The FINAL opinion on Glenn Beck

[cajuncocoa]

There was a similar thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404946-The-FINAL-opinion-on-Lew-Rockwell) yesterday about Lew Rockwell. I'm interested in the opinion of RPF members on Glenn Beck.

[Lucille]

Negative.

Are you going to add a poll?

[cajuncocoa]

Negative.

Are you going to add a poll?
Hmmm....I added a poll. Are you unable to see it? (I can see it!)

[Lucille]

I can now! Thanks. :)

[FSP-Rebel]

Neutral>negative yet I can still stomach listening. Knowing about his re-positioning at key times drives my opinion yet he's still a worthy venue to get your message out on in terms of interviews. Is he honestly becoming more libertarian, don't know. What I do know is that Rand's bullet proofing of the liberty message will cause the likes of Levin and Beck to really bend over backwards and look like tards to thwart Rand the way they did Ron.

[kathy88]

Really looking for douche as a choice, but I went negativo.

[DGambler]

He's a shill, negative.

[The Gold Standard]

Scum of the earth.

[KEEF]

He is an opportunistic turd

[cajuncocoa]

Really looking for douche as a choice, but I went negativo.LOL!!

[Confederate]

Scum of the earth.

That's a little harsh.

I think if these polls are done, then they should be public. Mostly so I know who to put on ignore.

[S.Shorland]

Negative almost to horror.

[fisharmor]

Honey honey urine, honey urine urine, urine honey urine, urine urine urine.
Oops!! I meant honey honey honey!!! Honest!


Guess what, Glenn... some of us aren't fooled by the color.

[Confederate]

Positive. Glenn Beck has been a defender of liberty and the Constitution for years. I commend him on his patriotism and courage to speak the truth, even when it's not popular to do so.

[Article V]

Neutral>negative yet I can still stomach listening. Knowing about his re-positioning at key times drives my opinion yet he's still a worthy venue to get your message out on in terms of interviews. Is he honestly becoming more libertarian, don't know. What I do know is that Rand's bullet proofing of the liberty message will cause the likes of Levin and Beck to really bend over backwards and look like tards to thwart Rand the way they did Ron.Can you name some policies (not campaign endorsements) that Beck re-positioned himself on to become less libertarian, more authoritarian?

[compromise]

Positive. Glenn Beck has been a defender of liberty and the Constitution for years. I commend him on his patriotism and courage to speak the truth, even when it's not popular to do so.

This.

Beck is not perfect, but he has stood unshakably with Rand these past 3 years, showering praise on him, his policies and his books constantly. Beck was one of the few that questioned Bush. Beck is a big reason why hundreds of thousands of people over 55 have a positive view of Rand. He is really not someone to antagonize.

[beaker]

i picked neutral only because i'm skeptical of his motives but somewhat positive in the thought this might help give traction to the liberty movement in the mainstream. like it or not, he is popular. i used to listen to him a lot when i was a neocon espeically when he lost his show on fox and o'rilley started to annoy me. in fact he's responsible for starting me on the track to leaving the neocon party. one thing i will say is that at least he's opening his die hard listeners up to the liberty movement. many will stay. and i'm sure some will follow him no matter what he does. but i guarantee NO libertarian who was libertarian before he came along will follow him if he were to leave. so as far as i'm concerned he's only helping us. attempts to co-opt the liberty movement won't he successful. liberty minded people are entirely to smart to fall for that.

[mac_hine]

Positive. Glenn Beck has been a defender of liberty and the Constitution for years. I commend him on his patriotism and courage to speak the truth, even when it's not popular to do so.


Beck is not perfect, but he has stood unshakably with Rand these past 3 years, showering praise on him, his policies and his books constantly. Beck was one of the few that questioned Bush. Beck is a big reason why hundreds of thousands of people over 55 have a positive view of Rand. He is really not someone to antagonize.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30rD6TqDZek&list

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8M2JBIoqo

Beck is pure evil.

[Article V]

i picked neutral only because i'm skeptical of his motives but somewhat positive in the thought this might help give traction to the liberty movement in the mainstream. like it or not, he is popular. i used to listen to him a lot when i was a neocon espeically when he lost his show on fox and o'rilley started to annoy me. in fact he's responsible for starting me on the track to leaving the neocon party. one thing i will say is that at least he's opening his die hard listeners up to the liberty movement. many will stay. and i'm sure some will follow him no matter what he does. but i guarantee NO libertarian who was libertarian before he came along will follow him if he were to leave. so as far as i'm concerned he's only helping us. attempts to co-opt the liberty movement won't be successful.This.

Regardless of his endorsements, Glenn Beck is a net positive for the liberty movement because he's educating people on libertarian policies and making it okay for them to learn libertarianism without the threats or hatred that would occur if a neo-con came here. Libertarians win through their ideas; so the more people spreading our ideas, the better chance we have of attaining a libertarian future.

[mac_hine]

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

[mac_hine]

This.

Regardless of his endorsements, Glenn Beck is a net positive for the liberty movement because he's educating people on libertarian policies and making it okay for them to learn libertarianism without the threats or hatred that would occur if a neo-con came here. Libertarians win through their ideas; so the more people spreading our ideas, the better chance we have of attaining a libertarian future.

The NAP is the bedrock principle of libertarianism.

I doubt Beck has any idea what it is. If he does, I have no doubt he would reject it.

By no means is he a libertarian.

He's an Israel firster religious nut who believes in a few old right principles. He has never been, nor will he ever be liberty minded.

[Article V]

Beck is pure evil.Re Debra Medina video:

Beck doesn't believe 9/11-truthers are fit for public office. This has always been a sticking point for him; he hammered Van Jones non-stop on it while at Fox. Beck loathes the suggestion that our government used Bin Laden as a stooge for its own attack on the WTC. This does not make Beck "pure evil" or even un-libertarian. Ron Paul himself is not a 9/11-truther, and John Stossel thinks 9/11-truthers are nuts. Are they pure evil?

