failing to immediately deny a controversial position can be spun by the opposition as agreement, and even if you didn't agree with me theoretically, you see it playing out before your eyes right now! Politics is about image, not substance. I realize that you don't like that, but you might as well accept the truth. More importantly, Medina should have accepted this truth, and immediately distanced herself from anything controversial.


Naturally. Spinning lies is what the mass media does best. Now, you're saying that a candidate should never take a controversial position until the candidate is elected. I'm quite sure that her position to eliminate property taxes is controversial, yes? Should she drop that issue due to its controversial nature? ;) No, Debra simply needs to repeat what she's already said and expose the spin as the unjustified smear it is.



Feel free to go educate the GOP base in Texas. Convince them that it is legitimate to have an open mind on who was responsible for 9/11. Good luck with that. Instead, I'll send my money to the Liberty candidate that knows how to win campaigns, and saves the questions that you don't think are kooky for their friends over beer.

"Good luck with that." With "supporters" like these .... :)

[tpreitzel]

You do know ending Property Tax is controversial right? I guess we should just distance ourselves from any libertarian principles...
;)

[CapitalistRadical]

I meant controversial topics like this that are irrelevant to policy. On the other hand, if eliminating property tax is hopelessly unpopular, it shouldn't be campaigned on! I'd rather have a sitting moderate libertarian over a losing pure one. Keep your eye on the prize and take steps toward it. Ideologically pure candidates with 2% margins are not steps toward anything, just a demoralizing waste of effort.

[libertyjam]

Actually, I don't think electoral politics will amount to much of anything really. It's certainly not the most effective way that liberty will be achieved. But I believe that if you're going to play a game, you must play to win!

Let Medina be a lesson to other candidates. Take the game seriously, or don't waste our liberty money. If we wanted toy candidates just for the sake of proving points, we would work within the LP.

Nevertheless, our viewpoints converge in as much as liberty candidates honestly don't hold beliefs labeled as conspiracy theories. Simple! Then they can be honest and still have a reasonable chance.

Don't feed the Perry Mole.

[Liberty Star]

Emails can be deleted in a second, he is not the kind of person who has a conscience and would be "hurt" by people's outrage. What would hurt him is boycott.

I think we need to start compiling a list of his ad sponsors. Emails/letters to those businesses are more effective than anything else.

Everyone, including himself most likely, knows that Beck is a lying professional media pimp trained by dem media gurus. Best way to effect change is to effect his "profit" center or what is lately "loss" center.

[TastyWheat]

Lying isn't always immoral. There are special systems, such as theater, where it is expected and acceptable. What if Democratic politics is one of them?
Then we throw out the politicians and encourage them to seek careers as thespians.