PDA

View Full Version : Foreign Policy: What Exactly Does Glenn Beck Disagree with on Ron Paul's Foreign Policy




Mitt Romney
12-12-2011, 12:11 PM
First post. I'm glad I found this forum. Was a big Paul supporter in 2008 too.

So, Glenn Beck said he could not vote for Ron Paul after a recent debate in which Paul was booed because he pointed out that we were attacked on 9/11 due to our presence in the middle east. First, I believe that is a simplistic view of why we were attacked but it is certainly a portion of the problem. Terrorism IS a tactic as Ron Paul has stated - but to what end? Why are these terrorists so bent on attacking us - and not just us but their own people and people in Europe? There has to be more to this than revenge killings for a presence in the Middle East. But what a motivating factor to use to stir them up by their leaders over there.

Now, as to Glenn Beck, he says he "vehemently" disagrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy. This makes no sense to me. Beck has stated that he wants out of Iraq and that he is not an interventionist or a neo-con. I know he thinks Ron Paul is wrong about why the terrorists attacked on 9/11 but also believes we have our hand in too many things in other nations. So I can see why he disagress with Paul's reasoning on 9/11 but not to the point of vehemently disagreeing with Paul. Beck is very pro-Israel but does not support sending troops to defend them in a war (that is what he said anyway). Ron Paul is not Anti-Israel. He is simply anti-foreign aid - to ANY nation.

I don't get the vehemency on Beck's part. Either he must be misinformed on Paul's foreign policy or there is something I'm missing that Beck has said that I missed.

BTW, I have only spend a little time perusing the forum so forgive me if this has already been discussed.

bluesc
12-12-2011, 12:15 PM
We weren't attacked for our freedoms, btw. We were attacked due to our intervention over there. I hope you research it more. Beck's view (and possibly yours) is that we were attacked for our freedoms. THAT is the simplistic view. Ron's views are very deep and complicated, but with 30 seconds to explain, it's not easy.

Beck disagrees with him on Israel. He has stated it many times. He wants us to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon, while Ron doesn't want to. He disagrees on 9/11, and disagrees on Iran. There may be more.

Welcome btw.

vechorik
12-12-2011, 12:29 PM
Good question. I remember Beck "preaching" about collectivism and how evil that is.

I think Dr. Paul agrees with that statement. So, isn't the entire "Israel thing" also a matter of collectivism vs individualism?

Mitt Romney
12-12-2011, 01:07 PM
I agree completely that we were not attacked because of our freedoms. I agree that is a very simplistic view. I have not heard Glenn Beck state that he believes that is THE reason we were attacked (a bunch of rogue terrorists who hate freedom) but that there are elements in the Islamic community that want to destroy Israel and any nations friendly to them. Also, he has touched on the unification of communists with Islamic extremists such as the Muslim Brotherhood who want to restore the caliphate, even if by force. This is a real threat IMO. There is a great deal of evidence that Russian and Chinese communists are funding terrorist operations (just look at their weaponry). Now, how to deal with that threat is another matter.

I have not heard Ron Paul's opinion on the latter but I'm certain he has one. He has obviously called for ending foreign aid to Russia, China, as well as Middle East countries (and everyone else). That alone would almost dry up funding for many terrorist operations. At the same time, should we be openly trading with Russia and China? China is a communist-state-run country which I believe we cannot trust. Sending money to those two countries (whether it be foreign aid or commerce) is only financing those who openly oppose us. Communism does have as one of its goals domination of free countries - not because they hate freedom but because they love power and control. The one-worlders probably see communism and terrorism as a means to an end.

bluesc
12-12-2011, 01:26 PM
I agree completely that we were not attacked because of our freedoms. I agree that is a very simplistic view. I have not heard Glenn Beck state that he believes that is THE reason we were attacked (a bunch of rogue terrorists who hate freedom) but that there are elements in the Islamic community that want to destroy Israel and any nations friendly to them. Also, he has touched on the unification of communists with Islamic extremists such as the Muslim Brotherhood who want to restore the caliphate, even if by force. This is a real threat IMO. There is a great deal of evidence that Russian and Chinese communists are funding terrorist operations (just look at their weaponry). Now, how to deal with that threat is another matter.

I have not heard Ron Paul's opinion on the latter but I'm certain he has one. He has obviously called for ending foreign aid to Russia, China, as well as Middle East countries (and everyone else). That alone would almost dry up funding for many terrorist operations. At the same time, should we be openly trading with Russia and China? China is a communist-state-run country which I believe we cannot trust. Sending money to those two countries (whether it be foreign aid or commerce) is only financing those who openly oppose us. Communism does have as one of its goals domination of free countries - not because they hate freedom but because they love power and control. The one-worlders probably see communism and terrorism as a means to an end.