Re CNN Nov 2007 video:

Now the vast majority of Paul supporters take this little metaphor the way it's intended: as a rallying cry to create a dramatic political shift. It's really not the way I would go: ya know, tying my movement in with a historical terrorist attack, especially in post-9/11 America; but, hey, I'm a libertarian at heart, I get it, you raise money however you want as long as you're not blowing people up. But, America, here's what you need to know tonight: Ron Paul supporters are tapping into something that's very real; it's something I've talked about on this program for a very long time: the rising tide of disenfranchisement in this country, and it's coming from all sides of the political spectrum. If that feeling of disenfranchisement leads to political discussion, then our system works perfectly; but if fringe elements take that disenfranchisement and turn it into violence, we endanger the freedoms we're supposedly all fighting for.

Where am I wrong? The 'Ron Paul Revolution', I think it's meant to be as a catchy slogan. But I fear some of his fringe supporters are taking the word 'revolution' too literally. Agree or disagree? You can go to CNN.com/Glenn right now and cast your vote.
I've no doubt that Beck is correct in his 2007 belief that the vast majority of the Ron Paul movement "get it"; but that there may also be some fringe supporters who take the word revolution seriously enough that they'd consider violent acts against their oppressive government acceptable. Do you disagree with any of those statements by Beck? I've no doubt that it was the Ron Paul Revolution and its Guy Fawkes moneybomb that helped influence some fringe elements in parts of the political spectrum to create Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street using that same symbolism. Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street both advocate violence toward government in the here and now, which is what Beck was cautioning against back then so that people wouldn't take it there. Do you disagree? I see none of this as pure evil. I think you just don't like that few people were covering Ron Paul, and when someone like Beck did cover him they did so in context with another story related to violent uprisings and radicalism. I can understand your outrage on that, but the actual context of what Beck specifically said is not incorrect as much as it's simply not the story or framing device you wanted him to cover. Beck's libertarianism doesn't obligate him to cover the stories you like in the way you like them; if Beck didn't promote Ron Paul's candidacy enough for you in 2007 and 2011, it's because Beck (a) didn't think Ron Paul could conceivably win and (b) didn't think Ron would object to Iran obtaining a nuke, which is too much for Beck because he thinks Iran's rhetoric is evidence that they'll immediately use that nuke. (Now, obviously I don't agree with Beck on A or B; but he's not pure evil nor is he un-libertarian for believing those things.)

Do you have any policy viewpoints (not campaign endorsements) where you think Beck flip-flopped from libertarianism toward authoritarianism?

[Article V]

The NAP is the bedrock principle of libertarianism.

I doubt Beck has any idea what it is. If he does, I have no doubt he would reject it.

By no means is he a libertarian.

He's an Israel firster religious nut who believes in a few old right principles. He has never been, nor will he ever be liberty minded.Glenn Beck regularly preaches the non-aggression principle. He also supports Israel because of the non-aggression principle, not in spite of it. Beck has long said he believes that Iran's rhetoric and leadership are evidence that they will use a nuke on Israel and/or America as soon as Iran can acquire one; because of that, Beck believes Iran is equivalent to a madman outside a house loading a gun while shouting, "I'm gonna kill you!" and that the non-aggression principle permits him to support defending America and Israel by preventing Iran from loading that gun.

I don't agree with Beck on any of the above; but I'm not going to claim he's un-libertarian because of that belief. Nor will I say something as ignorant as "I doubt Beck has any idea what [the non-aggression principle] is," when it's a principle he promotes in almost every show! How about you actually start listening to Beck for a bit before you advertise your views on him?

[Article V]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSeHMEjRy0
I have never personally, you know, backed away from something I have promised; there was some confusion between his staff and our staff.That's a pretty big qualifier. Do you think Ron personally books any of his campaign's talk show appearances. I've no doubt Glenn Beck actually thought he had Ron Paul booked and that Ron Paul's incompetent 2007 campaign staff bungled it which forced Beck to scramble for material last-minute on his live show.

What's your problem with that? Is that reason to demonize and call him un-libertarian? Would you demonize Judge Napolitano for doing the same?

As I recall, Beck was very cordial with Ron when they finally appeared together much later.

[Article V]

Honestly, you guys, there's so much to make fun of when it comes to Glenn Beck; yet all most of you seem to do is set up straw-men then scream "establishment! establishment!" Get real. Beck is a real libertarian; we just don't agree with him on everything. That's okay. And that doesn't make him a monster or an establishment shill.

[Ender]

This.

Regardless of his endorsements, Glenn Beck is a net positive for the liberty movement because he's educating people on libertarian policies and making it okay for them to learn libertarianism without the threats or hatred that would occur if a neo-con came here. Libertarians win through their ideas; so the more people spreading our ideas, the better chance we have of attaining a libertarian future.

That's a bunch of carp.

Beck was the one that turned the average elector away from Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries. He is the one that labeled Ron Paul supporters "terrorists" with Wolf Blitzer to support him.

We are still called kooks and weirdos because of this.

Once Ron Paul was in the kooky old man category and no longer a threat to the neocons, then Beck played nice.

[Athan]

Where is the "Beck-stabber" option?

[satchelmcqueen]

tell ya what. someone send this video to beck. IF he appoligises or shays he was wrong back then, then and only then will i forgive him for all the crap he threw at ron. beck imo is one of the reasons paul was looked down on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8M2JBIoqo&feature=player_embedded#!

[Article V]

Where is the "Beck-stabber" option?Ha. Points for good word play.

[moostraks]

Honestly, you guys, there's so much to make fun of when it comes to Glenn Beck; yet all most of you seem to do is set up straw-men then scream "establishment! establishment!" Get real. Beck is a real libertarian; we just don't agree with him on everything. That's okay. And that doesn't make him a monster or an establishment shill.

Libertarians, small or big l, are such because of the nap. Beck ain't a real libertarian because of his beliefs towards Israel. His establishment shilling comes in play with his constant demands of Americans providing for Israel rather than no entangling alliances. People who are dragging us to WWIII are monsters.

[Article V]

Libertarians, small or big l, are such because of the nap. Beck ain't a real libertarian because of his beliefs towards Israel. His establishment shilling comes in play with his constant demands of Americans providing for Israel rather than no entangling alliances. People who are dragging us to WWIII are monsters.Beck is a believer in the NAP. And he always advocates that we support Israel in preventing a nuclear Iran with a declaration of war, which is the exact safe policy as Rand Paul. Is Rand also not a libertarian even though Ron says he is?

