PDA

View Full Version : Glenn Beck evolving?




Pages : [1] 2

eleganz
02-22-2013, 03:07 PM
Watch it before you judge it because he makes a good point.

http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25608397&topic_id=23419450&v=3&tcid=fb_video_25608397

Petar
02-22-2013, 03:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_abuse



1: Tension building phase
This phase occurs prior to an overtly abusive act, and is characterized by poor communication, passive aggression, rising interpersonal tension, and fear of causing outbursts in one's partner. During this stage the survivors may attempt to modify his or her behavior to avoid triggering their partner's outburst.
2: Acting-out phase
Characterized by outbursts of violent, abusive incidents. During this stage the abuser attempts to dominate his/her partner (survivor), with the use of domestic violence.
3: Reconciliation/Honeymoon phase
Characterized by affection, apology, or, alternatively, ignoring the incident. This phase marks an apparent end of violence, with assurances that it will never happen again, or that the abuser will do his or her best to change. During this stage the abuser feels overwhelming feelings of remorse and sadness, or at least pretends to. Some abusers walk away from the situation with little comment, but most will eventually shower the survivor with love and affection. The abuser may use self-harm or threats of suicide to gain sympathy and/or prevent the survivor from leaving the relationship. Abusers are frequently so convincing, and survivors so eager for the relationship to improve, that survivors who are often worn down and confused by longstanding abuse, stay in the relationship.
Although it is easy to see the outbursts of the Acting-out Phase as abuse, even the more pleasant behaviours of the Honeymoon Phase perpetuates the abuse because the survivor then sees that the relationship isn't all bad.
4: Calm phase
During this phase (which is often considered an element of the honeymoon/reconciliation phase), the relationship is relatively calm and peaceable. However, interpersonal difficulties will inevitably arise, leading again to the tension building phase.

sailingaway
02-22-2013, 03:09 PM
he has gone through this 'evolution' before and it has been completely fake, and destructive as he coopted people then at key moments turned them away from those actually furthering the ideology.

If you think he is simply a dishonest, manipulative person, it is hard to trust further, equally 'heartfelt' conversions.

kathy88
02-22-2013, 03:10 PM
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBg

jmdrake
02-22-2013, 03:17 PM
http://thestructureoffear.org/images/story/23_0051_051111_1416_Devolution11.jpg

Glen Beck: "Libertarianism is supposed to be about a set of ideas. Maximum freedom." Okay Beck. When are you going to embrace that idea? When do I have the freedom for you not to pick my pocket for wars and foreign aid? When do I have the freedom for you not to pick my pocket to pay to lock up some non violent drug user? Beck doesn't get it. It's not about "Ron Paul". Ron Paul is merely the embodiment of the ideas.

Edit: Gotta admit. Beck sounds convincing. I have a hard time believing, however, his "I was against the Patriot Act unless it had sunsets in it....what a fool I was...." excuse.

Alright. Here's my proposal. I'm ready to make Glen Beck put his money where his mouth is. Let's take up him up on his claim that he supports Rand and that he's against warrantless wiretaps. If he stabs us in the back again, make him pay.

trey4sports
02-22-2013, 03:28 PM
i tend to think that Glenn really has good intentions but is genuinely ignorant. I doubt i'd ever really look to him for news and insight but i will happily accept him praising Rand.

VoluntaryAmerican
02-22-2013, 03:28 PM
http://i.imgur.com/a4iLdT0.jpg

My final opinion on Beck.

ninepointfive
02-22-2013, 03:29 PM
If anything can be said, he casts a wide net - and those who seek out information and are independent can then continue their own self development aside from being a sheep in his flock.

compromise
02-22-2013, 03:32 PM
If he's praising Rand and libertarianism (which Rand is associated with but GOP primary voters have a negative opinion of), that can only be a good thing.

RonPaulFanInGA
02-22-2013, 03:44 PM
We already had the FINAL opinion on Beck.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405006-The-FINAL-opinion-on-Glenn-Beck

Natural Citizen
02-22-2013, 03:50 PM
Watch it before you judge it because he makes a good point.

http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25608397&topic_id=23419450&v=3&tcid=fb_video_25608397

Well. I had mentioned a day or so ago where Beck was headed in one of the Beck threads. Complete with a very good example as to why. And here it is. Clear as day. I really wish we'd pay more attention to things.

kathy88
02-22-2013, 03:52 PM
Well. I had mentioned a day or so ago where Beck was headed in one of the Beck threads. Complete with a very good example as to why. And here it is. Clear as day. I really wish we'd pay more attention to things.

Please enlighten us with a link to said thread, perhaps it could help some of us.

Rocco
02-22-2013, 04:00 PM
Honestly, I went into the video expecting to laugh it off and came out feeling really ashamed of the way I had looked at it. Glenn Beck is advocating for Rand Paul in a way that he never even came close to for Ron. He pretty much endorsed him in that clip. He said we have too many bases and endless wars wont work, he NEVER said that before. People who cannot see the progression Beck is making are blinded by their jaded viewpoint. He had legitimate disagreements with Ron's policy that he always made clear, and combined with Rand's less in your face rhetoric and further progression he has managed to come to a place where he's supporting OUR guy enthusiastically. The only way we can mess that up is by being abrasive jerks like Alexander McCobin and acting like Beck cant be "part of our club".

Natural Citizen
02-22-2013, 04:08 PM
Please enlighten us with a link to said thread, perhaps it could help some of us.

Here you go. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405183-The-Blaze-Glenn-Beck-Rand-Paul-Ranked-6th-Most-Conservative-Senator&p=4887072&viewfull=1#post4887072

Adrock
02-22-2013, 04:11 PM
Not sure if Beck is evolving or if he wants his career to keep evolving. Probably the latter.

Edit: He does have a point about people naturally evolving in their beliefs. I know I have.

Second Edit: He he. Beck calling the libertarians dogging him "facists". Hell he may have changed. ;)

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 04:35 PM
Not this again!! (groan)

FrankRep
02-22-2013, 04:40 PM
Glenn Beck supports Rand Paul, but not Ron Paul.

There's a lesson to be learned here.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 04:42 PM
Glenn Beck supports Rand Paul, but not Ron Paul.

There's a lesson to be learned here.

Yes. Yes, there is.

sailingaway
02-22-2013, 04:43 PM
Honestly, I went into the video expecting to laugh it off and came out feeling really ashamed of the way I had looked at it. Glenn Beck is advocating for Rand Paul in a way that he never even came close to for Ron. He pretty much endorsed him in that clip. He said we have too many bases and endless wars wont work, he NEVER said that before. People who cannot see the progression Beck is making are blinded by their jaded viewpoint. He had legitimate disagreements with Ron's policy that he always made clear, and combined with Rand's less in your face rhetoric and further progression he has managed to come to a place where he's supporting OUR guy enthusiastically. The only way we can mess that up is by being abrasive jerks like Alexander McCobin and acting like Beck cant be "part of our club".

He said all sorts of fantastic things about Ron in 2008-2009 AFTER the election, as he tried to paint himself libertarian.

ninepointfive
02-22-2013, 04:49 PM
Glenn Beck supports Rand Paul, but not Ron Paul.

There's a lesson to be learned here.

probably has something to do with israel

jmdrake
02-22-2013, 04:54 PM
Not sure if Beck is evolving or if he wants his career to keep evolving. Probably the latter.

Edit: He does have a point about people naturally evolving in their beliefs. I know I have.

Second Edit: He he. Beck calling the libertarians dogging him "facists". Hell he may have changed. ;)

Beckism: The strange believe that criticizing someone for promoting fascism as a private citizen is somehow "fascist".

Beck, if you're truly turning around good. I'm happy for you. But forgive the rest of us for being skeptical.

JK/SEA
02-22-2013, 04:56 PM
has Beck ever said he was wrong...about anything....?...also, has he apologized to Ron Paul supporters by calling us terrorists...yet?....until i hear his retractions, i maintain Beck is a fraud.

period.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:03 PM
This is a great segment. Many of Beck's points are sound.

ctiger2
02-22-2013, 05:03 PM
He's earned the right not to be trusted. I don't care what he does or says. FU BECK. FU!

FrankRep
02-22-2013, 05:04 PM
has Beck ever said he was wrong...about anything....?...also, has he apologized to Ron Paul supporters by calling us terrorists...yet?....until i hear his retractions, i maintain Beck is a fraud.

period.

In the video he admits to being wrong on foreign policy.

Beck admits to not being born as a libertarian like other libertarians apparently are.

itshappening
02-22-2013, 05:07 PM
Beck was attacking Ron Paul and Alex Jones just 3 weeks ago.

He's a hypocrite and a fraud. No wonder half the people at the conference he scoped out hates him.

compromise
02-22-2013, 05:09 PM
has Beck ever said he was wrong...about anything....?...also, has he apologized to Ron Paul supporters by calling us terrorists...yet?....until i hear his retractions, i maintain Beck is a fraud.

period.

Beck admits he was wrong about the patriot act in this video. I advise you to watch it.

Antischism
02-22-2013, 05:09 PM
YES, HE HAS HIT ME MANY TIMES BEFORE... BUT I SWEAR, HE'S REALLY GOING TO CHANGE THIS TIME!

Glenn Beck is nothing but an opportunist.

pcosmar
02-22-2013, 05:10 PM
Again.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6YUKVzVnjLw/SVJ5Ogc3bJI/AAAAAAAAARE/5Y1QPj0k4Sk/s320/dinosaurs+baby.jpg

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:10 PM
Beck was attacking Ron Paul and Alex Jones just 3 weeks ago.

He's a hypocrite and a fraud. No wonder half the people at the conference he scoped out hates him.

He and Jones have had a bitter rivalry for at least 5 years. This didn't occur in a vacuum. Now regarding Ron Paul, Paul's comments were poorly timed and interpreted. I don't entirely agree with Beck's comments, but I don't consider swearing an oath to Ron Paul as the litmus test for libertarianism.

FrankRep
02-22-2013, 05:12 PM
Beck was attacking Ron Paul and Alex Jones just 3 weeks ago.

He's a hypocrite and a fraud. No wonder half the people at the conference he scoped out hates him.

To be fair, most libertarians hate other libertarians for not being libertarian enough.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:12 PM
To be fair, most libertarians hate other libertarians for not being libertarian enough.

Case in point, the frosty reaction to Rand Paul.

compromise
02-22-2013, 05:12 PM
Beck was attacking Ron Paul and Alex Jones just 3 weeks ago.

He's a hypocrite and a fraud. No wonder half the people at the conference he scoped out hates him.

There are a fair few members on here that have also criticized Ron on the sword tweet and Jones on the Piers Morgan rant and some of his wacky conspiracy theories like mass shootings being psy-ops. Do you feel the same way about them as you do about Beck?

Also, are you not a fan of Levin, who has also attacked Ron in the past? Levin is a huge Rubio fan. Beck is one of few conservative radio hosts who don't really care about Rubio.

Czolgosz
02-22-2013, 05:13 PM
I raise:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBghttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBg

anaconda
02-22-2013, 05:14 PM
Beck's evolution towards voluntarism and non-coercion:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFLQS12z8K4

acptulsa
02-22-2013, 05:14 PM
Depends. Is this considered evolution?

http://www.bestanimations.com/Music/Metronomes/Metronome-04-june.gif

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:17 PM
Beck has to read these threads. This was a segment specifically directed at his detractors and he hit them right between the eyes. I don't always agree with Beck, but he was 99% correct in his criticism.

itshappening
02-22-2013, 05:17 PM
Alex Jones Responds to Glenn Beck


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

Brett85
02-22-2013, 05:18 PM
It seems like a good thing if Beck wants to promote Rand on his radio show. That should give Rand a huge boost in 2016.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:19 PM
Alex Jones Responds to Glenn Beck


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

They both act like immature twits in this petty rivalry they engage in. And this is someone who listens to both of them.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 05:21 PM
The guy in the red sweater is an idiot for saying that "the libertarians got dragged right along" by the OWS crowd, when, in fact, the Ron Paul faction's reasoning for the income disparity was 180 degrees polar to the liberal faction at these gatherings.

itshappening
02-22-2013, 05:22 PM
There are a fair few members on here that have also criticized Ron on the sword tweet and Jones on the Piers Morgan rant and some of his wacky conspiracy theories like mass shootings being psy-ops. Do you feel the same way about them as you do about Beck?

Also, are you not a fan of Levin, who has also attacked Ron in the past? Levin is a huge Rubio fan. Beck is one of few conservative radio hosts who don't really care about Rubio.

I'm not a fan of any of them but think it's good they're talking about Rand.

However, Beck is taking the fraud to a new level by branding himself a libertarian while also attacking Ron Paul and Alex Jones almost every week.