I highly suggest you look up Michael Scheuer on youtube. He was the head of the CIA Bin Laden unit and advised Presidents on the Middle East. He is an expert on this subject, and he agrees with Ron, not Glenn Beck.

You have it right when you say part of it is due to our support of Israel -- that is included in our intervention over there.

ShaneEnochs
12-12-2011, 01:28 PM
It's a misunderstanding of the Bible on Beck's part. He believes we should put the people of Israel before ourselves because they are God's "chosen people". Because Paul isn't someone who is willing to put Israel before the United States, and would allow Israel to be wiped off the map if they involved themselves in a war they could not win, Beck sees Paul as somewhat evil. Like a heathen.

brushfire
12-12-2011, 01:32 PM
Its only confusing if one perceives Beck as "legit".

If you see him for the shill he is, then its clear as crystal. Beck is a fraud. His claim to fame is research and exposure. He can somehow obtain 10 years worth of Soros fecal samples, telling us all a comprehensive report on Soros's diet, but yet when it comes to good candidates Beck somehow comes up dry...

Beck = Fraud

Mitt Romney
12-12-2011, 01:56 PM
I am familiar with the interpretation of the Bible that many use to promote foreign aid to Israel or intervention as needed. I have often wondered if that is what Beck bases his opinion on. It is a topic that I myself am confused about because I've never understand the Biblical interpretation to mean the political state of Israel so much as the land being a place for the people of Israel (meaning House of Israel). Jews do not just live in the political state of Israel. So, taking the idea that Israel is God's chosen people, I have always accepted that as the House of Israel and not any kind of political state. Is not this the same misunderstanding that many at the time of Christ had - that he was sent to free the political state rather than to free them spiritually?

In any case, I can't recall Glenn Beck ever stating that he believes in the political state of Israel being the same thing but his actions imply that he may. I don't think he is a bad guy because of this (maybe misguided) but I find it odd that he think Ron Paul is somehow a danger to the political state of Israel - in any way. I have heard Glenn Beck state that he would not support sending U.S. troops in to fight a war for Israel, so in that he agrees with Paul.

Mitt Romney
12-12-2011, 02:01 PM
Its only confusing if one perceives Beck as "legit".

If you see him for the shill he is, then its clear as crystal. Beck is a fraud. His claim to fame is research and exposure. He can somehow obtain 10 years worth of Soros fecal samples, telling us all a comprehensive report on Soros's diet, but yet when it comes to good candidates Beck somehow comes up dry...

Beck = Fraud

I disagree with you. I think Glenn Beck may be wrong on a few things but I absolutely believe he is not a part of the machine that drives most of the media. He would never have left Fox if so. He has changed dramatically over the years. I think his beef with Paul is mostly based on pride. He probably does not want to admit that he agrees with Paul on foreign policy (when in fact he has stated that he does on many things) when he has already said he "vehemently" opposes him on foreign policy. He is human in that regard but that doesn't make it OK. I know Ron Paul supporters who refuse to believe that Paul has any weaknesses AT ALL, which is not any more healthy. He certainly does have weaknesses, but he is by far the most correct candidate running IMO.

Feelgood
12-12-2011, 02:15 PM
Glenn Beck is very much a part of the media machine. He tries to play the victim card all the time to make it seem as if he is being attacked for being outside the mainstream and conservative. Glenn Beck is no conservative, he is as much a fake and a fraud as a Hannity, Levin or Limbaugh. If you want to hear something a little more like Ron Paul, and not so mainstream BS like Beck preaches, try listeing to Jerry Doyle. Compare him to a Glenn Beck for a week, and youll see what we mean.

Glenn Beck seems to think that Ron Paul is anti-Israel, when in fact he is the ONLY candidate running that is truly PRO-Israel. As a matter of fact, if you listen to Netanyahu's speech to Congress from a couple of months ago, and contrast it with what Ron Paul says, you'll see that Ron Paul wants the same thing that Netanyahu wants. Imagine that. However, Glenn Beck thinks he knows better for Israel, then Israel knows for Israel. If you listen closely to Beck, he flat out tells the same mainstream lie that RP's foreign policy is that of an isolationist. That is a flat out lie, our current policy is isolationist. We piss people off and they want nothing to do with us, doesnt get more isolationist then that. Ron Paul's policy is a non-interventionist policy. There is a huge difference, and Beck not only knows it, but spreads the same lie about his policy that the rest of the MSM spreads.

In the meantime, Molotov Mitchell did a fantastic piece on Ron Paul's foreign policy. Listen carefully to what he says, he explains things very well.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=351761

PS: Did you HAVE to pick the name Mitt Romney? :rolleyes:

Verrater
12-12-2011, 02:20 PM
Beck = Fraud

I'd really like to know if you think acting like this helps Ron's appeal to people or hurts it.