I prefer Ron's approach, but Beck's and Rand's still adhere to constitutionalism and to the non-aggression principle because any attack is predetermined by Iran's verbal confirmation that they would use the nuke if they have it, their physical action toward completing a nuke to meet that goal, and by the Congress's support for war through a formal declaration. I might not agree with Beck or Rand, but they are still libertarians.

[Article V]

Beck was the one that turned the average elector away from Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries. He is the one that labeled Ron Paul supporters "terrorists" with Wolf Blitzer to support him.

We are still called kooks and weirdos because of this.

Once Ron Paul was in the kooky old man category and no longer a threat to the neocons, then Beck played nice.You see, and many of us here would say that the exotic nature of our ideas/methods (as compared to establishment politics) paired with the complete demonization of any who don't agree with us 100% is how we got labeled kooks, which is why so many of us want to clarify the way we communicate our message. But if you think Beck in 2007 on a show that caught less than 0.1% of American viewers had that much influence over an entire country of three hundred million people, then yeah... I'm sure that must be the legit reason. :rolleyes:


tell ya what. someone send this video to beck. IF he appoligises or shays he was wrong back then, then and only then will i forgive him for all the crap he threw at ron. Since you completely ignored my response to this video earlier, I'll repost it for your convenience below complete with relevant Glenn Beck quotes.


Re CNN Nov 2007 video:

Now the vast majority of Paul supporters take this little metaphor the way it's intended: as a rallying cry to create a dramatic political shift. It's really not the way I would go: ya know, tying my movement in with a historical terrorist attack, especially in post-9/11 America; but, hey, I'm a libertarian at heart, I get it, you raise money however you want as long as you're not blowing people up. But, America, here's what you need to know tonight: Ron Paul supporters are tapping into something that's very real; it's something I've talked about on this program for a very long time: the rising tide of disenfranchisement in this country, and it's coming from all sides of the political spectrum. If that feeling of disenfranchisement leads to political discussion, then our system works perfectly; but if fringe elements take that disenfranchisement and turn it into violence, we endanger the freedoms we're supposedly all fighting for.

Where am I wrong? The 'Ron Paul Revolution', I think it's meant to be as a catchy slogan. But I fear some of his fringe supporters are taking the word 'revolution' too literally. Agree or disagree? You can go to CNN.com/Glenn right now and cast your vote.
I've no doubt that Beck is correct in his 2007 belief that the vast majority of the Ron Paul movement "get it"; but that there may also be some fringe supporters who take the word revolution seriously enough that they'd consider violent acts against their oppressive government acceptable. Do you disagree with any of those statements by Beck? I've no doubt that it was the Ron Paul Revolution and its Guy Fawkes moneybomb that helped influence some fringe elements in other parts of the political spectrum to create Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street using that same symbolism. Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street both advocate violence toward government in the here and now, which is what Beck was cautioning against (while he was getting death threats) back then so that people wouldn't take it there in the future. Do you disagree? I see none of this as pure evil. I think you just don't like that few people were covering Ron Paul, and when someone like Beck did cover him they did so in context with another story related to violent uprisings and radicalism. I can understand your outrage on that (it is outrageous!), but the actual context of what Beck specifically said is not incorrect as much as it's simply not the story or framing device you wanted him to cover. Beck's libertarianism doesn't obligate him to cover the stories you like in the way you like them; if Beck didn't promote Ron Paul's candidacy enough for you in 2007 and 2011, it's because Beck (a) didn't think Ron Paul could conceivably win and (b) didn't think Ron would object to Iran obtaining a nuke, which is too much for Beck because he thinks Iran's rhetoric is evidence that they'll immediately use that nuke. (Now, obviously I don't agree with Beck on A or B; but he's not pure evil nor is he un-libertarian for believing those things.)

Do you have any policy viewpoints (not campaign endorsements) where you think Beck flip-flopped from libertarianism toward authoritarianism?

[Koz]

Piece of crap was not one of the options.

[erowe1]

Glenn Beck regularly preaches the non-aggression principle.

I admit that I don't listen to him a lot.

But there's no way this is true. Wouldn't this make him an anarchist?

[Valli6]

Re Debra Medina video:

Beck doesn't believe 9/11-truthers are fit for public office. This has always been a sticking point for him; he hammered Van Jones non-stop on it while at Fox. Beck loathes the suggestion that our government used Bin Laden as a stooge for its own attack on the WTC. This does not make Beck "pure evil" or even un-libertarian. Ron Paul himself is not a 9/11-truther, and John Stossel thinks 9/11-truthers are nuts. Are they pure evil?
You seem to be unaware that Debra Medina was never a "9/11-truther".
It wasn't an issue she ever addressed. She didn't attend "9/11 truther" functions. She didn't write "9/11 truther" stories. You won't find any video of Medina talking about 9/11. And she never, not even during Beck's questioning - said that the US Government planned and executed 9/11- that was all Beck.

Beck pulled the topic out of left field. Medina answered that there were still questions regarding 9/11 - the exact same conclusion reached by the 9/11 Commission, by the way. All the rest was just Beck making dramatic claims, then repeating and embellishing those claims. This, coupled with whatever you're personal definition of what "9/11 truther" means, is the only information some people had ever heard about Debra Medina. Those people felt no need to look any further because they trust Beck.

Beck knowingly fabricated a lie to torpedo a liberty candidate that had been doing incredibly well.


I've no doubt that Beck is correct in his 2007 belief that the vast majority of the Ron Paul movement "get it"; but that there may also be some fringe supporters who take the word revolution seriously enough that they'd consider violent acts against their oppressive government acceptable. Do you disagree with any of those statements by Beck?
Your making a guess based essentially on odds. It's not based on anything that ever occurred.


I've no doubt that it was the Ron Paul Revolution and its Guy Fawkes moneybomb that helped influence some fringe elements in parts of the political spectrum to create Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street using that same symbolism. Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street both advocate violence toward government in the here and now, which is what Beck was cautioning against back then so that people wouldn't take it there. Do you disagree?
Why do you imagine that we needed Beck to caution us not to do something we'd never done before? All this "violence" is simply something Beck projected. Realize that Beck was employing the exact same tactic that the democrats later used to smear the tea party.

[ronpaulfollower999]

I meant to vote neutral, but accidentally hit negative.