FrankRep
02-22-2013, 05:24 PM
The guy in the red sweater is an idiot for saying that "the libertarians got dragged right along" by the OWS crowd, when, in fact, their reasoning for the income disparity was 180 degrees polar to the liberal faction there.

The libertarians kinda screwed themselves by siding with OWS. Blowback.

acptulsa
02-22-2013, 05:26 PM
The libertarians kinda screwed themselves by siding with OWS. Blowback.

The libertarians didn't side with OWS. The libertarians agreed there's a problem, and went like Schweitzer unto the lost and tried to enlighten them. And had some success, too.

Meanwhile, most Republicans consider them lepers and won't even look at them. Which is why the GOP was dying, until we came along.

And still I say Glen Beck is this:

http://www.bestanimations.com/Music/Metronomes/Metronome-04-june.gif

We will be Beckstabbed again. Bank on it.

itshappening
02-22-2013, 05:26 PM
Peter Schiff went to OWS in NY as a proud member of the 1% and made them look like fools.

What libertarians are supporting OWS?

Again, Beck and his minions rewrite history to suit his agenda and attack people.

This is why he's hated at the conference and he keeps doing it!

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:27 PM
I'm not a fan of any of them but think it's good they're talking about Rand.

However, Beck is taking the fraud to a new level by branding himself a libertarian while also attacking Ron Paul and Alex Jones almost every week.

Jones detests Beck because he believes that Beck stole his show platform, which is largely nonsense IMHO, if you examine the source material (Gary North, G. Edward Griffin, William Cooper, etc.) which stretches back a few decades. That's where the nastiness all started. And in turn, Beck has reciprocated by acting like a major league asshole.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 05:28 PM
I don't think being "hardcore" about demanding individual freedom can be construed as "Fascist." Glenn's semantics fail here. But his sentiment about the stuck up libertarians are probably true. BTW, does anyone know who the unnamed libertarian Glenn is referring to?

Brett85
02-22-2013, 05:28 PM
I'm not a fan of any of them but think it's good they're talking about Rand.

However, Beck is taking the fraud to a new level by branding himself a libertarian while also attacking Ron Paul and Alex Jones almost every week.

There's always infighting between libertarians. The hardcore Mises types libertarians and the Cato/Reason libertarians attack each other all the time. Infighting among libertarians isn't unusual.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:28 PM
Peter Schiff went to OWS in NY as a proud member of the 1% and made them look like fools.

What libertarians are supporting OWS?

Again, Beck and his minions rewrite history to suit his agenda and attack people.

There were Ron Paul people staying at an OWS event who were robbed and bullied in one instance. This was well-publicized.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 05:31 PM
More Beck FAIL. Ron Paul and his supporters are the first to clarify that it is, in fact, about "ideas" rather than a "person."

itshappening
02-22-2013, 05:31 PM
Jones detests Beck because he believes that Beck stole his show platform, which is largely nonsense IMHO, if you examine the source material (Gary North, G. Edward Griffin, William Cooper, etc.) which stretches back a few decades. That's where the nastiness all started. And in turn, Beck has reciprocated by acting like a major league asshole.

Beck is jealous of Alex Jones and rips off his material. This is all documented in the Rolling Stone article go and look it up.

itshappening
02-22-2013, 05:32 PM
There's always infighting between libertarians. The hardcore Mises types libertarians and the Cato/Reason libertarians attack each other all the time. Infighting among libertarians isn't unusual.

But Beck is not a libertarian, he's a neocon infiltrator spreading disinformation and trying to discredit others.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 05:33 PM
Beck appears to get slightly teary -eyed at 4:55. Maybe he's sincere.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:33 PM
Beck is jealous of Alex Jones and rips off his material. This is all documented in the Rolling Stone article go and look it up.

That's what Jones said. And it should be noted that Jones threw noted pioneer and rival William Cooper under the bus as well by claiming he was an out-of-control drunk, which wasn't accurate. So it's not like Jones has not previously attacked those who he considers competition. Frankly, I don't know who to beleive. It's possible both he and Beck could be frauds.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 05:34 PM
But Beck is not a libertarian, he's a neocon infiltrator spreading disinformation and trying to discredit others.

His foreign policy views seem to be pretty similar to Rand's. Close down foreign military bases and oppose endless wars, but maintain some alliances, such as our alliance with Israel. If Beck is a neocon because of his foreign policy views, than so is Rand.

kcchiefs6465
02-22-2013, 05:35 PM
Evolving into what?










He has always been a douche. And thanks but no thanks on giving any views to Glenn Beck. Idgaf if it's a video of him getting down on his knees begging for forgiveness. [or another video of him crying]

itshappening
02-22-2013, 05:35 PM
There were Ron Paul people staying at an OWS event who were robbed and bullied in one instance. This was well-publicized.

No one on here or at Lewrockwell.com (who I donate too often) or numerous other sites that call themselves libertarian sided with OWS or supported them. We pointed out that their anger is misdirected and should be directed towards the Federal Reserve and the government in Washington DC

acptulsa
02-22-2013, 05:37 PM
Beck appears to get slightly teary -eyed at 4:55. Maybe he's sincere.

If he keeps turning that faucet on and off, on and off, on and off, he's going to wear out the washer until it drips all the time--and he dehydrates to death.

itshappening
02-22-2013, 05:37 PM
His foreign policy views seem to be pretty similar to Rand's. Close down foreign military bases and oppose endless wars, but maintain some alliances, such as our alliance with Israel. If Beck is a neocon because of his foreign policy views, than so is Rand.

You have no idea what Beck supports, he changes his mind every week and according to which direction the wind is blowing. Rand is principled, Beck is not.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 05:37 PM
OK I'll bite. Starting at around the 5 minute mark I'm really liking what Beck is saying. Wow.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 05:38 PM
You have no idea what Beck supports, he changes his mind every week and according to which direction the wind is blowing. Rand is principled, Beck is not.

Yeah, that's true. I'm just going by what he's saying now. He does seem to change his mind a lot.

itshappening
02-22-2013, 05:39 PM
That's what Jones said. And it should be noted that Jones threw noted pioneer and rival William Cooper under the bus as well by claiming he was an out-of-control drunk, which wasn't accurate. So it's not like Jones has not previously attacked those who he considers competition. Frankly, I don't know who to beleive. It's possible both he and Beck could be frauds.

It's not just what Jones has said it's documented by independent journalists when they compared their shows who agreed he's ripping him off and using his material.

kcchiefs6465
02-22-2013, 05:39 PM
Beck appears to get slightly teary -eyed at 4:55. Maybe he's sincere.
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb254/gahamm_photos/gif%20file/beck.gif


[I had to]

RonPaulFanInGA
02-22-2013, 05:39 PM
Beck appears to get slightly teary -eyed at 4:55. Maybe he's sincere.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGmYjVoFF2s

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:41 PM
It's not just what Jones has said it's documented by independent journalists when they compared their shows who agreed he's ripping him off and using his material.

You realize that much of this material preceded Alex Jones???? I have to give Alex Jones credit for taking the initiative to create his empire, but he doesn't own this type of media genre.

FrankRep
02-22-2013, 05:42 PM
The libertarians didn't side with OWS. The libertarians agreed there's a problem, and went like Schweitzer unto the lost and tried to enlighten them. And had some success, too.

The OWS got so annoyed by the libertarians and Ron Paul supporters trying to join OWS that had to make an announcement to officially reject Ron Paul. Hundreds of Pro-OWS threads were created just on this forum and even had the support of Josh.

How do you not remember this?

kcchiefs6465
02-22-2013, 05:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGmYjVoFF2s
Wow. It seemed unlikely it could ever happen but I think I now respect Glenn Beck even less. What was someone saying about him appearing sincere?

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:44 PM
Wow. It seemed unlikely it could ever happen but I think I now respect Glenn Beck even less. What was someone saying about him appearing sincere?

That was done for the Time Magazine shoot I believe.

acptulsa
02-22-2013, 05:45 PM
The OWS got so annoyed by the libertarians and Ron Paul supporters trying to join OWS that had to make an announcement to officially reject Ron Paul. Hundreds of Pro-OWS threads were created just on this forum and even had the support of Josh.

How do you not remember this?

I do remember this, Frank. I consider winning over so many of their followers that the 'leaders' get annoyed and start trying to exercise authority to squelch free speech 'some success'.

What do you call it?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGmYjVoFF2s

Limberger turned off his ears until they atrophied and now Beck's trying to make himself blind.

The Ultimate Prostitute.

itshappening
02-22-2013, 05:46 PM
You realize that much of this material preceded Alex Jones???? I have to give Alex Jones credit for taking the initiative to create his empire, but he doesn't own this type of media genre.

Beck was saying the 1.6 billion bullets bought by DHS was lies, that the FEMA camps were lies. He's trying to discredit Alex Jones and he attacks him and calls him FASCIST?!!

I mean come on. Beck is a liar and an obvious disinformation agent. A very well paid one too.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 05:49 PM
If Beck is a conscious "neocon infiltrator," what is the theory here on his overall plan and the nature of it's implementation? For example, how does this particular broadcast help the establishment, interventionism, or big government? I have deeply mistrusted him in the past but am frankly a tad smitten now with his humble "I'm trying to learn" statements (I cannot think of another talking head that has taken this approach). Also, if he intends to blatantly reverse himself on the things he's saying here, it won't be without some awkwardness, since he's being pretty clear on his platform in this video. And he pretty much patently endorsed Rand. He never endorsed Ron, he only admitted liking a portion of Ron's policies.

kcchiefs6465
02-22-2013, 05:49 PM
That was done for the Time Magazine shoot I believe.
I always thought the crying gif was him genuinely crying. Guess I haven't been around long.

kcchiefs6465
02-22-2013, 05:51 PM
If Beck is a conscious "neocon infiltrator," what is the theory here on his overall plan and the nature of it's implementation? How does this broadcast help the establishment, interventionism, or big government? I have deeply mistrusted him in the past but am frankly a tad smitten now with his humble "I'm trying to learn" statements (I cannot think of another talking head that has taken this approach). Also, if he intends to blatantly reverse himself on the things he's saying here, it won't be without some awkwardness, since he's being pretty clear on his platform in this video. And he pretty much patently endorsed Rand. He never endorsed Ron, he only admitted liking a portion of Ron's policies.
To co opt and discredit. Not to mention that he is most likely going to change his tune in a few days/months/years. Hard to say for sure but my money would be on it being around 2015.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:52 PM
If Beck is a conscious "neocon infiltrator," what is the theory here on his overall plan and the nature of it's implementation? For example, how does this particular broadcast help the establishment, interventionism, or big government? I have deeply mistrusted him in the past but am frankly a tad smitten now with his humble "I'm trying to learn" statements (I cannot think of another talking head that has taken this approach). Also, if he intends to blatantly reverse himself on the things he's saying here, it won't be without some awkwardness, since he's being pretty clear on his platform in this video. And he pretty much patently endorsed Rand. He never endorsed Ron, he only admitted liking a portion of Ron's policies.

Beck is an enigma. I really don't know what to think. Fox jettisoned him because he deviated from the script and started to come too close to the target.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 05:54 PM
To co opt and discredit. Not to mention that he is most likely going to change his tune in a few days/months/years. Hard to say for sure but my money would be on it being around 2015.

Co opt how??? And how to discredit?????? He has a niche audience. The theory sounds nice but doesn't hold any water. If he wanted to truly destroy Rand he would make him persona non grata as opposed to raising his profile among his listeners. Note that Rand has never appeared on Limbaugh's show. Very telling.

Barrex
02-22-2013, 05:58 PM
Be objective: he is making good points about strengthening Rand Paul, building coalition that people want to be apart of, libertarians spitting at anyone who is not their type of libertarian and excluding people, about "you were born with a Ron Paul pin on your body" additude and bitching about everyone else.

acptulsa
02-22-2013, 05:58 PM
Co opt how??? And how to discredit?????? He has a niche audience. The theory sounds nice but doesn't hold any water. If he wanted to truly destroy Rand he would make him persona non grata as opposed to raising his profile among his listeners. Note that Rand has never appeared on Limbaugh's show. Very telling.

What part of 'I like him but he's not electable, so vote for Santorum because he's libertarian too (in some alternate universe where the word 'libertarian' means something else I won't say aloud)' do you not remember?

anaconda
02-22-2013, 06:00 PM
To co opt and discredit.

I would be curious to hear you expand on this a bit. What are the particulars of Beck's devious plan? What are a few examples of it's implementation? Once he "co opts," how will he deflect this new power back to the establishment?

AuH20
02-22-2013, 06:00 PM
What part of 'I like him but he's not electable, so vote for Santorum because he's libertarian too (in some alternate universe where the word 'libertarian' means something else I won't say aloud)' do you not remember?