Rothbardian Girl
12-12-2011, 02:24 PM
Also, he has touched on the unification of communists with Islamic extremists such as the Muslim Brotherhood who want to restore the caliphate, even if by force. This is a real threat IMO.

First of all, welcome. I would just like to tell you as a personal anecdote, the thought of a "caliphate" may give some non-interventionists pause, but I have studied Islam as part of my world history class in college. Now granted, I'm just a freshman, but what I learned is that Islam is extremely fragmented, just as Christianity is with its various denominations: Catholicism and all the other Protestant denominations. Many Muslims cannot even agree on the legitimate successors to Muhammad. If I recall correctly, squabbles between the legitimacy of the leaders of the Islamic faith after Muhammad died are the reason for the split between Shi'ites and Sunni Muslims. There are regular accounts of all kinds of fighting between Muslims on these sorts of issues alone. Islam is not a unified faith - the "bad things" that you hear about Islam, like its seclusion of women for example, were introduced as addendums to the faith. I'll just quote from this article (http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20041120_en.html):


Later, Islam added measures for "the preservation of modesty for women" -like casting down their eyes in public, concealing their breasts and jewellery and the likes. However, these restrictions were later extended by the followers of the prophet far beyond his original intentions as expressed in Koran, and remained more or less a permanent fixture of Muslim life thereafter.

Later on, however, the insecurity of early Islam gradually added to the exclusion of women, and 100 years later, by the reign of the Abbasid Caliph Haroon ur Rashid, women became merely sexual toys and breeding machines; [...]

These measures against women were likely introduced by people seeking power and manipulating others to do it - just like has historically happened with just about every other religion throughout the world. If there's one thing I've learned about religion through my courses at college, it's that a lot of commonly accepted interpretations of things are often way off, or based on shoddy evidence. The threat of a caliphate, to get back to my main point, is thus extremely limited. You seem to have indicated that you agree with Ron Paul's philosophy of blowback. It is my humble opinion that the only thing linking the various factions of Islam together is the presence of U.S. interventionism. Otherwise, a lot of Muslims are going to be arguing until the cows come home. I don't see a whole lot of unity within Christianity either, honestly. A lot of people here on this forum who describe themselves as Protestant are virulently against Catholicism, and denounce it as not "true Christianity". I highly doubt Christianity could become unified again, and I would say the same goes for Islam - as long as we are not deliberately provoking them.

Feelgood
12-12-2011, 02:28 PM
I'd really like to know if you think acting like this helps Ron's appeal to people or hurts it.

Does speaking the truth about an individual help or hurt Ron? I would think being consistently honest would be beneficial, more then not. Glenn Beck is a fraud, and everyone here that has been listening to him for any length of time knows it. I love how in Dec '07 he had Ron Paul on for a full hour on his show, was a great interview, and I was excited to listen to Glenn's show the next. I thought, hey MAYBE he is coming around?! Nope, all he did was blast him all day pretty much the next day. He said, and I quote based on 4 year old memory of the convo...

"Best way to expose him for the kook he is, is to just let him talk!"

I was infuriated. And then back on Oct '07 he was comparing Ron Paul grassroot support to "terrorists" because we were holding a "moneybomb" on Guy Fawkes day of Nov 5th. And now look, the word moneybomb is synonymous with money day, as much as Google is with search engine. Imagine that!

Bastard.

fisharmor
12-12-2011, 02:39 PM
I learned everything I need to know about Glenn Beck listening to him interview Debra Medina.
He painted her in a corner where she either had to say over the radio that she thought truthers were a bunch of nutjobs, or he was going to crucify her.
She refused, and he crucified her. And she's not the governor of Texas as a result.

I remember him clearly ranting afterward, saying (paraphrased) "The question is simple: is the United States government inherently evil?"
And then dancing his little happy dance that he had exposed an anti-government wacko, and that we could all rest assured we were that much safer for it.

I'm not at all certain how a guy like Beck can talk out of one side of his mouth about the founding fathers, and then do this out of the other side.
Is it inherently evil? Yes. That is what attracts people to the conservative side of the spectrum in the first place.

Beck lives in the same fantasy land that his fantasy evil puppetmaster progressives live in. The one that believes that the state can be used to good ends. He just believes in different puppetmasters.
Dr. Paul does not spend as much time in this fantasy land as Beck.
That bothers Beck.
I'm convinced it's really not any more complicated than this.

Mitt Romney
12-12-2011, 02:54 PM
Glenn Beck is very much a part of the media machine. He tries to play the victim card all the time to make it seem as if he is being attacked for being outside the mainstream and conservative. Glenn Beck is no conservative, he is as much a fake and a fraud as a Hannity, Levin or Limbaugh. If you want to hear something a little more like Ron Paul, and not so mainstream BS like Beck preaches, try listeing to Jerry Doyle. Compare him to a Glenn Beck for a week, and youll see what we mean.