I think Glenn is proof that the Rand strategy is working.

[ronpaulfollower999]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30rD6TqDZek&list

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8M2JBIoqo

Beck is pure evil.

But how many of us here are former neocons or liberals?

[mac_hine]

I admit that I don't listen to him a lot.

But there's no way this is true. Wouldn't this make him an anarchist?


It's not true. Beck is a right wight religious zealot. From time to time he will feign anti state, pro liberty viewpoints, but when all is said and done he's a phony, A charlatan selling water downed teocon snake oil.

I listened to this asshole for a couple of years before I became wise to his game.

Remember his 912 movement? He wanted the entire nation to resort back to the collectivist mindset of the day after 911. When we were a united nation, a family if you will, brought together by a great tragedy, united to defeat an enemy who hated America because of its greatness.

The man disgusts me.

[satchelmcqueen]

i didt see your response. i had only been home for 10 minutes when i saw this......
You see, and many of us here would say that the exotic nature of our ideas/methods (as compared to establishment politics) paired with the complete demonization of any who don't agree with us 100% is how we got labeled kooks, which is why so many of us want to clarify the way we communicate our message. But if you think Beck in 2007 on a show that caught less than 0.1% of American viewers had that much influence over an entire country of three hundred million people, then yeah... I'm sure that must be the legit reason. :rolleyes:

Since you completely ignored my response to this video earlier, I'll repost it for your convenience below complete with relevant Glenn Beck quotes.

[Okie RP fan]

Glenn Beck is a snake.

Not to be trusted, and best left alone.

Allow me to let everyone in on him who isn't familiar. Back when he became big time with Fox News, he was exposing big government ties within corporations and fellas on the street like Bill Ayers. He was preaching against globalism and warned against the U.N. I bought his books, loved what he preached and finally enjoyed someone talking about this "crazy stuff" live on television. I was a huge fan.

Then, he quit Fox News, started his new empire, and started preaching for Israel and war on all Muslims. And when the 2012 primaries rolled around, he trashed, abused, and slammed Ron Paul and libertarians alike. He hated on us with a passion, stating we were crazy and not to be trusted. He endorsed Rick Santorum in the primaries, then endorsed Romney against Obama.

I was listening one day before Nov. 6th and he said on air that there were "HUGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MITT ROMNEY AND BARACK OBAMA" and that anyone saying any differently was not to be taken seriously.

- - -

Glenn Beck is an opportunist, he's just trying to make a buck off of libertarians. Let him advertise all he wants, but make him do it for free. The guy is a piece of trash, and while I'm not a hard core conspiracy theorist by any means, I wouldn't bet against him being some sort of operative meant to destroy or sway movements, as he has done with the Tea Party.

[thoughtomator]

I meant to vote neutral, but accidentally hit negative.

I think Glenn is proof that the Rand strategy is working.

It's not "the Rand strategy". It's the inevitability of an idea whose time has come, marked by the catastrophic failure of the false ideas which have reigned in its place.

[paulbot24]

Really looking for douche as a choice, but I went negativo.

Wow. That is probably the only time you'll ever hear a woman admit she's looking for douche.:D

[CPUd]

When you go looking for someone to tell you what to believe, GB is usually the first person that pops onto your radar.

To draw away questions of faith, he proclaims Obama is implementing sharia law in the US.

[AuH20]

I voted neutral. He does say a few things I disagree with, but he does do some good things (charity work most notably) and left Fox due to the restrictive environment. I view him and Alex Jones as very much the same. In all likelihood, they are doing what they feel is necessary, but there is an offchance they could be frauds.

[Article V]

You seem to be unaware that Debra Medina was never a "9/11-truther".
It wasn't an issue she ever addressed. She didn't attend "9/11 truther" functions. She didn't write "9/11 truther" stories. You won't find any video of Medina talking about 9/11. And she never, not even during Beck's questioning - said that the US Government planned and executed 9/11- that was all Beck.

Beck pulled the topic out of left field. Medina answered that there were still questions regarding 9/11 - the exact same conclusion reached by the 9/11 Commission, by the way. All the rest was just Beck making dramatic claims, then repeating and embellishing those claims. This, coupled with whatever you're personal definition of what "9/11 truther" means, is the only information some people had ever heard about Debra Medina. Those people felt no need to look any further [B]because they trust Beck.[/BI know nothing about Debra Medina, wasn't trying to give the impression I do. My political knowledge of Texas is fairly limited in general. All I know is that something goes off in Beck's brain any time someone lends any credibility or any plausibility to the 9/11-truther movement. Everyone has little things that are their pet peeves; this is one for Beck. So if Medina inadvertently and unintentionally stepped onto one of Beck's personality landmines, that truly sucks; but it doesn't make him un-libertarian. It just makes him an eccentric with specific non-negotiables. Beck's two non-negotiables have always been: (a) Iran obtaining a nuke while controlled by a regime that openly expresses a desire to use that nuke upon obtainment, and (b) 9/11-truthers or 9/11-truth-sympathizers.

Beck knowingly fabricated a lie to torpedo a liberty candidate that had been doing incredibly well.If Medina never expressed her opinions of 9/11-truthers ever before her conversation with Beck, then how could Beck "know" he'd elicit that response from her? If Medina never mentioned 9/11-truthers before getting asked the question by Beck (a regular question of his), then it is totally implausible that Beck would cultivate such a specific and long-established public pet-peeve while "knowing" Medina would set it off on air so that he could purposefully torpedo her political campaign. I trust you when you say Medina never expressed any opinion of 9/11-truthers before appearing on Beck, and I trust Beck's call-in audience who all said Beck was being unfair to Medina; but I also trust that if Beck didn't know because Medina never mentioned it before, that it would set Beck off even more because it caught him so off-guard. Beck is very excitable in that way.

I don't think Beck is evil or un-libertarian; I just think he's a guy with a couple sticking points that he won't tolerate because they get him physically and emotionally upset. He's not the most stable dude, in case you hadn't noticed.


Your making a guess based essentially on odds.Yes, I am. As was Beck.