Ron Paul wasn't electable, but he built a formidable movement. Secondly, Beck never stated that Santorum was a libertarian.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 06:02 PM
I would be curious to hear you expand on this a bit. What are the particulars of Beck's devious plan? What are a few examples of it's implementation?

If you want to hurt someone, you ignore them. It worked on Ron Paul. That's why I question this whole elaborate Glenn Beck theory. Secondly, the judge, who I respect, vouched for Beck. So logically speaking, I have trouble believing he is this nefarious mastermind.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 06:02 PM
What part of 'I like him but he's not electable, so vote for Santorum because he's libertarian too (in some alternate universe where the word 'libertarian' means something else I won't say aloud)' do you not remember?

But that was Beck of the past. This is the new evolving Beck.

acptulsa
02-22-2013, 06:04 PM
Ron Paul wasn't electable, but he built a formidable movement. Secondly, Beck never stated that Santorum was a libertarian.

Ron Paul was completely, undeniably, demonstrably, utterly, absolutely, unquestionably electable.


See? I told you that you can't fix stupid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-would-best-obama-in-iowa-general-election-matchup/2012/02/18/gIQABoeUMR_blog.html

http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/09/27/ron-paul-leads-obama-in-new-poll/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318764

http://politicalnews.me/?id=12069

http://www.ibtimes.com/ron-paul-2012-rasmussen-poll-says-he-would-beat-obama-418358

http://politicalnews.me/?id=11876

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head

What part of the independents outnumber you and us combined do you not understand? Would it help you do the math if you took your cotton pickin' shoes off?

Just damn! Somebody give me a 2x4. I gotta learn a mule somethin'.

Republicans just decided they'd rather listen to Rupert Murdoch than win the damned election.


http://i.imgur.com/OskYdl.jpg



But that was Beck of the past. This is the new evolving Beck.

We've seen him evolve before...

http://www.bestanimations.com/Music/Metronomes/Metronome-04-june.gif

sparebulb
02-22-2013, 06:05 PM
His foreign policy views seem to be pretty similar to Rand's. .... If Beck is a neocon because of his foreign policy views, than so is Rand.

Which is precisely why we need to keep practicing extreme watchfulness with regard to Rand's behavior.

At best, I consider Rand a promising work in progress in Congress and possibly the libertarian standard bearer. At worst, he is a corruptible neo-hack that is capable of routine congressional treason. He needs to know that we are watching his every move.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 06:12 PM
Ron Paul wasn't electable, but he built a formidable movement. Secondly, Beck never stated that Santorum was a libertarian.

Beck has made no mystery of the notion that he will continue to vote for what he sees as the lesser-of-two-evils. He says in this interview that if it were between Chairman Mao and Chris Christie in 2016, that he would hold his nose and vote for Christie. He may have felt Santorum was better than either Mittens or Soetoro. Clearly naive but perhaps politically well-intended. Beck spoke against policies in this interview that are clearly supported by both establishment parties.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 06:14 PM
Who is the "highly influential" libertarian that Beck had "never heard of?"

AuH20
02-22-2013, 06:17 PM
Beck did make a great point when he stated that "who would want to infiltrate a movement that registers 1% nationally." That comment was dead-on. There is no payoff. It's like insisting to rob a subway newstand as opposed to a bank.

Natural Citizen
02-22-2013, 06:17 PM
Evolving into what?


[or another video of him crying]

Cultural analyitical skills are where true evolution appears to be of interest. not exclusively on the part of the individual though as has been hinted at regarding Beck. He just happens to be the only one that seems as if he's smart enough to recognize it in my opinion. There's just a process of transition we're going through here culturally and eventually politically. In that regard you always consult the competition. Well...if I were a political strategist, that's what I'd say.

Remember?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyjnEm8DZkI

DGambler
02-22-2013, 06:19 PM
When he apologizes to RP publicly and preaches the NAP correctly for a year with no slip ups, I will then consider him to have begun his evolution... Until then, he's a shill.

acptulsa
02-22-2013, 06:21 PM
Beck did make a great point when he stated that "who would want to infiltrate a movement that registers 1% nationally." That comment was dead-on. There is no payoff. It's like insisting to rob a subway newstand as opposed to a bank.

Are you denying we have grown? Are you denying that trend? Are you saying the establishment has no one smart enough, or no desire, to 'head them off at the pass'?

Have you never seen a John Wayne movie?

There was no payoff? They stopped an anticorporatist who could have won the general election and declared the party over. No payoff? Do you have the slightest conception of how much K Street pays off every single weekday?

You or I could live off of it for three years.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 06:21 PM
When he apologizes to RP publicly and preaches the NAP correctly for a year with no slip ups, I will then consider him to have begun his evolution... Until then, he's a shill.

I think that's fair. We need to watch him. He could be the genuine article or a shill. What I don't like is the close-minded approach with folks who insist without any evidence whatsoever that he is enacting this elaborate plan to take down Rand Paul. That simply doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny at the moment.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 06:22 PM
Are you denying we have grown? Are you denying that trend? Are you saying the establishment has no one smart enough, or no desire, to 'head them off at the pass'?

Have you never seen a John Wayne movie?

But there is no strategical incentive since we are our worst enemy. They don't need any infiltration.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 06:22 PM
Beck did make a great point when he stated that "who would want to infiltrate a movement that registers 1% nationally." That comment was dead-on. There is no payoff.

The nay sayers might suggest that Beck is strategically interjecting himself for the nefarious purpose of "moderating" the new force of libertarian ideology into the GOP. In other words, to talk the talk but ultimately serve the function of a sort of libertarian "gatekeeper" errand boy for the GOP establishment. Specifically, his mission would be to encourage the "hardcore holier-than-thou" libertarians to come into the fold based upon "progress" we are making within the GOP (which Beck will appear to champion for the next three years), with full knowledge that the Republican nominee with-libertarian-talking-points will continue to serve only the military-industrial complex and the banks. After the primary, Beck will publicly lament that the Republican nominee was not Rand Paul, but that he will vote for the Republican because of the "progress" we have made since 2012, and implore others to do so. When in fact it will be completely insignificant in reigning in the police state, the budget, and the wars. Mission accomplished.

Another possibility is that Beck is truly an evolving soul in the midst of a great personal awakening. Perhaps a man who has had enough problems and challenges in life to have arrived at a place where he is now able to begin to see outside the box, since his own tribulations sent him to live there for a time. If this is the case, he may be an invaluable ally, and the Republican nominee may turn out to be Rand Paul.

My 2 cents. I was essentially a Beck hater. At the risk of being like Charlie Brown kicking the football, I have decided to give Beck some open mindedness today.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 06:27 PM
But there is no strategical incentive since we are our worst enemy. They don't need any infiltration.

Well, they would like our 2 million extra votes. Plus the few million votes of GOP base that want (at least) conservative talking points from their candidate.

heavenlyboy34
02-22-2013, 06:30 PM
The nay sayers might suggest that Beck is strategically interjecting himself for the nefarious purpose of "moderating" the new force of libertarian ideology into the GOP. In other words, to talk the talk but ultimately serve the function of a sort of libertarian "gatekeeper" errand boy for the GOP establishment.
Not bad for a guy who cries on TV like a baby and lives in his mother's basement. ;)

sparebulb
02-22-2013, 06:37 PM
At best, I consider Rand a promising work in progress in Congress and possibly the libertarian standard bearer. At worst, he is a corruptible neo-hack that is capable of routine congressional treason. He needs to know that we are watching his every move.

In response to myself, I forgot to add that Beck's present mission of gratuitously praising Rand is to coerce him to the latter, and away from the former.

FrankRep
02-22-2013, 06:40 PM
Beck was saying the 1.6 billion bullets bought by DHS was lies,

Actually, The Blaze/Glenn Beck is reporting about the DHS buying bullets.

Why Is Homeland Security Buying 450 Million Rounds of Hollow Point Bullets?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/03/30/why-is-homeland-security-buying-450-million-rounds-of-hollow-point-bullets/



that the FEMA camps were lies.

The so-called FEMA "Death/Concentration" Camps are largely B.S.

Glenn Beck: FEMA camps debunked
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23656/

Debunking FEMA Camp Myths
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4312850

anaconda
02-22-2013, 06:49 PM
Not bad for a guy who cries on TV like a baby and lives in his mother's basement. ;)

Maybe he is a utilitarian acetic. Maybe he gets along great with his mom. Maybe he provides her with some form of care or assistance. Maybe he pays her a market rate of rent. Maybe the basement is really quiet and he can get a lot of reading and work done there. Maybe he has it decked out like Walden Pond.

ClydeCoulter
02-22-2013, 07:17 PM
He's making it about words instead of action. He calls someone fascist for stating he is wrong. We are calling for a change in government that allows for difference of opinion without violating rights. You can have all the opinions you want Beck, just don't send my children to jail or war for them.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 07:30 PM
He's making it about words instead of action. He calls someone facist for stating he is wrong. We are calling for a change in government that allows for difference of opinion without violating rights. You can have all the opinions you want Beck, just don't send my children to jail or war for them.

It does seem a semantic sleight of hand to suggest that someone who is fiercely uncompromising on individual liberty is a "Fascist." Yet, to the extent that the libertarians in question may have been quashing Beck's freedom of speech, there may be an iota of truth to his lament. To the extent that it may have been only a spirited debate, then that's just too bad for Beck. He chose to be a political person.

afwjam
02-22-2013, 08:45 PM
There's always infighting between libertarians. The hardcore Mises types libertarians and the Cato/Reason libertarians attack each other all the time. Infighting among libertarians isn't unusual.

I dare say it makes sense.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 08:49 PM
What part of 'I like him but he's not electable, so vote for Santorum because he's libertarian too (in some alternate universe where the word 'libertarian' means something else I won't say aloud)' do you not remember?

The Santorum endorsement is the number one thing that kind of discredits Beck's claim to be a libertarian. I like Beck, but I don't see how anyone who endorses Rick Santorum can possibly claim to be a libertarian. I don't even claim to be a libertarian, but I supported Ron in both 2008 and 2012 and would never consider voting for someone like Santorum.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 08:50 PM
Unless he's just changed a lot in the past year.

brushfire
02-22-2013, 08:52 PM
http://images.wikia.com/darkheresy/images/0/0c/Its_a_trap.jpg

QuickZ06
02-22-2013, 08:54 PM
Beck is going to strengthen Rand Paul for 2016. Thanks Beck.

TheTexan
02-22-2013, 08:54 PM
Unless he's just changed a lot in the past year.

It's always possible. Theoretically, anyway. In reality, not so much. In any case, he has proven he has no integrity so he'd have to earn that back first.

QuickZ06
02-22-2013, 09:00 PM
Beck is going to strengthen Rand Paul for 2016. Thanks Beck.

FrankRep
02-22-2013, 09:02 PM
Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck are good friends and the Judge used to guest host his Beck's show. What does this say about Judge Napolitano?

TheTexan
02-22-2013, 09:05 PM
If Glenn Beck really wants my trust back all he has to do is stay with Rand 100%.

Or adopt secession 100%. Either is fine with me.

TheTexan
02-22-2013, 09:08 PM
Why does he want to exclude anarchists from his camp? That IMO is one indication he's not sincere. Anarchists want the same thing, maximum amount of freedom, so why the hate?

FrankRep
02-22-2013, 09:12 PM
Why does he want to exclude anarchists from his camp? That IMO is one indication he's not sincere. Anarchists want the same thing, maximum amount of freedom, so why the hate?
I'm a Constitutionalist so even I reject Anarchy.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 09:14 PM
Why does he want to exclude anarchists from his camp? That IMO is one indication he's not sincere. Anarchists want the same thing, maximum amount of freedom, so why the hate?

Anarchy would lead to a total loss of freedom, because we wouldn't be able to defend the freedom we currently have.

TheTexan
02-22-2013, 09:16 PM
I'm a Constitutionalist so even I reject Anarchy.

I'm an anarchist, and while I don't think a piece of paper can restrain government, I am still more than happy to work together with constitutionalists to try to achieve that goal.

Would you prefer that I reject politics for the rest of my life, or help you in your cause? Glenn Beck wants nothing to do with me. You?

TheTexan
02-22-2013, 09:21 PM
Anarchy would lead to a total loss of freedom, because we wouldn't be able to defend the freedom we currently have.

The fight we are facing right now is tyranny. We need to defeat tyranny first, and then we can disagree on how best to keep the freedom.

Would you prefer that I help you in the fight against tyranny? Or should I just go away?

Brett85
02-22-2013, 09:24 PM
The fight we are facing right now is tyranny. We need to defeat tyranny first, and then we can disagree on how best to keep the freedom.

Would you prefer that I help you in the fight against tyranny? Or should I just go away?

I'm certainly not one to try to kick people out of the movement. Sorry if I came across that way. I just don't agree with the ultimate conclusion that anarchists have concerning government.