Glenn Beck seems to think that Ron Paul is anti-Israel, when in fact he is the ONLY candidate running that is truly PRO-Israel. As a matter of fact, if you listen to Netanyahu's speech to Congress from a couple of months ago, and contrast it with what Ron Paul says, you'll see that Ron Paul wants the same thing that Netanyahu wants. Imagine that. However, Glenn Beck thinks he knows better for Israel, then Israel knows for Israel. If you listen closely to Beck, he flat out tells the same mainstream lie that RP's foreign policy is that of an isolationist. That is a flat out lie, our current policy is isolationist. We piss people off and they want nothing to do with us, doesnt get more isolationist then that. Ron Paul's policy is a non-interventionist policy. There is a huge difference, and Beck not only knows it, but spreads the same lie about his policy that the rest of the MSM spreads.

In the meantime, Molotov Mitchell did a fantastic piece on Ron Paul's foreign policy. Listen carefully to what he says, he explains things very well.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=351761

PS: Did you HAVE to pick the name Mitt Romney? :rolleyes:

I think Glenn Beck has some issues. On Medina, there could have been a legitimate, civilized discussion, but he can be downright rude to people who may disagree with him but are not being deceptive. I don't know why he is so afraid to have a serious discussion with Ron Paul about Foreign Policy - he gets so emotional about it and doesn't seem to want to listen to Paul's reasoning.

I think it is absolutely fine for Beck to disagree with Paul or others. I don't like how he does it a lot of times. Heck, I think he can sound foolish attacking REAL problems with Obama. But that doesn't make him part of the machine or a fraud. It is possible that he just has personal issues and is misguided on some things. Heck, he has admitted that it has taken him some time to come around on some things (Paul included). I don't think that means we should dismiss him. He's pretty much the only one who exposes the Fed or the progressives in the Republican Party. Give him credit where credit is due.

BTW, Yes I had to choose Mitt Romney. It's a very personal reason living in a place where people support him that don't really know why. I still see Newt as the worst candidate though.

Verrater
12-12-2011, 03:12 PM
Does speaking the truth about an individual help or hurt Ron? I would think being consistently honest would be beneficial, more then not. Glenn Beck is a fraud, and everyone here that has been listening to him for any length of time knows it. I love how in Dec '07 he had Ron Paul on for a full hour on his show, was a great interview, and I was excited to listen to Glenn's show the next. I thought, hey MAYBE he is coming around?! Nope, all he did was blast him all day pretty much the next day. He said, and I quote based on 4 year old memory of the convo...

"Best way to expose him for the kook he is, is to just let him talk!"

I was infuriated. And then back on Oct '07 he was comparing Ron Paul grassroot support to "terrorists" because we were holding a "moneybomb" on Guy Fawkes day of Nov 5th. And now look, the word moneybomb is synonymous with money day, as much as Google is with search engine. Imagine that!

Bastard.


So is that a yes or a no?
You answered my question, with a question.

Something that apparently goes right over peoples heads is that not everyone knows or cares why you dislike someone. If someone comes here a Glenn Beck and Ron Paul supporter and sees you ranting about Beck and subsequently leaves hating Ron Paul because of the way his supporters act, that isn't helping.

(I know you should never judge someone based on who supports them, but people do. That's just a hard and shitty fact. If you want proof check out the link to the discussion I had with Eric Golub in my signature.)

I'm not saying I agree with some of garbage Glenn has done in the past, I'm not even defending him.
I'm asking you to consider how you appear to other potential voters and ask yourself how your actions reflect on the community and the campaign.

To the OP:
Welcome.
Kudos to you for not being run off and sticking to the topic, something I apparently couldn't do.

Mitt Romney
12-12-2011, 03:19 PM
You seem to have indicated that you agree with Ron Paul's philosophy of blowback. It is my humble opinion that the only thing linking the various factions of Islam together is the presence of U.S. interventionism. Otherwise, a lot of Muslims are going to be arguing until the cows come home. I don't see a whole lot of unity within Christianity either, honestly. A lot of people here on this forum who describe themselves as Protestant are virulently against Catholicism, and denounce it as not "true Christianity". I highly doubt Christianity could become unified again, and I would say the same goes for Islam - as long as we are not deliberately provoking them.



Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the thought you put into it. I think your points make a lot of sense. In general, I think most of the problems with have with any kind of enemies in the world are not masses of people but rather the leaders of those people or nations that have something to benefit from stirring up the masses to support their cause. We have that same problem in America. We sometimes go to war when convinced by leaders that we must in order to get revenge or to be safe.