It's not based on anything that ever occurred.At the time of this particular expression of concern, Beck was getting anonymous, anti-government death threats against himself and his family, which worried him enough to hire round-the-clock body guards. And future factions of the later-established Anonymous movement and Occupy Wall Street movement both openly advocate violence as a means to overthrow government, and they partially justify that violence through the symbolism of Guy Fawkes and the literal interpretation of "revolution" terminology. That's something that actually occurred, which lends credibility to Beck's warning that it might happen. There are definitely misguided Ron Paul supporters in both those movements (or at least there were when those movements started), and Beck's on-air warning openly said that anti-government radicalism was coming from all sides of the political spectrum and that he feared the Ron Paul R3volution's choice in metaphor may inadvertently push those radicals into justifying violent action.


Why do you imagine that we needed Beck to caution us not to do something we'd never done before? All this "violence" is simply something Beck projected. Realize that Beck was employing the exact same tactic that the democrats later used to smear the tea party.Again, it's not something Beck pulled out of nowhere. He was getting death threats against himself and his family at the time. And, he wasn't expressing the concern exclusively to the Ron Paul R3volution, but vicariously to all those in any political faction who might misinterpret the metaphor of the then-recent Nov. 5th MoneyBomb. Beck was basically trying to say: "violence isn't okay and we therefore shouldn't normalize it, even metaphorically, because some people can't handle it". Do I think Beck's framing device hurt and partially discredited the Ron Paul R3volution in the minds of many Americans? Absolutely! But I do NOT think that was Beck's intent. I think he was just a dude scared for his life, the lives of his family, and the lives of his countrymen, who was having an honest post-9/11-America reaction to the unfortunate combination of credible death threats he personally received after our never before seen Ron Paul R3volution Guy Fawkes Day Moneybomb.

[Article V]

Allow me to let everyone in on him who isn't familiar. Back when he became big time with Fox News, he was exposing big government ties within corporations and fellas on the street like Bill Ayers. He was preaching against globalism and warned against the U.N. I bought his books, loved what he preached and finally enjoyed someone talking about this "crazy stuff" live on television. I was a huge fan.

Then, he quit Fox News, started his new empire, and started preaching for Israel and war on all Muslims. And when the 2012 primaries rolled around, he trashed, abused, and slammed Ron Paul and libertarians alike. He hated on us with a passion, stating we were crazy and not to be trusted. He endorsed Rick Santorum in the primaries, then endorsed Romney against Obama. Yeah, I started to hate him during that time too, turned him off and sent him emails explaining my disgust. I've mellowed out a bit now because the election's over and I can think more clearly about the past rather than get misled by my own personal desire and investment toward a particular outcome that I perceived Beck to be actively undermining at the time when he should've (in my mind) been on our side.

But, seriously, if you go back and honestly look without any bias at what motivates Beck paired with his specific non-negotiables in a candidate, it's pretty clear that he's actually most likely not a snake oil teocon but a more centrist libertarian who can't yet commit to a candidate willing to allow an Israel-hating Iran to obtain a nuke they say they want to use upon acquisition.

I understand the RPF Beck hate, but I think we're ultimately letting our emotions and political investments misguide us into thinking Beck is the enemy when he's really not. In fact, I'd argue his policy teaching and introduction of libertarian ideas to many Americans who never hear it elsewhere actually is a net positive for our liberty movement.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

A man whose voice I no longer respect.

Hand to God, he wishes he was Alex Jones.

[Article V]

A man whose voice I no longer respect.

Hand to God, he wishes he was Alex Jones.Haha. +Rep for humor.

[JK/SEA]

uhhh...anyone remember Debra Medina?

waiting...

[fr33]

The best thing Beck ever did was his Fox News show. That started after Obama was elected. Before that election he was bashing libertarians calling them terrorists.

Before Obama's RE-election he was bashing us again. Now afterwards he's repeating the cycle and using libertarianism while it is convenient.

I'd love to not be able to tell you I told you so in the future but I have no doubt that I will be doing so.

[Article V]

uhhh...anyone remember Debra Medina?

waiting...I think most of the thread posts have included Debra Medina. Or do you not read what others post?

[moostraks]

Beck is a believer in the NAP. And he always advocates that we support Israel in preventing a nuclear Iran with a declaration of war, which is the exact safe policy as Rand Paul. Is Rand also not a libertarian even though Ron says he is?

I prefer Ron's approach, but Beck's and Rand's still adhere to constitutionalism and to the non-aggression principle because any attack is predetermined by Iran's verbal confirmation that they would use the nuke if they have it, their physical action toward completing a nuke to meet that goal, and by the Congress's support for war through a formal declaration. I might not agree with Beck or Rand, but they are still libertarians.


Glenn Beck is a snake.

Not to be trusted, and best left alone.

Allow me to let everyone in on him who isn't familiar. Back when he became big time with Fox News, he was exposing big government ties within corporations and fellas on the street like Bill Ayers. He was preaching against globalism and warned against the U.N. I bought his books, loved what he preached and finally enjoyed someone talking about this "crazy stuff" live on television. I was a huge fan.

Then, he quit Fox News, started his new empire, and started preaching for Israel and war on all Muslims. And when the 2012 primaries rolled around, he trashed, abused, and slammed Ron Paul and libertarians alike. He hated on us with a passion, stating we were crazy and not to be trusted. He endorsed Rick Santorum in the primaries, then endorsed Romney against Obama.

I was listening one day before Nov. 6th and he said on air that there were "HUGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MITT ROMNEY AND BARACK OBAMA" and that anyone saying any differently was not to be taken seriously.

- - -

Glenn Beck is an opportunist, he's just trying to make a buck off of libertarians. Let him advertise all he wants, but make him do it for free. The guy is a piece of trash, and while I'm not a hard core conspiracy theorist by any means, I wouldn't bet against him being some sort of operative meant to destroy or sway movements, as he has done with the Tea Party.

Your response Okie is better than me wasting my breath to refute someone who seems hell bent on ridiculing people because said poster is invested in a personality.

[K466]

If he's honestly going to become more libertarian I will welcome him. Until then still negative.

[moostraks]

Yeah, I started to hate him during that time too, turned him off and sent him emails explaining my disgust. I've mellowed out a bit now because the election's over and I can think more clearly about the past rather than get misled by my own personal desire and investment toward a particular outcome that I perceived Beck to be actively undermining at the time when he should've (in my mind) been on our side.

