Beck Not Freaking Out About Final Confirmation Hagel Vote by Rand Paul

[AuH20]

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/27/rand-paul-is-1-of-4-republicans-who-voted-to-confirm-chuck-hagel-why/

At least, he isn't running around like a chicken with his head caught off. Kudos to Beck.

[sailingaway]

Of course not, he wants to co opt YAL first and make them think he is a friend. He won't say it's great but he'll minimize it. Until 2016 when it will be the reason Cruz or someone else is better.

At least, that is what his old play book looked like.

[AuH20]

Of course not, he wants to co opt YAL first and make them think he is a friend. He won't say it's great but he'll minimize it. Until 2016 when it will be the reason Cruz or someone else is better.

At least, that is what his old play book looked like.

I don't think that's it at all. I think he sincerely trusts Paul after numerous conversations. Most of the lunatic freepers don't intimately know Rand and think he's simply Ron's son, which explains their uninformed responses.

[bolil]

Beck's support is poisoned.

[sailingaway]

I don't think that's it at all. I think he sincerely trusts Paul after numerous conversations. Most of the lunatic freepers don't intimately know Rand and think he's simply Ron's son, which explains their uninformed responses.


We will just have to disagree on that.

[ZENemy]

*siiigh*



co-opt ( co-opts 3rd person present) ( co-opting present participle) ( co-opted past tense & past participle )
1 verb If you co-opt someone, you persuade them to help or support you.
Mr Wallace tries to co-opt rather than defeat his critics... V n
2 verb If someone is co-optedinto a group, they are asked by that group to become a member, rather than joining or being elected in the normal way.
He was co-opted into the Labour Government of 1964... be V-ed into/onto n
He's been authorised to co-opt anyone he wants to join him. V n
3 verb If a group or political party co-opts a slogan or policy, they take it, often from another group or political party, and use it themselves.
He co-opted many nationalist slogans and cultivated a populist image. V n

[AuH20]

We will just have to disagree on that.

I'm of the mind that Ron was too radical and embarassing for Beck to support. Rand is much more polished as the hybrid candidate that can actually assuage certain fears about libertarian ideas and ultimately bring in those who formerly would not even listen. Beck can get behind Paul for this reason. Ron was never the guy that was going to breakthrough. It had to be someone else with a more sensible approach carrying his wonderful ideas.

[jmdrake]

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/27/rand-paul-is-1-of-4-republicans-who-voted-to-confirm-chuck-hagel-why/

At least, he isn't running around like a chicken with his head caught off. Kudos to Beck.

I called it.


I think it would be easier for you to hope that Jack just does the interview by phone.

Edit: Anyway, we shall see if we get "beckstabbed" over the Hagel nomination. My money is that we won't. It's far to early in the process.

And yeah it's possible that he's really coming around. But if his game is to do to with the liberty wing of the GOP what he did to the teaparty wing, playing his hand this early would ruin the strategy.

[jmdrake]

I'm of the mind that Ron was too radical and embarassing for Beck to support. Rand is much more polished as the hybrid candidate that can actually assuage certain fears about libertarian ideas and ultimately bring in those who formerly would not even listen. Beck can get behind Paul for this reason. Ron was never the guy that was going to breakthrough. It had to be someone else with a more sensible approach carrying his wonderful ideas.

Radical = not supporting the warfare state.

[sailingaway]

I'm of the mind that Ron was too radical and embarassing for Beck to support. Rand is much more polished as the hybrid candidate that can actually assuage certain fears about libertarian ideas and ultimately bring in those who formerly would not even listen. Beck can get behind Paul for this reason. Ron was never the guy that was going to breakthrough. It had to be someone else with a more sensible approach carrying his wonderful ideas.

I am aware of your opinion and find it offensive, but also not very perceptive. I think because of that belief you are sure 'this time will be different' but he pretended all sorts of great respect for Ron too in 2008/9

[AuH20]

Radical = not supporting the warfare state.

I think it goes far beyond that. Ron was not a good politician. Too many loose statements that made him unpalatable to many.

[sailingaway]

I think it goes far beyond that. Ron was not a good politician. Too many loose statements that made him unpalatable to many.

But many are offended by 'politicking' too, so either way you are cutting people off.

[AuH20]

I am aware of your opinion and find it offensive, but also not very perceptive. I think because of that belief you are sure 'this time will be different' but he pretended all sorts of great respect for Ron too in 2008/9

You don't go from decades of entrenched statism to radical libertarianism in one fell swoop. That's the issue. Ron Paul, being Ron Paul, wasn't wired that way.

[Brett85]

I am aware of your opinion and find it offensive, but also not very perceptive. I think because of that belief you are sure 'this time will be different' but he pretended all sorts of great respect for Ron too in 2008/9

Beck was never a Ron Paul supporter. He always had problems with some of Ron's beliefs. It isn't accurate to say that Beck supported Ron at one time and then stabbed him in the back. He never supported Ron in the first place.

[AuH20]

But many are offended by 'politicking' too, so either way you are cutting people off.