This same process exists in other areas of the world IMO (Russia, North Korea, China, Middle East, etc.). If we can stop the instigators from succeeding we win 99% of the battle. I agree with you that blowback is the incentive used to stir up terrorist activities (as is the caliphate, etc). However, what advantage does a terrorist have in blowing up the WTC? Revenge is the only thing he gets out of it. Or he is taught that he will blessed in the afterlife. But who is spreading these ideas? What do the instigators get out of it? It must be more than revenge or even caliphate. If you pull this thread long enough, you have to start asking what the instigators in our part of the world have to gain from it as well? Why promote interventionism in the first place? What does it gain them? Helping the weak is the message used to sell it but if that were the real reason then we'd be in every country with a dictator fighting a war.

When I stated that the communist forces were allying with the Islamic extremists, I meant that they were energizing the extremists to help them fight a battle FOR them. IMO, the communists have always been the most threatening enemy. Communism is a very real threat to liberty. I do not understand why communist leaders seek to destroy and control free nations any more than I understand sincere supporters of a caliphate. The driving force behind this is small in number but very real and organized. Look at the communist movements in the U.S. Who is behind this? It does not benefit its followers but the instigators have much to gain from it.

vechorik
12-12-2011, 03:22 PM
It's a misunderstanding of the Bible on Beck's part. He believes we should put the people of Israel before ourselves because they are God's "chosen people". Because Paul isn't someone who is willing to put Israel before the United States, and would allow Israel to be wiped off the map if they involved themselves in a war they could not win, Beck sees Paul as somewhat evil. Like a heathen.

Nope. Beck specifically says it's not the Bible predictions -- a lot of BECK VIEWERS quote the Bible and SAY it's about that, but not Beck himself.

Can't find the YouTube of a lady saying she heard it with her own ears.

I've heard Beck say "So goes Israel, so goes the US" but he never uses Bible prophecy as the reason for his stance with Israel.

As far as specifics, I've never heard Beck say EXACTLY what he disagrees with.
Perhaps Beck and Dr. Paul should talk in specifics -- like what would you do if this happened -- if that happened -- etc.
I believe they BOTH STAND WITH ISRAEL

Mitt Romney
12-12-2011, 03:32 PM
Nope. Beck specifically says it's not the Bible predictions -- a lot of BECK VIEWERS quote the Bible and SAY it's about that, but not Beck himself.

Can't find the YouTube of a lady saying she heard it with her own ears.

I've heard Beck say "So goes Israel, so goes the US" but he never uses Bible prophecy as the reason for his stance with Israel.

As far as specifics, I've never heard Beck say EXACTLY what he disagrees with.
Perhaps Beck and Dr. Paul should talk in specifics -- like what would you do if this happened -- if that happened -- etc.
I believe they BOTH STAND WITH ISRAEL

That's what I don't get either. I can't seem to find EXACTLY what the big issue is. Sure, minor disagreements here and there, but to "vehemently" disagree makes absolutely no sense.

Publicani
12-12-2011, 03:58 PM
Part of misunderstanding is a problem with Ron Paul's framing of his foreign policy. Imagine in what kind of problems he would have ran into, if he used the same approach with welfare programs. If he started saying that people really don't need them, they can get food and clothes themselves, the Bush administration reacted with glee when they learned about people not being able to buy prescription drugs, and so on. Instead he's just saying that all these welfare programs are unconstitutional and don't work, plus we don't have money to run them anyway so all of these is better left - EVENTUALLY- to charity. And if you want the government to subsidize your favorite cause, don't complain when the government will enforce what you hate the most.

Now, with Ron Paul's foreign policy, he keeps saying that Israel can defend herself (what if Israel or some other country can't?), Iran has the right to nuclear arms (maybe, but why are we discussing this?), Osama gave such and such reason for the 9/11 attack (who cares?). Instead he could have said that all these wars and military bases are unconstitutional and don't work, plus we don't have money to run them anyway so all foreign help is better left to volunteers. And if you want the government to be on Israel's side, don't complain when the U.S, under a different president will fight with the Palestinians against Israel.

I bet Beck and other conservatives would agree with Ron Paul then.

The Free Hornet
12-12-2011, 04:14 PM
Its only confusing if one perceives Beck as "legit".

If you see him for the shill he is, then its clear as crystal. Beck is a fraud. His claim to fame is research and exposure. He can somehow obtain 10 years worth of Soros fecal samples, telling us all a comprehensive report on Soros's diet, but yet when it comes to good candidates Beck somehow comes up dry...

Beck = Fraud

+1. One way to judge a person is by what causes them outrage. These are the things that Glenn Beck and next top 6 contenders are OK with:

1) Deficit-funded war (putting Beck and Soros on the same page wrt currency destruction)

2) The War on Drugs

3) Destruction of our civil liberties

4) Joke interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and de facto repeal of the 10th Amendment

I am not saying Beck does not speak against these things from time to time, rather he has no passion for liberty.

cucucachu0000
12-12-2011, 04:31 PM
from what i remember from watching his shows all the time, he agrees with the foriegn policy and even his drug war policy but he thinks the country and the world isnt ready for it he thinks we need to ease back into our freedoms, and ease out of entangaling alliances and wars. i think we need to cut the cord now while we still have a shot at saving the country. he doesnt seem to understand that we are in too deep to ease back out of it we gotta go full force and the longer we wait the deeper we get.