But, seriously, if you go back and honestly look without any bias at what motivates Beck paired with his specific non-negotiables in a candidate, it's pretty clear that he's actually most likely not a snake oil teocon but a more centrist libertarian who can't yet commit to a candidate willing to allow an Israel-hating Iran to obtain a nuke they say they want to use upon acquisition.

I understand the RPF Beck hate, but I think we're ultimately letting our emotions and political investments misguide us into thinking Beck is the enemy when he's really not. In fact, I'd argue his policy teaching and introduction of libertarian ideas to many Americans who never hear it elsewhere actually is a net positive for our liberty movement.

He depends on time to cause people to rationalize his illogical behavior. Centrist libertarian...you can keep repeating the phrase till you are blue in the face but he is an Israel firster and his choices when it is important show that he is not coming to a nap conclusion on the issues. You put forth msm talking points as if they are valid conclusions to substantiate your position. It isn't very persuasive here, for if it was, most of us wouldn't be supporting RON Paul's stance in the Israel vs. Iran issue.

Some of us feel that Beck is nowhere near a net gain due to his taking the issues to an improper conclusion and leading people to think that to do anything else is kooky and worthy of scorn. It is playing on people's social insecurities. You have attempted the same tactics in your responses. (re:comments such as telling people who disagree with you to get real and that they are letting their emotions misguide them)

[Article V]

Your response Okie is better than me wasting my breath to refute someone who seems hell bent on ridiculing people because said poster is invested in a personality.I'm not invested in a personality. I'm invested in the truth and in fostering relationships. Those goals become unattainable if people are actively letting their emotions and biases run wild (something even I myself have been guilty of regarding dislike for Beck or others); it leads to mob mentality.

I can't say enough that I disagree with Beck on his beefs with Ron; but to call Beck un-libertarian or establishment is delusional.

...Whatever, I'm sure I'll just get insulted again for defending the minority. Maybe I need to start re-evaluating the way I spend my time.

[Smart3]

Would have said Negative a few months ago. Now neutral.

[LibertyEagle]

uhhh...anyone remember Debra Medina?

waiting...

Yes, I do, and I will hate Beck forever for the slimy crap he pulled. Beck completely set up that attack and then executed it. I will never trust Beck, but then again, I don't need to.

That doesn't mean that I won't use the hell out of Beck to get our Constitution reinstated. Many of his listeners are not so far from us as some would think. They want another Reagan; you know, what Reagan SAID, not what he did. They just couldn't see through all the fog to realize that Ron Paul was what they had been looking for for so very long.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

uhhh...anyone remember Debra Medina?

Yes, and it was Medina's own fault.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, and it was Medina's own fault.

She could have handled it better, but no, it was a setup.

[moostraks]

I'm not invested in a personality. I'm invested in the truth and in fostering relationships. Those goals become unattainable if people are actively letting their emotions and biases run wild (something even I myself have been guilty of regarding dislike for Beck or others); it leads to mob mentality.

I can't say enough that I disagree with Beck on his beefs with Ron; but to call Beck un-libertarian or establishment is delusional.

...Whatever, I'm sure I'll just get insulted again for defending the minority. Maybe I need to start re-evaluating the way I spend my time.

Emotionalize much? To call him "un-libertarian or establishment is delusional"...Lol!!! You are entitled to your opinion but you are crossing the line when you start to question people's mental stability because they disagree with you. I see why you have no problem with Beck's tactics.

[sparebulb]

Those who repeatedly take Beck back after he kicks the principles of real liberty in the balls time and time again, might consider that they have a bright future at being an abused spouse.

There are those who see Beck as a project that needs a little bit of fixing. I see Beck as a traitorous and dangerous government/Mil industrial complex psy-op that preys upon the weakness of the public's moral and ethical resolve. He is no more fixable than is a pet badger.

[LibertyEagle]

Those who repeatedly take Beck back after he kicks the principles of real liberty in the balls time and time again, might consider that they have a bright future at being an abused spouse.

There are those who see Beck as a project that needs a little bit of fixing. I see Beck as a traitorous and dangerous government/Mil industrial complex psy-op that preys upon the weakness of the public's moral and ethical resolve. He is no more fixable than is a pet badger.

"the principles of real liberty". <----- what does this mean to you?

[pcosmar]

Propagandist

not a poll option.

[sparebulb]

"the principles of real liberty". <----- what does this mean to you?

The better question is what it means to Beck. We know him by his fruits..............."Pastor" Hagee comes to mind.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

He is a valuable member of the King's media exploiting and reminding us of our worthlessness and not a member of the prostitute's press -- as in freedom of the press -- reminding our government how the people, by natural law, are the owners of all property and things while tyranny -- with they being set up as a necessary tyranny to advance our Civil Purpose -- are the ones who are the trespassing borrowers.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

"the principles of real liberty". <----- what does this mean to you?

"the principles of liberty" are like an apple in a tree. In order to hit an apple off a tree with a bow and arrow, one has to aim higher, aim towards the blue sky, in order to hit the target. As the law, by nature, has worked to darken the blue sky -- making us miss our goal every time -- we must establish it as secondary in importance to the original new order our Founders established within The Declaration of Independence. Therefore, the principles of liberty and equality are prerequisites necessary to advance our Civil Purpose. This new order declared as a natural law by our Founders isn't a mystery, but above board and out in the open. Our Civil Purpose is in the "best interests" of our United Democratic Republic of Sovereign States -- with this being the United States -- and not in the best interest of those impostors who are now in control of the federal government.

[rprprs]

She could have handled it better, but no, it was a setup.
Could she have handled it better? Perhaps. But, perhaps, only by disingenuous words calculated explicitly for political expediency.
Was it a "setup."? It most assuredly was. Totally premeditated and of the highest order.

I am not a "truther", but I regard what occurred that day as one of the bleakest in the history of my travels with his movement. I had the greatest respect for Debra (probably 2nd only to Ron), and will never forgive Beck for his calculated and purposeful undermining of her candidacy that day.

I know the Beck/Medina interview has been addressed at great length in numerous threads on these boards and I apologize for again belaboring it, but it will forever remain a stick in my craw. And for those who think I am being short-sighted (not directed at you, LE), I mean no offense but I couldn't care less.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Positive. Glenn Beck has been a defender of liberty and the Constitution for years. I commend him on his patriotism and courage to speak the truth, even when it's not popular to do so.