TheTexan
02-22-2013, 09:27 PM
I'm certainly not one to try to kick people out of the movement. Sorry if I came across that way. I just don't agree with the ultimate conclusion that anarchists have concerning government.

Yes and that's fine. My point is that Glenn Beck does want to kick anarchists out of the movement. Which is an indication of either insincerity or ignorance. Ignorance is fine, but judging from his history, it's probably insincerity.

newbitech
02-22-2013, 09:28 PM
I had heard he grew a second head, are you telling me he has now grown a third head?

thoughtomator
02-22-2013, 09:31 PM
The fight we are facing right now is tyranny. We need to defeat tyranny first, and then we can disagree on how best to keep the freedom.

Would you prefer that I help you in the fight against tyranny? Or should I just go away?

Personally I'm willing to work with anyone who will help to right wrongs, whether they share my motivations and reasons or not is not important.

QuickZ06
02-22-2013, 09:38 PM
Anarchy would lead to a total loss of freedom, because we wouldn't be able to defend the freedom we currently have.

We have an illusion of freedoms. Don't pay your taxes, speed, or create corn dust and see what the government does with your so called freedoms.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 09:41 PM
It's pretty sad how much this thread reminds me of battered spouse syndrome.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 09:42 PM
We have an illusion of freedoms. Don't pay your taxes, speed, or create corn dust and see what the government does with your so called freedoms.

I probably shouldn't have said "the freedoms we currently have." I just meant that if we had no government and no national defense we wouldn't be able to defend the freedoms that we would have if we had limited government.

brushfire
02-22-2013, 09:43 PM
Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck are good friends and the Judge used to guest host his Beck's show. What does this say about Judge Napolitano?

Judge Nap is just a nice guy. He has lots of friends... He's even friendly with Charlie Rangle for pete sakes. Nap is no shill though - he's the real deal.

Beck, on the other hand, is not such a nice guy. He has shown his true colors many times.

I see Beck for who he is - a bottom feeding shill who is no friend of liberty. He is the "pied piper" who has been sent to rid the GOP of the liberty loving "rat infestation". Be careful when listening to his tune... He'll do the same with the liberty movement that he did with the tea party.

QuickZ06
02-22-2013, 09:57 PM
I just meant that if we had no government and no national defense we wouldn't be able to defend the freedoms that we would have if we had limited government.

Why does everyone think chaos would happen if there was all of the sudden no government, sure we might have some initial issues pop up but things would settle and life would go on, we are adaptive as human beings. Private defense agency for national security in a ancap world. And the only people taking our freedoms is government.

NorfolkPCSolutions
02-22-2013, 10:01 PM
This SOB did so much to undermine RP's campaign, I'm struggling to listen to him talk about how "libertarian-ism is not about a person..." He's right. It isn't.

Here's the problem, Glenn: those of us in the liberty movement who worked so hard, who knocked on doors, who raised our voices in polite conversation with strangers, and disregarded social mores and spoke with complete strangers about politics at any and every opportunity, who placed our treasure on the line $20.12 at a time, who wrote letters to newspaper editors nationwide, who took out full-page ads in national publications, and who were in the end cheated out of even the opportunity to see a good and noble man have a shot in the 2012 election...we have looong memories.

We have archived video and audio, and we have captured your likeness and voice in these mediums. We know you, not simply of you. Many of us have been listening to your show since the early 2000's. Many of us considered you to be an honest, reliable source of information. Many of us were your "students" on your FOX show, TiVo'ing or DVR'ing your show out of a desire to hear some truth in the media. You were instrumental in the waking of many minds, and that is to your credit, sir. However, take this not as a compliment. You were instrumental in all the wrong ways.

As soon as the Iowa Caucuses in 2011, we heard you. As soon as the nomination process was shaking out, we heard you. As soon as it became apparent to you that "we," the "Ron Paul people," were not going to be convinced to once again choose between "the lesser of two evils," we heard you. We were listening. We heard you say nothing. We heard you join in the rest of the media as Ron Paul's campaign won Iowa, and was cheated out of victory, and say nothing. We heard you as New Hampshire was won by the sheer will of the "Ron Paul people," only to have the GOP throw out entire ballots, skewing the results to their benefit, and we heard you, again, say nothing.

I'm only halfway through the video referenced in the OP, yet I was compelled to post, first to remark that you are wearing a hat in this video with "D" for "dumbass" on it, but when I placed my fingers on the keyboard...all this came out, instead.

You haven't changed. I see your face flapping about, I hear sounds that seem to be words, but all I hear when you talk, Glenn, on the radio and in this video, is nothing. Nothing at all.

I am contractually bound to say "Fuck Glenn Beck" in any GB thread, and I've been slacking lately. So, fuck you, Mister Beck! I, unlike you, am not afraid to say that which is uncomfortable, when it needs to be said.

Sorta like when an honest man, for the first time in several decades, has the support of millions and the real chance to unseat a dictator, and rather than choose the uncomfortable, risky path and deviate from subject matter more readily digested by your audience populated largely by Neoconservative Zionists, the elderly and indigent, and those whose car radio is able to recieve your ideological feces more readily than the ideological feces of some other nitwit NWO mouthpiece - this includes voices on both the left and the right - you chose that which was comfortable and familiar. And that which you achieved was the retention of this yoke of totalitarianism, under the dictator God/Man/King Barack Obama. You'd have gotten the same goddamn thing under Mitt Romney. It may take some time for you to sort this out, but I'll help you along...

There's a lot of us here at RPF that voted Johnson, many who wrote in the good Doctor, and many who chose to get shitfaced or stoned rather than take part in the State religion of Voting Day. Or they simply found something else to do, if only to keep the inevitible result of the 2012 election from fucking up their day too much, like go to work.

The next day, any of us who went to work the next day and struck up a political conversation with a co-worker who was a Romney supporter, were blamed for Obama's victory. We were told that if we had only "fell in line" we would somehow have "saved the country." I will say now, as I said that day, that it wasn't "us", the "Ron Paul people," who were responsible for Romney's defeat. It was the GOP's fault. They nominated the wrong fucking guy. You helped, Glenn...you abandoned the country for which you shed false tears for on the radio several times a year...you helped the GOP nominate the wrong guy, Glenn, by keeping your mouth shut like a good little sheeple, and if that wasn't good enough, you took any opportunity to call us "kooks" and "radicals." You said the same about Ron Paul, rather than listen to what the man had to fucking say. You should be ashamed of yourself...

Perhaps you will have your experience on the Road to Demascus, Saul into Paul, and all that. Maybe you already have, and I just don't know it yet, because I've stopped paying attention to you. My time spent composing this post represents the most time I've spent thinking of you in months. Eventually, you may become a great voice in the liberty movement. Believe it or not, even I could forgive you. But I could never forget what you've done...alas, I doubt it. And if you do, I'll still avoid your influence, you maggot. We all know you moved to Texas to try to become Alex Jones. You shoulda went to fucking Salt Lake City! (Oooohhh, I went there...a Mormon joke)

You are part of the machine that denied this country it's greatest chance at turning this thing around. So fuck you, for now.

Just to be fair, though, I'll finish watching your fucking video. I just hope I have less to say when I finish the goddamn video rather than having watched only some of this shit

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 10:11 PM
The guy in the red sweater is an idiot for saying that "the libertarians got dragged right along" by the OWS crowd, when, in fact, the Ron Paul faction's reasoning for the income disparity was 180 degrees polar to the liberal faction at these gatherings.
Beck's little sidekicks are morons. The Paul supporters/libertarians that attended OWS were attempting to educate that rabble. They saw a group of politically orientated people and sought to engage them intellectually. The most visible example was Peter Schiff going down to OWS.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMGoB01qiA

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 10:14 PM
There's always infighting between libertarians. The hardcore Mises types libertarians and the Cato/Reason libertarians attack each other all the time. Infighting among libertarians isn't unusual.
It's a damn staple of the libertarian movement. Very tiresome.

thoughtomator
02-22-2013, 10:16 PM
What's the next step in evolution from pond scum?

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 10:16 PM
There were Ron Paul people staying at an OWS event who were robbed and bullied in one instance. This was well-publicized.
All the Paulers I saw at OWS were trying to educate those misguided souls. They were imploring them that they were protesting the symptoms and not the cause.

thoughtomator
02-22-2013, 10:17 PM
It's a damn staple of the libertarian movement. Very tiresome.

I call it "healthy debate" and this country could use a lot more of it.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 10:33 PM
I call it "healthy debate" and this country could use a lot more of it.+rep

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 10:38 PM
Ron Paul was completely, undeniably, demonstrably, utterly, absolutely, unquestionably electable.
That is an awful arrogant statement. Arrogance often leads to dramatic defeats throughout history. I'm not entirely sure Ron could've defeated the Obama machine. So many dominoes would have to fall perfectly to make that happen and we couldn't even get the first domino of Iowa to fall our way let alone domino #998. Ron's own district in Texas and the people that arguably know him the best weren't overwhelming in favor of his Presidency. Stuff like that scares me to the point where I can see scenarios where Obama's campaign rolls us up like a carpet.

Natural Citizen
02-22-2013, 10:39 PM
Beck's little sidekicks are morons. The Paul supporters/libertarians that attended OWS were attempting to educate that rabble. They saw a group of politically orientated people and sought to engage them intellectually. The most visible example was Peter Schiff going down to OWS.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMGoB01qiA

It's a good thing Peter was talking to a light weight at the 1:06:27 mark. An informed citizen who understands the Constitution in terms of representation in the old of, by and for department could have made Peter look really foolish there and buried him.

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 10:41 PM
I call it "healthy debate" and this country could use a lot more of it.
I call it ineffectualness and the LP has had 40 years of it.

Seats in the Senate
0 / 100
Seats in the House
0 / 435
Governorships
0 / 50
State Upper Houses
0 / 1,921
State Lower Houses
0 / 5,410

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 10:43 PM
If you want to hurt someone, you ignore them. It worked on Ron Paul. That's why I question this whole elaborate Glenn Beck theory. Secondly, the judge, who I respect, vouched for Beck. So logically speaking, I have trouble believing he is this nefarious mastermind.
Agreed. Beck is just a confused man trying to figure out this crazy system. The majority of people never even get to that point. He's has good 40 years of indoctrination to shed.

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 10:48 PM
But there is no strategical incentive since we are our worst enemy. They don't need any infiltration.
Bingo.

TheTexan
02-22-2013, 10:52 PM
If you want to hurt someone, you ignore them. It worked on Ron Paul. That's why I question this whole elaborate Glenn Beck theory. Secondly, the judge, who I respect, vouched for Beck. So logically speaking, I have trouble believing he is this nefarious mastermind.

It's not always with a malicious intent. Some people, possibly Beck, are simply dishonest with themselves, and this eventually manifests as outward dishonesty.

People like to believe they like freedom. Who doesn't want to believe they like freedom, right? But many people actually don't. Choices, responsibility, uncertainty, etc. The thought of freedom, true freedom, actually scares many people.

During periods of intermissions of such as this, it can be difficult to identify who truly wants freedom, and who likes talking about freedom. It becomes crystal clear, though, where one stands, when it comes time to take action on making that freedom a reality.

Glenn Back has had several opportunities to take action to advance freedom, but so far, when it comes to time to make that freedom a reality, he instead stabs freedom in the back. Whether that's with malicious intent, or simply cognitive dissonance, it matters little, because actions speak louder than words..

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 10:52 PM
I call it ineffectualness and the LP has had 40 years of it.

Seats in the Senate
0 / 100
Seats in the House
0 / 435
Governorships
0 / 50
State Upper Houses
0 / 1,921
State Lower Houses
0 / 5,410

You're confusing small-l "libertarian movement" with Big-L Libertarian Party. Many of us who are involved with the libertarian movement are independents and some are even in the GOP. We're about issues, not party.

NorfolkPCSolutions
02-22-2013, 10:55 PM
You're confusing small-l "libertarian movement" with Big-L Libertarian Party. Many of us who are involved with the libertarian movement are independents and some are even in the GOP. We're about issues, not party.

Wonderfully said.

notsure
02-22-2013, 11:06 PM
You're confusing small-l "libertarian movement" with Big-L Libertarian Party. Many of us who are involved with the libertarian movement are independents and some are even in the GOP. We're about issues, not party.

Big L, small L, conservative, liberal, progressive, GOP, DEM; are all rooted in politics. It's all about the role of Gov't. These terms and labels are more to do with politics or a political party than a philosophy. It's the same old divide and conquer technique.

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 11:15 PM
Anarchy would lead to a total loss of freedom, because we wouldn't be able to defend the freedom we currently have.
Agreed. Historically speaking it's akin to have the Mongol hordes appear on the horizon and grind you into dust. Roving despotic bands would rule the day in any true anarchy scenario. Anyone that disputes that disputes thousands of years of human history.