MikeM39
12-12-2011, 04:55 PM
Beck wants America to attack Iran to prevent them from getting a nuke and destroying Israel. He's obsessed with the Holocaust and talks about it whenever the topic of the Middle East is brought up so his view is that Iran is going to get a nuke and create a second Holocaust of the Jews. He dislikes Paul's foreign policy because he thinks Paul won't deal with this threat to Israel's existence.

loweredd
12-12-2011, 05:34 PM
He dislikes Paul's foreign policy because he thinks Paul won't deal with this threat to Israel's existence.

I think this is spot on.

I listen to Glenn, and "I agree with him on everything except his foreign policy". I don't understand how he can talk of the Founding Fathers with such pasion, and then turn around and say Ron Paul is out of touch with these ideas!

Mitt Romney
12-12-2011, 07:48 PM
+1. One way to judge a person is by what causes them outrage. These are the things that Glenn Beck and next top 6 contenders are OK with:

1) Deficit-funded war (putting Beck and Soros on the same page wrt currency destruction)

2) The War on Drugs

3) Destruction of our civil liberties

4) Joke interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and de facto repeal of the 10th Amendment

I am not saying Beck does not speak against these things from time to time, rather he has no passion for liberty.

In regards to #2, I don't think even most liberty minded people are "passionate" about ending the war on drugs even though they agree it doesn't work. Ron Paul is unique in that sense. As to #3, he emphatically disagreed with Senator Adam West tonight on his program (someone he admires) about the new National Defense Authorization Act which Rand Paul opposes as well.

I agree he doesn't focus a lot on state's rights under the Constitution. I'm not sure he ever has. Maybe that's something he's not very well versed in.

Mitt Romney
12-12-2011, 07:54 PM
Beck wants America to attack Iran to prevent them from getting a nuke and destroying Israel. He's obsessed with the Holocaust and talks about it whenever the topic of the Middle East is brought up so his view is that Iran is going to get a nuke and create a second Holocaust of the Jews. He dislikes Paul's foreign policy because he thinks Paul won't deal with this threat to Israel's existence.

Is he quoted as saying he wants to "attack" Iran. If so, that is certainly an eye opener and explains a lot. I can't think of when he has ever said that outright. I think your last sentence may be the heart of the disagreement. I still think he doesn't understand Paul's foreign policy.

PierzStyx
12-12-2011, 07:56 PM
I agree completely that we were not attacked because of our freedoms. I agree that is a very simplistic view. I have not heard Glenn Beck state that he believes that is THE reason we were attacked (a bunch of rogue terrorists who hate freedom) but that there are elements in the Islamic community that want to destroy Israel and any nations friendly to them. Also, he has touched on the unification of communists with Islamic extremists such as the Muslim Brotherhood who want to restore the caliphate, even if by force. This is a real threat IMO. There is a great deal of evidence that Russian and Chinese communists are funding terrorist operations (just look at their weaponry). Now, how to deal with that threat is another matter.

I have not heard Ron Paul's opinion on the latter but I'm certain he has one. He has obviously called for ending foreign aid to Russia, China, as well as Middle East countries (and everyone else). That alone would almost dry up funding for many terrorist operations. At the same time, should we be openly trading with Russia and China? China is a communist-state-run country which I believe we cannot trust. Sending money to those two countries (whether it be foreign aid or commerce) is only financing those who openly oppose us. Communism does have as one of its goals domination of free countries - not because they hate freedom but because they love power and control. The one-worlders probably see communism and terrorism as a means to an end.


As to trade with China and Russia, and I'll throw in Cuba and North Korea as well, the answer is yes! Look at the effect trade relations had on the USSR and China. They both went through economic revolutions within an incredibly short period of time as soon as we started trading with them. It was a major factor in teh fall of teh USSR and the Chinese government had to give their people more rights in order to stave off a similar revolution there (we normally don't think about the fact that as bad as China is now it was way worse before we began trading with them). Trade, open trade, in order to be prosperous demands a more open society than most insular communist countries like. It exposes their people to the prosperity of the west and the freedoms we enjoy that they do not, and gets them to wanting the same. It makes it harder for teh government to completely decieve their people as well. Free trade actually is a liability to communist countries, not a boon.

Imaginos
12-12-2011, 08:20 PM
Beck is a controlled dissent.
He's a puppet working for the Military Industrial Complex and AIPAC.
The man is simply playing his role in MSM to distract people.