It is hard to drink tea and eat cheesecake hobnobbing with the enemy while also maintaining a pure appreciation for the new order our Founders established within The Declaration of Indenpendence as well as the laws within that U.S. Constitution meant to advance the new order. What I'm trying to express here is how fresh and new our Founders truly are along with the new order they established replacing the prior chaos. When our Founders established this new order, it set the former chaos of the old world to the "old order."
In other words, our United States today have lightning within a bottle that is difficult to appreciate.

[2young2vote]

Positive. I like his radio show and I like some of the things he says, but I'm not going to fall for his tricks. He'll up and vote for the typical republican in 2016 like a good establishment shill.

[sparebulb]

I know the Beck/Medina interview has been addressed at great length in numerous threads on these boards and I apologize for again belaboring it, but it will forever remain a stick in my craw.

You owe no one an apology. Furthermore, those that seek to weaken your resolve want you to forgive and forget. There is nothing wrong with a righteous grudge.

[acptulsa]

Can you name some policies (not campaign endorsements) that Beck re-positioned himself on to become less libertarian, more authoritarian?

You mean besides vote for McCain, vote for Santorum, vote for Romney, drum Medina out of politics because she said the same thing the 9/11 Commission said--more investigation is needed--Ron Paul was not electable (when he was polling strongest against Obama among the general population of any Republican candidate) and consider yourselves terrorists for wanting freedom?

[sparebulb]

You mean besides vote for McCain, vote for Santorum, vote for Romney, drum Medina out of politics because she said the same thing the 9/11 Commission said--more investigation is needed--Ron Paul was not electable (when he was polling strongest against Obama among the general population of any Republican candidate) and consider yourselves terrorists for wanting freedom?

Truth

plus one rep

[ctiger2]

I'd like to see Beck, on his TV show, Go Fuck Himself. I might tune in for that.

[andrew1229649]

I know that most of you dislike Glenn Beck. He is part of the reason I made it here honestly and I'm sure he is the reason many others are here as well. When I watched his show long ago he would always say think for yourself and do your own research, so I did. Then I found out about the federal reserve....

[kathy88]

I'd like to see Beck, on his TV show, Go Fuck Himself. I might tune in for that.

EEEWWWW I wouldn't. I would to watch his head explode, though. That would be awesome.

[AuH20]

I know that most of you dislike Glenn Beck. He is part of the reason I made it here honestly and I'm sure he is the reason many others are here as well. When I watched his show long ago he would always say think for yourself and do your own research, so I did. Then I found out about the federal reserve....

Very true. Welcome.

[chudrockz]

I agree with watching him fuck himself, and/ or watching his head explode.

FUCK GB.

[acptulsa]

When I watched his show long ago he would always say think for yourself and do your own research, so I did. Then I found out about the federal reserve....

I don't think Beck actually expected you to think for yourself like he suggested. I think he just said that so you'd trust him enough to let him do your thinking for you. But you did think for yourself and do your own research. Damned good job. +rep.

[moostraks]

I don't think Beck actually expected you to think for yourself like he suggested. I think he just said that so you'd trust him enough to let him do your thinking for you. But you did think for yourself and do your own research. Damned good job. +rep.

I agree with you on this. Cheaters play this game on a trusting s.o. all the time. They gamble that you will trust them based on them being willing to have you check up on them. Then they gamble that if you do check up on them they can fabricate a reasonable excuse you will buy. When you call them on their b.s. then it is turned around so that the innocent party who is being wrong is the problem.

[beaker]

That doesn't mean that I won't use the hell out of Beck to get our Constitution reinstated. Many of his listeners are not so far from us as some would think. They want another Reagan; you know, what Reagan SAID, not what he did. They just couldn't see through all the fog to realize that Ron Paul was what they had been looking for for so very long. you pretty much nailed it. i found the ones that were easiest to turn libertarian were beck fans. some still are. i once was a big beck fan. now i can take him or leave him. aside from beck himself, i owe it to a previous beck fan for pushing me off the fence into the RP camp. he is still a beck fan too. i feel we should embrace anyone who's going to bring support to the libertarians. use him to help bring us more support. he does have a huge fan base. he may not be a die hard libertarian. but he's going to bring his fans over. and when he throws us under the bus much of his fan base will stay. and i think all this criticizing GB (as it's deserved, i know) will only turn any GB fan away who's interested in becoming libertarian. as much as he's using us, we should use him too.

[acptulsa]

as much as he's using us, we should use him too.

Seems completely fair to me. But how do you do it without saying, 'Listen to Glen Beck and trust him'? Because if we do that, we're fools.

[WM_in_MO]

I drive for work, so I will find myself on the local talk station here more often than not.

He's starting to talk the talk, but then again he's done that before. Honestly I dont tune in to much "preach to the chior" stuff anymore, but there are plenty of people who do. We should try to use his popularity to sneak in some REAL libertarian stuff like the free stuff on mises.org or a book or two. If the door is open we shouldn't care much who turned the knob.

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30rD6TqDZek&list

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8M2JBIoqo

Beck is pure evil.


Absolutely pure evil. He sold his soul for fifty pieces of silver. He is a Judas Iscariot!

[cajuncocoa]

Beck cannot be used to advance liberty...he is best left alone. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

(With apologies to all canines for the comparison)

[WM_in_MO]

Keep in mind that some people were woken up by him back in 07-08... not all of us grew up libertarian!

[bolil]

Glenn Beck: Gas Bag.

[purplechoe]

I knew he was a snake from his days on Headline News. After he stabbed Medina in the Beck who was even part of his 912 movement in favor of his boy Perry, I don't know how anybody with an ounce of common sense and who considers themselves part of the real liberty movement can say anything positive or neutral about this piece of shit. Controlled opposition is what I would call him.

Fuck you Frank, and Glenn Beck...

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/WGS-Debra-Medina-GU_101027e.jpg

By posting this picture I'm in no way advocating any violence towards this man, it's just my favorite photo of Debra Medina who had a real chance of becoming governor of Texas and was on the rise till Beck did his usual hing and torpedoed her campaign, like he did with Ron Paul in '08 and '12...