Radical socialists and assassinations were the makeup of the modern anarchist movement. Bad business.

twomp
02-22-2013, 11:16 PM
My opinion. Glenn Beck will sing the praises of the libertarians and his website and his show will get hits and listeners from this very forum and others. Then once we have all declared him the the "voice of libertarians" which is what he seems to want, things will begin to change. Come 2016, he will say that he REALLY REALLY likes Rand Paul but he just doesn't have the numbers and that Rubio who may not be perfect because you know "no one is perfect" will be our best hope and the sheep will follow.

The media will then tell the world that Rubio has now earned the support of Libertarians just like how Romney has earned the support of the Tea Party... The End.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 11:18 PM
My opinion. Glenn Beck will sing the praises of the libertarians and his website and his show will get hits and listeners from this very forum and others. Then once we have all declared him the the "voice of libertarians" which is what he seems to want, things will begin to change. Come 2016, he will say that he REALLY REALLY likes Rand Paul but he just doesn't have the numbers and that Rubio who may not be perfect because you know "no one is perfect" will be our best hope and the sheep will follow.

I think Rubio is done. I agree with everything you said except for Beck's choice of candidate...I still think he'll go all in for Santorum again.

TheTexan
02-22-2013, 11:19 PM
Agreed. Historically speaking it's akin to have the Mongol hordes appear on the horizon and grind you into dust. Roving despotic bands would rule the day in any true anarchy scenario. Anyone that disputes that disputes thousands of years of human history.

I'm fairly sure that the number of people killed by democide (government sponsored murder) **grossly** outnumbers the number of people killed by "roving despotic bands."

How many people were killed by democide last century alone? Something like 300 million?

Sorry. I shouldn't have responded I'll let this die, this line of discussion is very off topic :)

bolil
02-22-2013, 11:21 PM
Glenn Beck is developing retractable claws?!?! WOE IS ME!

twomp
02-22-2013, 11:22 PM
I think Rubio is done. I agree with everything you said except for Beck's choice of candidate...I still think he'll go all in for Santorum again.

I'm not sure what would cause Rubio to be "done". The sip of water? Romney managed to win the nomination even though he was the architect of Obamacare. If the rank and file forgave Romney for that, they will forgive Rubio for his sip of water.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 11:22 PM
I think Rubio is done. I agree with everything you said except for Beck's choice of candidate...I still think he'll go all in for Santorum again.

Rand will blow Santorum out of the race in the first month, despite Frothy playing the terror card and the drug card. I don't think Frothy can begin to compete with Rand in a debate. I worry about someone like Jeb far more than Frothy.

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 11:34 PM
Why does everyone think chaos would happen if there was all of the sudden no government, sure we might have some initial issues pop up but things would settle and life would go on, we are adaptive as human beings. Private defense agency for national security in a ancap world. And the only people taking our freedoms is government.
The totality of human history.

mad cow
02-22-2013, 11:39 PM
I call it ineffectualness and the LP has had 40 years of it.

Seats in the Senate
0 / 100
Seats in the House
0 / 435
Governorships
0 / 50
State Upper Houses
0 / 1,921
State Lower Houses
0 / 5,410

There have been ten Libertarian Party members elected to State lower houses,but none for the last dozen years or so.Also the odd city council member,school board,dogcatcher...

NorfolkPCSolutions
02-22-2013, 11:42 PM
Rand will blow Santorum out of the race in the first month, despite Frothy playing the terror card and the drug card. I don't think Frothy can begin to compete with Rand in a debate. I worry about someone like Jeb far more than Frothy.

Please don't use the words "Santorum" and "blow" in the same sentence. I'm a rather heavy smoker, and my laughter just turned into hacks and wheezes. My kid's trying to sleep ffs

Bastiat's The Law
02-23-2013, 12:24 AM
I'm fairly sure that the number of people killed by democide (government sponsored murder) **grossly** outnumbers the number of people killed by "roving despotic bands."

How many people were killed by democide last century alone? Something like 300 million?

Sorry. I shouldn't have responded I'll let this die, this line of discussion is very off topic :)
It's fun to discuss theoretically. 300 million isn't that shocking given the exponential population growth within the last century coupled with technological advances in the art of killing. Some estimate the Mongols wrecked death upon 40 million during their reign. History is on my side, someone will wear the reigns whether by government decree or will to power.

http://www.sustainablescale.org/images/uploaded/Population/populationgrowth.JPG

anaconda
02-23-2013, 12:32 AM
Please don't use the words "Santorum" and "blow" in the same sentence. I'm a rather heavy smoker, and my laughter just turned into hacks and wheezes. My kid's trying to sleep ffs

Sorry man.

Bastiat's The Law
02-23-2013, 12:35 AM
Rand will blow Santorum out of the race in the first month, despite Frothy playing the terror card and the drug card. I don't think Frothy can begin to compete with Rand in a debate. I worry about someone like Jeb far more than Frothy.
Religious fundamentalism plays well in Iowa. The last election cycles have proven this with Huckabee and Santorum. There's still enough juice in the GOP for someone to live of the land so to speak and eek out an existence playing the fundie card. They will ultimately be denied the nomination though. A "moderate" by media standards like Jeb or Rubio would have enormous sway from the push they will receive in the media and elsewhere. So, Jeb/Rubio are long-term threats. Fundies are more immediate threats.

anaconda
02-23-2013, 12:41 AM
Religious fundamentalism plays well in Iowa. The last election cycles have proven this with Huckabee and Santorum.

Good observation. But there were honestly no exciting candidates in 2008 or 2012. The fact that these two imposter-conservative clowns each won in IA is strong evidence. So I think the Iowa voters may have essentially "defaulted" to the religiosity test. I think Rand may very well get people inspired. Plus Rand is a pro life Christian so he's not at a great deficit in this area.

Bastiat's The Law
02-23-2013, 12:45 AM
You're confusing small-l "libertarian movement" with Big-L Libertarian Party. Many of us who are involved with the libertarian movement are independents and some are even in the GOP. We're about issues, not party.
I frankly don't care how you label it. It's about implementing your ideas. If you can't do that in some realistic way it's just talk.

Bastiat's The Law
02-23-2013, 12:49 AM
Good observation. But there were honestly no exciting candidates in 2008 or 2012. The fact that these two imposter-conservative clowns each won in IA is strong evidence. So I think the Iowa voters may have essentially "defaulted" to the religiosity test. I think Rand may very well get people inspired. Plus Rand is a pro life Christian so he's not at a great deficit in this area.
I definitely agree with that. Rand might even be able to break through with the religious crowd, even if he's not their first choice I bet he's their second. It will be interesting to see if we can hit that critical mass where people start jumping ship into Rand's camp seeing him as the only viable option.

TheTexan
02-23-2013, 12:49 AM
I frankly don't care how you label it. It's about implementing your ideas. If you can't do that in some realistic way it's just talk.

If you want to play that card, that goes both ways. The conservative wing of the republican party hasn't accomplished shit either.

COpatriot
02-23-2013, 01:02 AM
What a fantastic display of feigned indignation by Beck. Is this guy really going to try and lecture us about sanctimoniousness?

Beck knows goddamn well why he is almost universally hated by the libertarian community which he pretends to be a member of and it is not just because of Ron Paul, although that is part of it. Beck had his chance during the primary to endorse the one libertarian in the GOP field who he apparently seems to agree with across the board. But no, Beck still had an audience consisting primarily of mouth-breathers that he had to patronize and so he continuously shit on Ron Paul. And then Glenn beck the "libertarian" did the unthinkable by backing the single most authoritarian, warmongering anti-libertarian in the race in Rick Santorum. And then beck chastised us for not supporting Romney even though beck himself knew he was no different than Obama. Combine this with the Medina ambush, ripping off other people's material, and all the other bullshit he's pulled over the last several years.

I say all of this of course to make my point which should be clear to all of you by now. Glenn Beck has no principles. He is a con-artist and I am not about to be lectured by a swindling, sniveling liar.

Fuck you Beck!

John F Kennedy III
02-23-2013, 01:11 AM
Are members here really starting to trust Beck? That's disgusting.

The membership of this forum continues to degrade further away from Liberty every time I turn around...

Indy Vidual
02-23-2013, 01:13 AM
We need people like Glen Beck, just like we need Obama to help us.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBghttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBghttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBghttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBghttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBghttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBghttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBghttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBg









https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhResF4QdtljzaN3C6Hxqf7D1kr5SUI U6vzBw-uC8PTAT_I6jeBg

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 01:15 AM
How many times has Glenn Beck attacked Judge Napolitano or stabbed him in the back?

Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck are friends.

NorfolkPCSolutions
02-23-2013, 01:26 AM
Are members here really starting to trust Beck? That's disgusting.

The membership of this forum continues to degrade further away from Liberty every time I turn around...

I fucking hope not. Perhaps the RPF collective memory is not what I perceive it to be...someone oughta start a thread entitled "A Touching Retrospective on a Great American, Glenn Beck" and fill it with video and audio links, then ask the mods to kindly sticky that motherfucker

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 01:27 AM
I fucking hope not. Perhaps the RPF collective memory is not what I perceive it to be...someone oughta start a thread entitled "A Touching Retrospective on a Great American, Glenn Beck" and fill it with video and audio links, then ask the mods to kindly sticky that motherfucker
Glenn Beck has been long time friends with Judge Napolitano. That's a cause for concern.

:rolleyes:

DGambler
02-23-2013, 01:36 AM
Are members here really starting to trust Beck? That's disgusting.

The membership of this forum continues to degrade further away from Liberty every time I turn around...


I'm on mobile, so I can't check... those "supporting" Beck in this thread, what are their join dates?

notsure
02-23-2013, 01:42 AM
Glenn Beck has been long time friends with Judge Napolitano. That's a cause for concern.

:rolleyes:

Long time friend? Like, what do you mean?

notsure
02-23-2013, 01:44 AM
I'm on mobile, so I can't check... those "supporting" Beck in this thread, what are their join dates?

2000 late. :D

NorfolkPCSolutions
02-23-2013, 01:45 AM
Long time friend? Like, what do you mean?

Like, Nap is pulling Beck into a dark corner, grabbing him by the lapels, and grunting through his teeth, saying "Listen to me, you little SHIT..." as spittle bounces off Beck's dumbass glasses

NorfolkPCSolutions
02-23-2013, 02:04 AM
Glenn Beck @ 12 min mark

"You libertarians are nazis..."

Dear everyone thinking that Beck is evolving: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZGrzUiZi1DU/T1ndhZFXQ5I/AAAAAAAAXv8/ZhhVy96tkP0/s1600/76-No-Way-Out.jpg. We don't want this guy in the same hemisphere of the liberty movement. He's too far gone to be saved. He doesn't want "in" anyway; he'd rather make certain that you know you are wrong and that he is right.

The last 20 seconds or so were absolutely pathetic. This man fails to understand that none of us really give a fuck about what the other guy thinks, or feels - that's up to him. It's about the right to be left the hell alone, to have sound money, and a government that isn't hell bent on ruling the goddamn world.

Listening to him apologizing to the people he spent all of 2011 and 2012 maligning...it reminded me of when my mom fucks up, knows she fucked up, then apologizes in that same bleary eyed fake ass way. Yup, my original hypothesis is confirmed: no, Beck is not evolving, and remains an utter waste of time.

Bastiat's The Law
02-23-2013, 03:25 AM
What Beck doesn't understand is that hell hath no fury like a libertarian scorned. It all stems from him and David Horowitz saying the liberty movement was in bed with the islamo-facists and implying we were domestic terrorists. A lot of people never forgot that.

Intoxiklown
02-23-2013, 03:41 AM
We cry foul and demand blood when we get misleading or bad press. We cry conspiracy when no one wants to espouse the message that keeps this motley group together. And when someone in the media does these things we want? We cry foul and conspiracy.

Who cares if he has some super secret satanic motive to make money? If it brings 5 more people who stay with the liberty group, it's a good thing. And who cares what he did or said in the past? I was a die hard neo-con until I actually started reading and researching Ron Paul and Libertarianism. Am I a super secret infiltrator? When you're in the fight of your life, and the stakes are dangerously high, you take any help you can get. The REAL "battered spouse" syndrome is the spouse that WON'T take any help.

I'm sorry, but he's right about one thing. A few people have their head so far up their ass, they've lost sight of anything but their own shit. If the goal is liberty, than anyone willing to help with that....even one iota....has a place. If we don't have a place for that, then we're not about liberty. We're about crying on the internet about how much smarter we are than everyone else, because we're smug fucks who enjoy having things taken from us.

Occam's Banana
02-23-2013, 04:23 AM
Agreed. Historically speaking it's akin to have the Mongol hordes appear on the horizon and grind you into dust. Roving despotic bands would rule the day in any true anarchy scenario. Anyone that disputes that disputes thousands of years of human history.