Mitt Romney
12-12-2011, 08:32 PM
Trade, open trade, in order to be prosperous demands a more open society than most insular communist countries like. It exposes their people to the prosperity of the west and the freedoms we enjoy that they do not, and gets them to wanting the same. It makes it harder for teh government to completely decieve their people as well. Free trade actually is a liability to communist countries, not a boon.

I agree that free open trade is a deterrent to creating enemies. I do not believe China has free trade (nor Russia but Russia is certainly more free in their trade than China). China has commerce for sure, but it is not free trade. We use Chinese labor to produce many goods that are imported to the U.S. The Chinese are not benefiting from this as much as they could because China is still hard-core communist. I don't think there was ever a real threat of revolution in China that their government caved into. They are simply benefiting from us providing them income for their state-labor. China is only a superpower because of our aid to them (see Clinton and Chinagate).

Russia is not pro-free trade. Their government is not a friend of liberty. The Russian mofia controls so many things in Russia it is ridiculous. IMO, communism lost its hold in the U.S.S.R. because it was failing. But the people in charge then are still around now.

China has an advantage over the U.S. in that we give them special privileges to export to us and let us build manufacturing enterprises in their country. We, on the other hand, squash our free markets with overburdening regulations, taxes, and mandates. NAFTA, for example, is killing our country.

Ron Paul opposed most favored nation status for China and opposed NAFTA (CAFTA, etc.) because they are not really free trade agreements, they unfairly help other countries while making it more difficult for American companies to compete.

Mitt Romney
12-12-2011, 08:38 PM
Beck is a controlled dissent.
He's a puppet working for the Military Industrial Complex and AIPAC.
The man is simply playing his role in MSM to distract people.

Your premise assumes Ron Paul is THE only threat to socialism, the Fed, the MIC, improper wars, out-of-control government, etc. Just because Ron Paul is so right on about so many things doesn't mean that anyone who isn't just like him is working for the enemy. There are "useful idiots," real enemies to freedom, apathetic people, and those who are just not quite there on everything (see Rick Santorum who says he has learned the most from Ron Paul). I don't think fighting everyone who doesn't agree 100% with Ron Paul is helping his cause one bit.

Travlyr
12-12-2011, 08:52 PM
Your premise assumes Ron Paul is THE only threat to socialism, the Fed, the MIC, improper wars, out-of-control government, etc. Just because Ron Paul is so right on about so many things doesn't mean that anyone who isn't just like him is working for the enemy. There are "useful idiots," real enemies to freedom, apathetic people, and those who are just not quite there on everything (see Rick Santorum who says he has learned the most from Ron Paul). I don't think fighting everyone who doesn't agree 100% with Ron Paul is helping his cause one bit.
Who else is position to have the same impact as a President Ron Paul - Defender of Liberty - Champion of the Constitution - Commander in Chief?

LibertyEagle
12-12-2011, 08:56 PM
Does speaking the truth about an individual help or hurt Ron? I would think being consistently honest would be beneficial, more then not. Glenn Beck is a fraud, and everyone here that has been listening to him for any length of time knows it. I love how in Dec '07 he had Ron Paul on for a full hour on his show, was a great interview, and I was excited to listen to Glenn's show the next. I thought, hey MAYBE he is coming around?! Nope, all he did was blast him all day pretty much the next day. He said, and I quote based on 4 year old memory of the convo...

"Best way to expose him for the kook he is, is to just let him talk!"

I was infuriated. And then back on Oct '07 he was comparing Ron Paul grassroot support to "terrorists" because we were holding a "moneybomb" on Guy Fawkes day of Nov 5th. And now look, the word moneybomb is synonymous with money day, as much as Google is with search engine. Imagine that!

Bastard.

Go punch your pillow or whatever you have to do to get it out of your system. That was back in '07.

There is no logical reason to alienate Beck, or the people who listen to him, further. It serves no purpose. We have to keep our eye on the prize of winning votes for Ron Paul. This isn't about Beck. This is about us helping Dr. Paul win.

LibertyEagle
12-12-2011, 08:59 PM
I wonder if we should be sending Beck the 9-11 Commission report, or a book by Pape or Scheuer. Because the things that Beck seems to hate about Ron Paul's foreign policy were clearly stated by our own CIA.

I think those resources might have much more sway with Beck than just quoting Ron Paul or trying to convince him ourselves.

I mean, does Beck think he knows more than our CIA? That is the position I would take.

AJ187
12-12-2011, 08:59 PM
Go punch your pillow or whatever you have to do to get it out of your system. That was back in '07.

There is no logical reason to alienate Beck, or the people who listen to him, further. It serves no purpose. We have to keep our eye on the prize of winning votes for Ron Paul. This isn't about Beck. This is about us helping Dr. Paul, win.

I agree, but Dr. Paul supporters have a long memory not like the general populace unfortunately...