[purplechoe]

Yes, and it was Medina's own fault.

You're in denial if you honestly believe that but I've seen you post here for a long time so I'm not surprised considering your personality. It was a set up to make sure his boy Perry won that election...

[beaker]

Seems completely fair to me. But how do you do it without saying, 'Listen to Glen Beck and trust him'? Because if we do that, we're fools. he's bringing his fans to the the libertarian ideas. we should be grateful of that. we win arguments time and time again with facts and logic. if he's willing to bring his fans half way just to listen to them. we can sway them to our side completely. as i've said in the past i once was a fan of his. he was the person that started me on the move to the libertarian side. he got me away from o'rilley and fox news. he got me to start reading my news instead of watching it. it was a fellow beck fan who made the final push. as it's been said, many beck fans are not all that dissimilar from us. they understand the concept of liberty but might be a little confused about how to achieve it. at least that's where i and the few other beck fans turned libertarians were at. i'm not saying we should listen to him or even trust him. i'm saying we should be allowing him to bring his fans over to us. the more we criticize him the more we're going to turn his fans off of the liberty ideals.

believe me i understand that he could be faking it and trying to throw us under the bus. but i start to question, what could he possibly do? i'll admit i feel somewhat ignorant here. in what ways could be possibly use us. that him being a libertarian, whether in name only or for real, is harmful to the movement? i realize a lot of democrats think he's the devil and might turn them off to the liberty movement. is there something i'm missing?

[fr33]

Medina was taken down by Glen Beck AND Alex Jones. That's the facts jack.

[purplechoe]

Medina was taken down by Glen Beck AND Alex Jones. That's the facts jack.

I'm not a big fan of Alex Jones but compared to Beck he's a breath of fresh air. As far as Alex and Medina, he let his pride get in the way of that one. He felt hurt after she had to clarify her comments about 9/11 since that's one of the reasons he became so famous and is a big part of his claim to fame. I appreciate Alex's message, just not the way he does it.

[fr33]

I'm not a big fan of Alex Jones but compared to Beck he's a breath of fresh air. As far as Alex and Medina, he let his pride get in the way of that one. He felt hurt after she had to clarify her comments about 9/11 since that's one of the reasons he became so famous and is a big part of his claim to fame. I appreciate Alex's message, just not the way he does it.

I just like to point out that it seemed like a rather suspect coordinated attack from both sides of one issue. I don't trust either of them.

[cajuncocoa]

he's bringing his fans to the the libertarian ideas. we should be grateful of that. we win arguments time and time again with facts and logic. if he's willing to bring his fans half way just to listen to them. we can sway them to our side completely. as i've said in the past i once was a fan of his. he was the person that started me on the move to the libertarian side. he got me away from o'rilley and fox news. he got me to start reading my news instead of watching it. it was a fellow beck fan who made the final push. as it's been said, many beck fans are not all that dissimilar from us. they understand the concept of liberty but might be a little confused about how to achieve it. at least that's where i and the few other beck fans turned libertarians were at. i'm not saying we should listen to him or even trust him. i'm saying we should be allowing him to bring his fans over to us. the more we criticize him the more we're going to turn his fans off of the liberty ideals.

believe me i understand that he could be faking it and trying to throw us under the bus. but i start to question, what could he possibly do? i'll admit i feel somewhat ignorant here. in what ways could be possibly use us. that him being a libertarian, whether in name only or for real, is harmful to the movement? i realize a lot of democrats think he's the devil and might turn them off to the liberty movement. is there something i'm missing?Yes. You're missing the fact that he misrepresents libertarianism every time he opens his mouth. His goal is to hijack the word just as he co-opted the Tea Party.

[purplechoe]

I just like to point out that it seemed like a rather suspect coordinated attack from both sides of one issue. I don't trust either of them.

Like I said, unlike Beck who did it deliberately, in my opinion Alex got caught up ion the moment and let his ego get in the way of that one, Unlike Glenn who you can count on almost like clock work to throw a true liberty candidate under the bus when it matters...

[LibertyEagle]

Beck cannot be used to advance liberty...he is best left alone. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

(With apologies to all canines for the comparison)

Bullshit. There are more than a few people in the liberty movement who listened to Glenn Beck first.

The problem is that some people around here are unable to stand on their own two feet and are thus looking for a "leader" to idolize and to tell them what to do.

[COpatriot]

Fuck you Beck!

[sparebulb]

Bullshit. There are more than a few people in the liberty movement who listened to Glenn Beck first.

Benedict Arnold was once a member of the liberty movement also. As far as I know, Arnold only committed treason once. Beck commits treason on a daily basis with his neo-trotskyite sedition against our founding principles.


The problem is that some people around here are unable to stand on their own two feet and are thus looking for a "leader" to idolize and to tell them what to do.

I agree with this.

[compromise]

Yes. You're missing the fact that he misrepresents libertarianism every time he opens his mouth. His goal is to hijack the word just as he co-opted the Tea Party.
Did he really co-opt the Tea Party? The Tea Party was virtually dead between 2007 and 2009, when he jumped on.

[cheapseats]

"The more I see, the less I know, but I know one thing..."

Glenn Beck's name, GLENN BECK, featuring in the titles of SIX page-one General Politics threads on Ron (??) Paul Forums / Liberty Forest does more for GLENN BECK than it does for Ron Paul, OR Ron (??) Paul Forums, OR Liberty...I know THAT much.

Paying lots of attention to Glenn Beck signifies that Glenn Beck is worthy of lots of attention OR CAUSES Glenn Beck "simply" to receive lots of attention...duh. While it is NOT true that there is no such thing as bad press, lotsa threads featuring Glenn Beck is also NOT bad press for GLENN BECK.

Think of all these threads as GREEN BARS in MainstreamMedia/Kingmaker "rep".

[cajuncocoa]

Fuck you Beck!
QFT

[vita3]

This forum sucks for bringing up this 9 year old emotional hoodwinker multi-millionare media fraud over & over

FRAUD BRAINWASH FRAUD BRAINWASH

Too many important things to be paying attention & fighting FOR.

[acptulsa]

This forum sucks for bringing up this 9 year old emotional hoodwinker multi-millionare media fraud over & over


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A