You do realize that neither the Mongols nor the peoples they conquered were anarchists, don't you? But even setting that aside ...

History is contingent upon a vast, vast, VAST arrays of inter-related variables.

Change any one of those variable even slightly and "history" could have been extremely different from what it actually was.

And many of those variables (such as geographical availability of resources or miltary tactics & technology, to name only two of thousands upon thousands) have nothing whatsoever to do with abstract political and philosophical principles.


It's fun to discuss theoretically. 300 million isn't that shocking given the exponential population growth within the last century coupled with technological advances in the art of killing. Some estimate the Mongols wrecked death upon 40 million during their reign. History is on my side, someone will wear the reigns whether by government decree or will to power.

So (by your assessment) we are screwed no matter what. "History proves it." So why even bother?

History is not on your side - nor is it on anyone else's side. History "proves" absolutely nothing about what is or is not possible.

At best, history merely reveals what did or did not happen "once upon a time" (under the particular conditions and circumstances of that time).

History is composed of a posteriori contingencies, not a priori necessities.

There was once a point in time at which you could have used history to "prove" that constitutional republics are not possible - because none had ever existed before.

In fact, you could even use modern history and current events to "prove" that right now, today, constitutional republicanism is a complete failure.

And anyone who did so would be just as full of crap as those who claim that history "proves" that anarchism is doomed to fail.

(The only "argument" against anarchism that is even lamer than the "historical" argument is the "people are bad (so we need some people to be in charge of everyone else)" argument.)

CPUd
02-23-2013, 05:08 AM
I fucking hope not. Perhaps the RPF collective memory is not what I perceive it to be...someone oughta start a thread entitled "A Touching Retrospective on a Great American, Glenn Beck" and fill it with video and audio links, then ask the mods to kindly sticky that motherfucker

For good source material:

glenn beck site:ronpaulforums.com

TheTyke
02-23-2013, 06:00 AM
I don't believe in evolution.

itshappening
02-23-2013, 06:13 AM
Beck's little minions are even bigger d*cks than him, if that's possible.

Article V
02-23-2013, 06:52 AM
Wow. It seemed unlikely it could ever happen but I think I now respect Glenn Beck even less. What was someone saying about him appearing sincere?
Limberger turned off his ears until they atrophied and now Beck's trying to make himself blind.

The Ultimate Prostitute.Do you not realize that video with the Vic's vapo rub was for a photo shoot where Beck needed to mock the fact that he regularly gets overly teary and emotional. It's a spoof of himself; it's parody. It's purposefully not genuine. He's pointing out that there's some truth to the SNL mockery of him and so he needed vapo rub for the photo shoot. He isn't using vapo rub in his live television show where the camera never leaves him and he talks for 20 minutes straight without interruption before eventually crying.

Do you regularly misread videos like you've done with Beck's crying photo shoot? If so, you're no better than the MSM who selectively edit Ron Paul to fit their narrative.

CaptLouAlbano
02-23-2013, 06:55 AM
There have been ten Libertarian Party members elected to State lower houses,but none for the last dozen years or so.Also the odd city council member,school board,dogcatcher...

Actually, the last LP member to win a state legislature seat solely on the LP ballot line was Andre Marrou (AK) in 1984. Every state legislature victory that the LP has claimed since then came by way of "fusion candidates", i.e. candidates that are on both the Republican line and the Libertarian line of the ballot.

As far as their local electoral success, the large majority of those wins are in non-partisan offices. For example, of the nine newly elected LP members from 2012, only three were in partisan races (http://www.lp.org/2012-elected-libertarians). And of those three, none of them were opposed in their bid for office.

So as dismal as the LP's electoral success appears to be on paper, it is even worse when you look a little deeper at the results. If every member of the LP took a critical and honest look at the party's record, logic would prevail and the party would be abandoned instantaneously. The problem is LP members do not operate by logic and reason, but delusion.

Article V
02-23-2013, 07:04 AM
When he apologizes to RP publicly and preaches the NAP correctly for a year with no slip ups, I will then consider him to have begun his evolution... Until then, he's a shill.Beck apologies in the video, "Some of us are coming a little late to the game, and we apologize that we are not as smart as you are." Beck regularly preaches the NAP and, to my knowledge, always has even before the '08 election. He doesn't need to apologize to Ron Paul specifically because Beck genuinely and openly didn't agree with Ron Paul's interpretation of the NAP with regards to Iran's nuclear program; and, while I disagree with Beck, I cannot claim he's not a believer in the NAP simply because he (wrongly, in my view) sees Iran's unique and violent rhetoric paired with its unrelenting quest to obtain nuclear arms to carry out that violence as reason to consider taking action to prevent that scenario should it get that far and provided it's done with an official, constitutional declaration of war by Congress. In fact, that view is exactly Rand's official view.

Article V
02-23-2013, 07:18 AM
The Santorum endorsement is the number one thing that kind of discredits Beck's claim to be a libertarian. I like Beck, but I don't see how anyone who endorses Rick Santorum can possibly claim to be a libertarian. I don't even claim to be a libertarian, but I supported Ron in both 2008 and 2012 and would never consider voting for someone like Santorum.Yeah, and likewise Rand's endorsement of Mitt Romney--while Ron Paul was still in the race even--is the number one thing that discredits Rand's claim to be a libertarian. Endorsing the lesser evil who you think has a possibility of winning completely invalidates one's libertarianism. Political strategy to slow the growth of government should never be permitted; any libertarian who does this isn't a libertarian. It's all or nothing always; to hell with helping the country survive to fight another day, it's liberty or death every moment. Pragmatism over philosophy isn't allowed. :rolleyes:

RonPaulFanInGA
02-23-2013, 07:19 AM
Why does everyone care so much about Boo-Hoo Beck? 18 pages on this thread currently, fifty pages here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404966-Glenn-Beck-I-m-Done-With-Establishment-Republicans-I-Support-Constitutonalists-Like-Rand), people bringing him up all the time...he's really not that relevant. He's really not worth all the debate, or the hate.

Article V
02-23-2013, 07:22 AM
Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck are good friends and the Judge used to guest host his Beck's show. What does this say about Judge Napolitano?And Glenn Beck is the reason Judge Napolitano got his own "Freedom Watch" show on Fox Business. Too bad Judge Nap wasn't able to keep the show after Beck left Fox.

CaptLouAlbano
02-23-2013, 07:28 AM
Why does everyone care so much about Boo-Hoo Beck? 18 pages on this thread currently, fifty pages here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404966-Glenn-Beck-I-m-Done-With-Establishment-Republicans-I-Support-Constitutonalists-Like-Rand), people bringing him up all the time...he's really not that relevant. He's really not worth all the debate, or the hate.

8.25 million weekly listeners (which makes him the third most popular show in the "Conservative Talk" format), and the fact that guys we like (particularly Rand) are featured and talked about on his show frequently. As far as relevance, there are only two talk show hosts, in that format, that command a bigger audience, Rush & Hannity.

Article V
02-23-2013, 07:29 AM
Why does he want to exclude anarchists from his camp? That IMO is one indication he's not sincere. Anarchists want the same thing, maximum amount of freedom, so why the hate?He still thinks of anarchists as people who support complete chaos, which is how anarchists are viewed by the majority of people on earth. This isn't exactly Beck's fault. Because of the way the word "anarchy" has evolved in the English language, Beck hasn't quite learned the more conservative, legitimate, pragmatic political philosophy of anarchism that classical anarchists support. At some point, if they ever want to be heard and understood by Beck or society-at-large, classical anarchists will likely have to change the word that identifies them (in the same way classical liberals in America eventually had to call themselves libertarians) if they ever want to break through the noise progressive chaos-creators have formed around the term "anarchy."

RonPaulFanInGA
02-23-2013, 07:35 AM
As far as relevance, there are only two talk show hosts, in that format, that command a bigger audience, Rush & Hannity.

We don't have a bunch of Limbaugh and Hannity threads.

Cap
02-23-2013, 07:39 AM
Maybe we should give him his own sub-forum. /s

CaptLouAlbano
02-23-2013, 07:42 AM
We don't have a bunch of Limbaugh and Hannity threads.

Well, Limbaugh rarely has guests on his program. Hannity has a lot, but our folks are rarely on there. If Rand was on Hannity and mentioned on the show quite often, I suspect there would be a lot more discussion of him.

Additionally, there are some here that are incensed that Beck is describing himself as a "libertarian". Personally, I don't care what label anyone chooses, since I never had my political affiliation tattooed on my ass, so I do not care what label someone uses to describe themselves.

Article V
02-23-2013, 07:43 AM
All the Paulers I saw at OWS were trying to educate those misguided souls. They were imploring them that they were protesting the symptoms and not the cause.Having been at OWS and having been a moderator of many Ron Paul Facebook groups, I can assure you that early on in OWS many Ron Paul supporters were not there to educate; they honestly joined OWS thinking it was a movement against Wall Street cronyism.

I had to write several letters to the owners of the Facebook groups I moderated to implore them not to support OWS so quickly because, being so close to it and having watched it develop through the progressive political machine long before any feet were actually on the ground, I knew that the OWS movement was actually nothing more than a violent tool of the left. Once that reality became clear, THEN many early Ron Paul supporters left OWS while some others chose to stay to educate because of the unlikely friendships they made. But in the early phases of OWS, many gullible Ron Paul supporters were sucked in and helped inadvertently tarnish some aspects of the R3volution. Heck, the V for Vendetta imagery of OWS came from those early Ron Paul supporters, and because of them that imagery is now permanently associated with violence, chaos, and stuck-up leftist progressives who hate capitalism.

Sad but true.

Article V
02-23-2013, 07:48 AM
I think Rubio is done.This is so ignorant it's laughable. Rubio hasn't even come close to peaking; he is a rising force.

XTreat
02-23-2013, 07:50 AM
I voted for George W. Bush while I was IN Iraq in 2004.

I used to argue until I was blue in the face that we needed to fight the terrorists over there so we wouldn't have to fight them here.

I maintained this position until about 2008-2009.

Can I be in your group?

vita3
02-23-2013, 07:51 AM
My advice on: Let this swindler do his profit thing & leave him behind

compromise
02-23-2013, 07:51 AM
This is so ignorant it's laughable. Rubio hasn't even come close to peaking. Rubio will be a rising force that will have to be tamed, educated, or defeated.

I think she was talking about Rubio from Beck's point of view, in which case she's probably correct. But among most GOP primary voters, Rubio will be a far stronger candidate than Santorum.

Article V
02-23-2013, 07:54 AM
Rand will blow Santorum out of the race in the first month, despite Frothy playing the terror card and the drug card. I don't think Frothy can begin to compete with Rand in a debate. I worry about someone like Jeb far more than Frothy.Santorum will not seek the nomination. He will instead align himself early on via endorsements, use his base and influence to gain attention and power, then try to parlay that into a VP nod or a much more likely Cabinet seat. This is so obvious it's textbook.

XTreat
02-23-2013, 07:55 AM
He still thinks of anarchists as people who support complete chaos, which is how anarchists are viewed by the majority of people on earth. This isn't exactly Beck's fault. Because of the way the word "anarchy" has evolved in the English language, Beck hasn't quite learned the more conservative, legitimate, pragmatic political philosophy of anarchism that classical anarchists support. At some point, if they ever want to be heard and understood by Beck or society-at-large, classical anarchists will likely have to change the word that identifies them (in the same way classical liberals in America eventually had to call themselves libertarians) if they ever want to break through the noise progressive chaos-creators have formed around the term "anarchy."

He is friends with and listens to Penn Jillete, whom most of us agree is pretty legit, I think he just disregards anarchy for the same reason many of us did/do. It takes time to educate yourself and convince yourself its possible and practical.

Article V
02-23-2013, 08:09 AM
Religious fundamentalism plays well in Iowa. The last election cycles have proven this with Huckabee and Santorum.How shallow is your knowledge of political history? Pat Robertson and Jimmy Carter proved it long before Huckabee or Santorum. Huckabee's and Santorum's strategic focus on Iowa was purely because of the success Robertson and Carter had years before. The only thing that has changed over the years in Iowa is their ever-growing government subsidies income and their political tyranny over the other 49 states in the union.

RonPaulFanInGA
02-23-2013, 08:13 AM
The only thing that has changed over the years in Iowa is their ever-growing government subsidies income and their political tyranny over the other 49 states in the union.

Is it really tyranny when their choices aren't winning? Robertson, Huckabee and Santorum were all duds, and didn't go on to win the GOP nomination despite what Iowa wanted.