LibertyEagle
12-12-2011, 09:02 PM
I agree, but Dr. Paul supporters have a long memory not like the general populace unfortunately...

Remembering is one thing. Keeping our eye on the prize is another.

AJ187
12-12-2011, 09:03 PM
In regards to #2, I don't think even most liberty minded people are "passionate" about ending the war on drugs even though they agree it doesn't work. Ron Paul is unique in that sense. As to #3, he emphatically disagreed with Senator Adam West tonight on his program (someone he admires) about the new National Defense Authorization Act which Rand Paul opposes as well.

I agree he doesn't focus a lot on state's rights under the Constitution. I'm not sure he ever has. Maybe that's something he's not very well versed in.

I can't speak for the majority of liberty minded supporters, but ending the drug war is really important to me. If guys like beck and all would do their own research they'd learn the drug war also has the a lot to do with our foreign policy and is practically proof of the farce of the two party system as the policy never changes....

Travlyr
12-12-2011, 09:10 PM
I wonder if we should be sending Beck the 9-11 Commission report, or a book by Pape or Scheuer. Because the things that Beck seems to hate about Ron Paul's foreign policy were clearly stated by our own CIA.

I think those resources might have much more sway with Beck than just quoting Ron Paul or trying to convince him ourselves.

I mean, does Beck think he knows more than our CIA? That is the position I would take.
Glen Beck is extremely inconsistent which is quite telling.

Ron Paul's "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity (http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf)" includes peace which is a product of embracing honest sound monetary policy. Peace and Sound Money are not mutually exclusive. If he endorses Ron Paul's economic policy, then he must accept his foreign policy by default.

“People fight the gold standard,” said Ludwig von Mises, “because they want to substitute national autarky for free trade, war for peace, totalitarian government omnipotence for liberty.” It is no coincidence that the nineteenth century, a time of gold coin standards for the most part, was an era of peace. Nor is it a coincidence that the twentieth century combines wars with paper money.

Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." - Ron Paul

The Free Hornet
12-12-2011, 11:21 PM
In regards to #2, I don't think even most liberty minded people are "passionate" about ending the war on drugs even though they agree it doesn't work.

I have never used an illegal drug. Never. And I am very passionate about ending this monstrosity. In the US, tens of millions have been imprisoned since this started. In Mexico, the death rate from the US drug war (yes, I'm blaming us 100%) is 10,000/year (now - it hasn't always been this bad). To me, this is the holocaust I don't know that even a million have lost their lives, but the number is not small. The lives lost or diminished to inner city drug-war/black-market crime is beyond my ability to count. It has fucked (literally, sadly for many in prison) countless millions. If you are not passionate about ending the war on drugs, then I can't see you as friend to liberty. That's not an insult - I just simply can't comprehend any level of dispassion on the topic. This war has been the major force behind the erosion of our liberities (asset forfeiture, no 4th amendment, no right to protect yourself or prevent unwarrented search or arrest).

crh88
12-13-2011, 01:22 AM
I have never used an illegal drug. Never. And I am very passionate about ending this monstrosity. In the US, tens of millions have been imprisoned since this started. In Mexico, the death rate from the US drug war (yes, I'm blaming us 100%) is 10,000/year (now - it hasn't always been this bad). To me, this is the holocaust I don't know that even a million have lost their lives, but the number is not small. The lives lost or diminished to inner city drug-war/black-market crime is beyond my ability to count. It has fucked (literally, sadly for many in prison) countless millions. If you are not passionate about ending the war on drugs, then I can't see you as friend to liberty. That's not an insult - I just simply can't comprehend any level of dispassion on the topic. This war has been the major force behind the erosion of our liberities (asset forfeiture, no 4th amendment, no right to protect yourself or prevent unwarrented search or arrest).

I agree with you 100%.

Mitt Romney
12-14-2011, 12:08 PM
I have never used an illegal drug. Never. And I am very passionate about ending this monstrosity.

I agree that the war on drugs is an utter failure and a misuse of the federal government's power. It does not help people with addictions to drugs, it does not truly rid illegal drugs from our communities, and in fact, it (fed) shouldn't be in the business of defining what drugs are legal or not. I can understand local governments adopting drug ordinances but not the federal government. This is much more a of an educational, moral teaching issue as well as a court of law issue (was someone harmed by someone using a drug?). Still, I think a community has every right to pass an ordinance restricting the sale or distribution of a drug within their boundaries (let communities experiment with different solutions in dealing with the problem).

You and many others ARE passionate about this issue. I myself am certainly more concerned about it than the common person. I'm not saying there aren't passionate people fighting the war on drugs, but that most people who like small government don't have that as one of their primary concerns (not that they shouldn't). IMO, just because they don't doesn't mean they aren't legitimately concerned about liberty. They just might not understand how horrible this "war" has been.