Article V
02-23-2013, 08:14 AM
I'm on mobile, so I can't check... those "supporting" Beck in this thread, what are their join dates?Yeah! Let's seek out and attack anyone who supports Beck! They're witches! BURN THEM ALL! :rolleyes:

Article V
02-23-2013, 08:42 AM
Is it really tyranny when their choices aren't winning? Robertson, Huckabee and Santorum were all duds, and didn't go on to win the GOP nomination despite what Iowa wanted.Yes, it really is: their choices and forceful efforts to be first always have an unnatural impact of narrowing the race and limiting the choices of the rest of the nation. It's one of the destructive impacts of subsequent decision-making; and subsequent decision-making, especially when the same group always votes first, is a breeding ground for bad decision-making in a complex decision market.

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 08:56 AM
And Glenn Beck is the reason Judge Napolitano got his own "Freedom Watch" show on Fox Business. Too bad Judge Nap wasn't able to keep the show after Beck left Fox.
Why does Glenn Beck hate the Freedom Movement so much that he helped Judge Napolitano get his own show? See we can't trust him.

Working Poor
02-23-2013, 08:57 AM
By the time the election rolls around he will be for who ever Bush/Cheney backs. Whoever he starts talking about first is going to be the one he crusifies

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 09:09 AM
By the time the election rolls around he will be for who ever Bush/Cheney backs. Whoever he starts talking about first is going to be the one he crusifies

No. Glenn Beck calls George Bush a Progressive and compared him to Obama. If you're going to attack Glenn Beck, at least accurate information.


Glenn Beck calls Bush a ‘progressive,’ says Obama is doing ‘exactly’ the same thing (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/26/93615/beck-obama-bush/?mobile=nc)

Glenn Beck Claims that George W. Bush and John McCain Are Progressives (http://www.politicususa.com/Beck-Bush-McCain.html)

July
02-23-2013, 09:26 AM
Interesting thread....

I think, if he is really truly "evolving" or not, it will be apparent when the time comes.

But just from a purely objective standpoint, it was my feeling during the 2012 campaign that whenever we would get angry and upset over some media smear or blog article, our negative commentary would often feed into conservative fears that we were "militant" or trying to "destroy the party" and "needed to be stopped" at all costs. There is a grain of truth to that. If we attacked the reporters and called them names, they'd retaliate with another hit piece on Ron. Then we'd react again emotionally, and they'd suggest to conservatives that were were a threat to the party and trying to create chaos. Conservatives then, in a vain attempt to protect "their party" from an outside threat, did everything they could to shut out the young and passionate Ron Paul supporters....shooting themselves in the foot in the process. So if nothing else, there is a lesson to be learned from that.

Todd
02-23-2013, 09:28 AM
If you mean he has evolved into what Goebbels predicated his theory of how to efffectively sling propaganda, then I agree.....he has evolved.

DGambler
02-23-2013, 09:37 AM
Yeah! Let's seek out and attack anyone who supports Beck! They're witches! BURN THEM ALL! :rolleyes:


Did I say that? No, I was interested if there was a trend. :rolleyes:

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 09:53 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how exactly we're supposed to make ourselves marketable to the GOP while still maintaining the principles we supposedly believe in. I guess I'm just not sure how all of this is supposed to work...

acptulsa
02-23-2013, 09:58 AM
That is an awful arrogant statement. Arrogance often leads to dramatic defeats throughout history. I'm not entirely sure Ron could've defeated the Obama machine. So many dominoes would have to fall perfectly to make that happen and we couldn't even get the first domino of Iowa to fall our way let alone domino #998. Ron's own district in Texas and the people that arguably know him the best weren't overwhelming in favor of his Presidency. Stuff like that scares me to the point where I can see scenarios where Obama's campaign rolls us up like a carpet.

All of those polls demonstrate that he had a real shot at knocking Obama out in the general election. Yeah, Diebold still could have won it for der fuhr--er, I mean our beloved president, but I don't think an honest count would have shown him reelected in November.

Regarding Iowa, and the Texas primary, and all the rest, I stand by what I said. Republicans decided they'd rather listen to a liberal by the name of Rupert Murdoch than win the damned election.

Republicans have the principles that can save this nation and make it great again, but they stand by those principles with all the fortitude of a boiled egg noodle. It will not be said we did nothing; history will dump on them.


I'm not sure what would cause Rubio to be "done". The sip of water? Romney managed to win the nomination even though he was the architect of Obamacare. If the rank and file forgave Romney for that, they will forgive Rubio for his sip of water.

Who got forgiven? Republicans tackled the job of getting Romney elected with all the enthusiasm of a six year old attacking a plate of asparagus. The question is, will they again be fooled into thinking that the fact they don't like him means crossover voters will love him? The question is, will they again be fooled into thinking that the fact that he refuses to stand by Republican principles means he'll have a broader appeal, rather than understanding that all voters are disgusted by the mealy-mouthed more than they're frightened by convictions they don't agree with.

torchbearer
02-23-2013, 09:58 AM
Its not what you are saying, it is how you are saying it.

acptulsa
02-23-2013, 10:15 AM
(The only "argument" against anarchism that is even lamer than the "historical" argument is the "people are bad (so we need some people to be in charge of everyone else)" argument.)

Anarchism tends to go by the wayside because people understand they're stronger as part of a gang than they are alone. And groups or organizations or gangs get more done if they are all on the same page than if everyone does what they want, which kind of defeats the purpose of joining the gang.

As for the 'people are bad' argument, that's a liberal thing at least as much as it's a conservative thing, and it invariably leads to the most repugnant psychopaths in all of society being the very ones who are put in charge. It's insane, but it's true...

hard@work
02-23-2013, 10:15 AM
Want to get past that criticism? Want to get that 50% to forgive you (even though you say you don't care)?

1. Stop calling us fanatics for Ron Paul, guilt by association for an association we're proud of just pisses us off.
2. Apologize (atone) for what you did on the 9/11 interview ambush -- you were wrong, even if some "crazies" who believe in 9/11 CT love Paul. They're our crazies and those of us who do not agree with them on the CT agree the US gov botched and lied in the investigation. You can disagree with them and think they're insane, call them stupid, but respect that they're right about that last point.
3. Disavow neoconservative policies and politicians.
4. Review and restate your video documented positions on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Then and only then will the libertarian "fascists" forgive you. This is the sticking point with that 50% who don't like you.

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 10:17 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how exactly we're supposed to make ourselves marketable to the GOP while still maintaining the principles we supposedly believe in. I guess I'm just not sure how all of this is supposed to work...
How did Rand Paul and Ron Paul do it? The GOP has Rand Paul ranked at the top.

LibertyInJeopardy
02-23-2013, 10:20 AM
I don't understand what Glenn Beck wants. So people don't trust him...what does he expect? Maybe he doesn't realize his well earned reputation for being consistently inconsistent. If he wants liberty minded folks to warm up to him he can best make progress by evolving through consistent public efforts toward his espoused desire for education in liberty ideas. Bring Penn on his show. Bring Rand on. Bring on prominent libertarians. Discuss, learn. Pursue the defense of the bill of rights. That's all good. Words are not enough...it would take consistent words and actions over time toward what he says he wants anyway (libertarian education, defense of the constitution/bill of rights).

acptulsa
02-23-2013, 10:21 AM
Do you not realize that video with the Vic's vapo rub was for a photo shoot where Beck needed to mock the fact that he regularly gets overly teary and emotional. It's a spoof of himself; it's parody. It's purposefully not genuine. He's pointing out that there's some truth to the SNL mockery of him and so he needed vapo rub for the photo shoot. He isn't using vapo rub in his live television show where the camera never leaves him and he talks for 20 minutes straight without interruption before eventually crying.

Do you regularly misread videos like you've done with Beck's crying photo shoot? If so, you're no better than the MSM who selectively edit Ron Paul to fit their narrative.


Yeah, and likewise Rand's endorsement of Mitt Romney--while Ron Paul was still in the race even--is the number one thing that discredits Rand's claim to be a libertarian. Endorsing the lesser evil who you think has a possibility of winning completely invalidates one's libertarianism. Political strategy to slow the growth of government should never be permitted; any libertarian who does this isn't a libertarian. It's all or nothing always; to hell with helping the country survive to fight another day, it's liberty or death every moment. Pragmatism over philosophy isn't allowed. :rolleyes:

Rand Paul endorsed Romney while his father was still in the race?

Who's no better than the Mainstream Mafia?

The fact that Beck was willing to put that crap on his face at all--the very fact that Beck knew that trick--speaks volumes. And it was pragmatism that got us into this mess. How is it supposed to get us out? Understanding what our principles are, understanding why they used to work so well for us, and standing by them like bedrock will get us out of this mess, or we'll go down with the ship. There's no third way.


We don't have a bunch of Limbaugh and Hannity threads.

Neither is trying via subterfuge to gain our trust. Neither is pretending to be one of us. Neither is someone we'd be likely to make the fatal mistake of recommending to people curious about our principles and their effectiveness.

All three are wolves, but only one dons sheep's clothing.

CaptLouAlbano
02-23-2013, 10:49 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how exactly we're supposed to make ourselves marketable to the GOP while still maintaining the principles we supposedly believe in. I guess I'm just not sure how all of this is supposed to work...

It is quite simple actually. You start with areas of agreement, which there are many. When you address broad issues where there are disagreements (FP for example), you again start with the areas of agreement (for example, that America should have a strong defense) and build from there. You then proceed to present your case for your position knowing that you will face objections on certain points, you then isolate the objection and overcome it with a well reasoned and logical response.

The main keys are: having respect for others and their beliefs, being confident in your position without coming off as dismissive, and presenting your principles and ideas in a way that doesn't scare the shit out of the average person.

On that final point, I can give an example. You can have a person that is pro-drug war and have two people present him with an opposing view. One person can present a reasoned logical response focusing on the economics, personal liberty and state's rights. The second person can say things like "If I want to shoot heroin, then why is it the fucking gov'ts business to stop me?". Two people, same position on the issue, but much different ways of delivering the message.

acptulsa
02-23-2013, 10:53 AM
The main keys are: having respect for others and their beliefs, and being confident in your position without coming off as dismissive.

And no Vick's Vapo-Rub. We aren't crybabies. That's a media fabrication designed to discredit us.

Seraphim
02-23-2013, 11:14 AM
I think GB is actually evolving.

http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25608425&topic_id=23419450

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 11:16 AM
It is quite simple actually. You start with areas of agreement, which there are many. When you address broad issues where there are disagreements (FP for example), you again start with the areas of agreement (for example, that America should have a strong defense) and build from there. You then proceed to present your case for your position knowing that you will face objections on certain points, you then isolate the objection and overcome it with a well reasoned and logical response.

The main keys are: having respect for others and their beliefs, being confident in your position without coming off as dismissive, and presenting your principles and ideas in a way that doesn't scare the shit out of the average person.

I have no objection with that, on its face. But why is the GOP establishment not held to this same standard? That's exactly why Ron and all of us were treated the way we have been treated in the GOP.

Also, without compromising upon such a basic, foundational principle, how does one win - and carry forward - the votes of those people, exactly?

I mean, I can give you the formula for winning in the GOP. I know we can "win" the GOP nomination. But I have to question what value that has if we must subvert foundational principles to do so. It seems, as I've always said in these discussions, that we have two choices - we can go the way of Reagan, or Ron Paul. And some of you may reflexively say that Reagan would be better than anyone we've had since him (I wouldn't disagree), but the Reagan of 1980 is not possible today. The Reagan of 2016 is going to be the George W. Bush of 2000.

That isn't a path toward restoring liberty.

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 11:18 AM
I have no objection with that, on its face. But why is the GOP establishment not held to this same standard? That's exactly why Ron and all of us were treated the way we have been treated in the GOP.

Question: How is the GOP treating Rand Paul right now?

ClydeCoulter
02-23-2013, 11:21 AM
Hey, how about Glenn shows his....come out in support of nullification of NDAA, Gun Control, all unconstitutional overreach...help primary Lindsey Graham (and others) with support for liberty candidates (start now)...ALL of this from now and right through 2016 and beyond.

There's lots to do to show you are for real, Glenn, but just talking between elections isn't one of them.

John F Kennedy III
02-23-2013, 11:24 AM
I fucking hope not. Perhaps the RPF collective memory is not what I perceive it to be...someone oughta start a thread entitled "A Touching Retrospective on a Great American, Glenn Beck" and fill it with video and audio links, then ask the mods to kindly sticky that motherfucker

Great idea. Now we need a volunteer to make the thread.

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 11:25 AM
Hey, how about Glenn shows his....come out in support of nullification of NDAA, Gun Control, all unconstitutional overreach...help primary Lindsey Graham (and others) with support for liberty candidates (start now)...ALL of this from now and right through 2016 and beyond.

Like this?

Glenn Beck on NDAA: Nullify! (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/glenn-beck-on-ndaa-nullify/)
- Tenth Amendment Center, November 16th, 2012

ClydeCoulter
02-23-2013, 11:28 AM
I fucking hope not. Perhaps the RPF collective memory is not what I perceive it to be...someone oughta start a thread entitled "A Touching Retrospective on a Great American, Glenn Beck" and fill it with video and audio links, then ask the mods to kindly sticky that motherfucker

A video showing Becks antics in chronological order with an overlay showing the timeline of elections, etc...

acptulsa
02-23-2013, 11:31 AM
I have no objection with that, on its face. But why is the GOP establishment not held to this same standard? That's exactly why Ron and all of us were treated the way we have been treated in the GOP.

No one said it would be fair. I'll let Will Rogers answer your question:


"You can't beat an administration by attacking it. You have to show some plan of improving on it."--Will Rogers 1924

Once you're in power, merely attacking is just fine. It's the status quo that must be proven inadequate.


Also, without compromising upon such a basic, foundational principle, how does one win - and carry forward - the votes of those people, exactly?

I mean, I can give you the formula for winning in the GOP. I know we can "win" the GOP nomination. But I have to question what value that has if we must subvert foundational principles to do so. It seems, as I've always said in these discussions, that we have two choices - we can go the way of Reagan, or Ron Paul. And some of you may reflexively say that Reagan would be better than anyone we've had since him (I wouldn't disagree), but the Reagan of 1980 is not possible today. The Reagan of 2016 is going to be the George W. Bush of 2000.

That isn't a path toward restoring liberty.

Reagan talked a good talk, but I don't think he ever intended to walk the walk. If he did, his record as governor of California would have been quite different from what it was.

Ron Paul spoke the truth bluntly. He figured he had nothing to lose by doing that, and he was right.

Rand Paul has something no other presidential candidate in memory has had--his father. Since he wears the same last name as his father, he should be able to speak in a way that doesn't scare off those who have trouble getting their heads outside the box, and we should have enough sense to give him some benefit of the doubt while he does it. I think it looks like a promising strategy. And I think neither we nor our fellow Americans have anything left to us to lose.


Question: How is the GOP treating Rand Paul right now?

In a way that's coldly calculated to make independent voters and disaffected Democrats mistrust him, imo. It was the complete success of our Blue Republican efforts--not to get them voting in the GOP primaries, in that we failed, but the polls that showed he had an outstanding chance to defeat Obama in November--that scared the hell out of the corporatist Powers that Be. They don't mind an anti-corporatist winning the nomination so much, so long as their divide and conquer efforts of the last few decades ensures that anyone who can win the nomination can't win the general.

John F Kennedy III
02-23-2013, 11:39 AM
Glenn Beck has been long time friends with Judge Napolitano. That's a cause for concern.

:rolleyes:

Yes, if true, it is a cause for concern.

How do you, Frank, juggle promoting UN Agenda 21 awareness with supporting Glenn Beck?

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 11:49 AM
Yes, if true, it is a cause for concern.

How do you, Frank, juggle promoting UN Agenda 21 awareness with supporting Glenn Beck?

Glenn Beck is also anti-Agenda 21


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esJY2SK_4tE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esJY2SK_4tE


Glenn Beck and Harriet Parke wrote a book called "Agenda 21 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1476716692/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1476716692&linkCode=as2&tag=libert0f-20)" exposing what the future will look like if Agenda 21 is fully implemented.


Book Review: Agenda 21 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/13890-book-review-agenda-21)

Origanalist
02-23-2013, 11:59 AM
http://healthculturesociety.wikispaces.com/file/view/technology_evolution.jpg/268599396/585x244/technology_evolution.jpg

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 12:05 PM
Question: How is the GOP treating Rand Paul right now?

You missed the rest of my post... Rand has already - at least rhetorically - compromised on the libertarian position regarding foreign policy. What else do we have to compromise to get the GOP faithful to like us? Like, should I quit band? Should I drop out of AP classes? Should I act all dumb and stuff?

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 12:10 PM
You missed the rest of my post... Rand has already - at least rhetorically - compromised on the libertarian position regarding foreign policy. What else do we have to compromise to get the GOP faithful to like us? Like, should I quit band? Should I drop out of AP classes? Should I act all dumb and stuff?
Please list Rand Paul's bad Senate votes.

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 12:14 PM
Please list Rand Paul's bad Senate votes.


You missed the rest of my post... Rand has already - at least rhetorically - compromised on the libertarian position regarding foreign policy. What else do we have to compromise to get the GOP faithful to like us? Like, should I quit band? Should I drop out of AP classes? Should I act all dumb and stuff?


\\

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 12:16 PM
\\
So you're mad that Rand Paul talks like a Conservative and votes like a Libertarian.

:rolleyes:

Brett85
02-23-2013, 12:19 PM
Please list Rand Paul's bad Senate votes.

Sanctions on Iran. That's about it.

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 12:23 PM
Sanctions on Iran. That's about it.
That's true. This could be his only real bad vote. I'm okay with a 99% constitutional voting record.

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 12:27 PM
So you're mad that Rand Paul talks like a Conservative and votes like a Libertarian.

:rolleyes:

So I'm supposed to just trust that every time Rand says something I disagree with, I can count on him to vote appropriately? :rolleyes:

Conversely, your average conservative-cum-neocon voter is never going to get wise to this deception? :rolleyes:

YET AGAIN - how many ways should I have to change my behavior, language, and principles in order to get the average GOP voter to love me??

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 12:31 PM
So I'm supposed to just trust that every time Rand says something I disagree with, I can count on him to vote appropriately?

I'm saying you should judge Rand Paul by his votes. Rand Paul is speaking the language of the Conservatives, it's a language you don't understand.

vita3
02-23-2013, 12:32 PM
Not having the courage to try & engage w/ Iran is a BIG failure in my book.

Rand is supposed to be independent in this arena

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 12:35 PM
Not having the courage to try & engage w/ Iran is a BIG failure in my book.

Rand is supposed to be independent in this arena
Well, get more Rand Paul-like politicians in office and they'll have more control over shifting the government to be more Constitutional.

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 12:39 PM
I'm saying you should judge Rand Paul by his votes. Rand Paul is speaking the language of the Conservatives, it's a language you don't understand.

And I'm asking why I should trust him based upon his rhetoric. But that has remained the unanswerable question from the beginning. At least Occam's Banana has had the courage to admit that his rhetoric reveals his beliefs; and as such, as a principled libertarian who cannot countenance advocacy of foreign interventionism, I cannot support him. At least this is a more honest approach, with integrity, than what you are suggesting. I also question why the conservative-cum-neocon voter should support him, if as you suggest his rhetoric does not matter his actions in Congress.

Natural Citizen
02-23-2013, 12:40 PM
Having been at OWS and having been a moderator of many Ron Paul Facebook groups, I can assure you that early on in OWS many Ron Paul supporters were not there to educate; they honestly joined OWS thinking it was a movement against Wall Street cronyism.

I had to write several letters to the owners of the Facebook groups I moderated to implore them not to support OWS so quickly because, being so close to it and having watched it develop through the progressive political machine long before any feet were actually on the ground, I knew that the OWS movement was actually nothing more than a violent tool of the left. Once that reality became clear, THEN many early Ron Paul supporters left OWS while some others chose to stay to educate because of the unlikely friendships they made. But in the early phases of OWS, many gullible Ron Paul supporters were sucked in and helped inadvertently tarnish some aspects of the R3volution. Heck, the V for Vendetta imagery of OWS came from those early Ron Paul supporters, and because of them that imagery is now permanently associated with violence, chaos, and stuck-up leftist progressives who hate capitalism.

Sad but true.

Yep. That's spot on. I dealt with it myself except actually on the ground. Was an interesting phenomenon, for sure. One that must also remain on the radar.

I'm curious about some of our peers here sometimes as topics like these begin to get spun six ways from Tuesday and the terms of controversy are redirected into a ditch. It's almost as if the same phenomenon you brought up is still squirming around. In fact I think that there is an underlying effort to resurrect the conflict of interest. BTL chose an interesting video to post here. Not for the subject matter, per se, but along the lines of hijacking the terms of controversy. Needs to be stepped on and squashed. Soon.

There is also an underlying phenomenon with this whole Beck thing which really isn't about Beck, per se. Although it is quickly becoming that. This is dangerous. This creates what we see happening in this particular thread and some others for what it's worth. This is a cultural phenomenon.

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 12:41 PM
Well, get more Rand Paul-like politicians in office and they'll have more control over shifting the government to be more Constitutional.

Fool's errand.

Rocco
02-23-2013, 12:41 PM
Name one thing Rand Paul has SAID that isn't consistent with the liberty message. If you notice, he's not changing his points in rhetoric, he's changing the way issues are framed and ultimately that leading to liberty solutions.


And I'm asking why I should trust him based upon his rhetoric. But that has remained the unanswerable question from the beginning. At least Occam's Banana has had the courage to admit that his rhetoric reveals his beliefs; and as such, as a principled libertarian who cannot countenance advocacy of foreign interventionism, I cannot support him. At least this is a more honest approach, with integrity, than what you are suggesting. I also question why the conservative-cum-neocon voter should support him, if as you suggest his rhetoric does not matter his actions in Congress.

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 12:43 PM
He's advocated an interventionist foreign policy.

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 12:44 PM
And I'm asking why I should trust him based upon his rhetoric. But that has remained the unanswerable question from the beginning. At least Occam's Banana has had the courage to admit that his rhetoric reveals his beliefs; and as such, as a principled libertarian who cannot countenance advocacy of foreign interventionism, I cannot support him. At least this is a more honest approach, with integrity, than what you are suggesting. I also question why the conservative-cum-neocon voter should support him, if as you suggest his rhetoric does not matter his actions in Congress.

I didn't say anything about "trusting" politicians. I said judge Rand Paul by his Senate votes. Plus, we have already established you don't understand the Conservative language.

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 12:47 PM
I didn't say anything about "trusting" politicians. I said judge Rand Paul by his Senate votes. Plus, we have already established you don't understand the Conservative language.

Rhetoric comes before votes. I would vote based upon rhetoric.

MisfitToy
02-23-2013, 12:49 PM
I think the important question is how do we use this to our advantage?

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 12:49 PM
Rhetoric comes before votes. I would vote based upon rhetoric.
You have that backwards. Votes are more important than talk. As they say: "Talk is cheap."

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 12:52 PM
You have that backwards. Votes are more important than talk. As they say: "Talk is cheap."

No I don't. I'm not going to vote for Rand for President in 2016 if his rhetoric is off.

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 12:53 PM
No I don't. I'm not going to vote for Rand for President in 2016 if his rhetoric is off.
That is your choice.

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 12:54 PM
That is your choice.

And more than likely the choice of over half the voters in this country.

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 12:57 PM
And more than likely the choice of over half the voters in this country.
One half voted Barack Obama and the other half voted Mitt Romney.

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 01:00 PM
One half voted Barack Obama and the other half voted Mitt Romney.

Half voted for Obama because he was a rhetorical peace-monger.

You people are deluding yourselves, and you're steering this ship right into the fucking iceberg.

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 01:03 PM
Half voted for Obama because he was a rhetorical peace-monger.
According to you, rhetoric is more important than action.

A Son of Liberty
02-23-2013, 01:05 PM
According to you, rhetoric is more important than action.

Rhetoric tells a voter what he needs to know about a candidate.

You people are deluding yourselves, and you're steering this ship right into the fucking iceberg.

CaptLouAlbano
02-23-2013, 01:09 PM
Rhetoric tells a voter what he needs to know about a candidate.

You people are deluding yourselves, and you're steering this ship right into the fucking iceberg.

To use your own analogy, there are three courses of action within the political process:

1) There are those who are driving the ship directly into the iceberg at full speed.
2) There are those who are putting the brakes on and trying to change course.
3) There are those who are sitting at the bar while all this is going on and blaming everyone else, including the iceberg.

It seems like you are part of the third group.

FrankRep
02-23-2013, 01:10 PM
Rhetoric tells a voter what he needs to know about a candidate.
Rand Paul's Conservative Rhetoric well serve him well with Conservatives.
Rand Paul's Constitutionalist voting record will win over the Constitutionalists.

heavenlyboy34
02-23-2013, 01:23 PM
Rhetoric tells a voter what he needs to know about a candidate.

You people are deluding yourselves, and you're steering this ship right into the fucking iceberg.
Although this ^ is apparently not a popular view around here, it is correct. Voters in this countries are more easily swayed by rhetoric than. RP brought hard facts and painful truth to Boobus in the last few election cycles. It failed because although RP is a master of rhetoric, he failed to use it properly, and his opponents and the media took advantage of that.


Rand Paul's Conservative Rhetoric well serve him well with Conservatives.
Rand Paul's Constitutionalist voting record will win over the Constitutionalists.
Those people don't vote in large enough numbers to matter much at this time.