Too many open ended statements, left to be processed largely the personal biases of the given audience. Ron was alienated for so long that he simply stopped caring how he phrased things. In 2013 soundbyte America, you can't do that, especially if you are of the Republican stripe.

[sailingaway]

It is Beck who has the faults in that match up, not Ron.

[AuH20]

It is Beck who has the faults in that match up, not Ron.

Yes, but not completely.

[jmdrake]

I think it goes far beyond that. Ron was not a good politician. Too many loose statements that made him unpalatable to many.

Oh no argument there. But there's no palatable way to say somethings. That's why Rand comes off sometimes sounding like a neocon. "Military tribunals! Testimony from torture! Sanctions on Iran! Deport people to attend radical speeches!" Yeah, we can read between the lines and hear what we want to hear, but we're running through a "He's Ron's son and we know he's really on our side" filter.

[sailingaway]

Yes, but not completely.

But in all the ways that matter.

Ron is paleo. Whether he is paleo libertarian (a bunch in the LP thought he wasn't pure enough because of social issues when he ran LP) or paleo conservative, which is actually how I view him, isn't the point. Glenn doesn't want real change so he is labeling it as unacceptably fringe, so he can be the one to define 'good change' and it would only be what he wants.

[AuH20]

Oh no argument there. But there's no palatable way to say somethings. That's why Rand comes off sometimes sounding like a neocon. "Military tribunals! Testimony from torture! Sanctions on Iran! Deport people to attend radical speeches!" Yeah, we can read between the lines and hear what we want to hear, but we're running through a "He's Ron's son and we know he's really on our side" filter.

Actually, Rand makes sense. He's approaching these controversial topics as HOW THEY ARE ON THE GROUND as opposed to HOW HE THINKS THEY SHOULD BE IN A PERFECT WORLD. A huge difference I might add. I don't have problems with a military tribunal based on the location of the charges. That's the sensible solution as opposed to wasting funds for the American Justice system to dispense justice on cases above their reach. Some libertarians live in a dream world and then throw around the neocon term when challenged on it.

[sailingaway]

Beck was never a Ron Paul supporter. He always had problems with some of Ron's beliefs. It isn't accurate to say that Beck supported Ron at one time and then stabbed him in the back. He never supported Ron in the first place.

He made all kinds of awed and supporting noises while really downplaying disagreements, while saying 'he was more and more libertarian every day' etc etc. The disagreements suddenly became a big thing once he 'established himself.'

[Brett85]

Actually, Rand makes sense. He's approaching these controversial topics as HOW THEY ARE ON THE GROUND as opposed to HOW HE THINKS THEY SHOULD BE IN A PERFECT WORLD. A huge difference I might add. I don't have problems with a military tribunal based on the location of the charges. That's the sensible solution as opposed to wasting funds for the American Justic system to dispense justice on cases above their reach. Some libertarians live in a dream world and then throw around the neocon term when challenged on it.

I agree. U.S citizens suspected of terrorism should be tried in civilian courts in the U.S, and foreigners suspected of terrorism should be tried in military tribunals. That's an issue where I agree more with Rand than with Ron, although I agree with Ron on opposing sanctions on Iran and closing down all of our foreign bases.

[Brett85]

He made all kinds of awed and supporting noises while really downplaying disagreements, while saying 'he was more and more libertarian every day' etc etc. The disagreements suddenly became a big thing once he 'established himself.'

Yeah, but I just don't think Beck was ever a full fledged supporter of Ron. He said some good things about him from time to time, but he also criticized him a lot as well. I've never heard Beck criticize Rand at all. I figured that Beck would go off and throw Rand under the bus for his vote in favor of confirming Hagel, but I'm pleasantly surprised.

[sailingaway]

Yeah, but I just don't think Beck was ever a full fledged supporter of Ron. He said some good things about him from time to time, but he also criticized him a lot as well. I've never heard Beck criticize Rand at all. I figured that Beck would go off and throw Rand under the bus for his vote in favor of confirming Hagel, but I'm pleasantly surprised.

I just think he's trying to get YAL in his court, and is playing a long game as he did before. Beck criticized Ron a lot OVER YEARS. There were periods where he would laud him, right after the 2008 election, making their differences seem trivial.

whatever, enjoy it while it lasts.

[AuH20]

I just think he's trying to get YAL in his court, and is playing a long game as he did before. Beck criticized Ron a lot OVER YEARS. There were periods where he would laud him, right after the 2008 election, making their differences seem trivial.

whatever, enjoy it while it lasts.

Beck has his own skeletons. He's a enigmatic individual with flirts of bipolarity. However, he is not this Machiavellian character that many theorize he is.

[Brett85]

I just think he's trying to get YAL in his court, and is playing a long game as he did before. Beck criticized Ron a lot OVER YEARS. There were periods where he would laud him, right after the 2008 election, making their differences seem trivial.

whatever, enjoy it while it lasts.

We just disagree. There have always been liberty candidates that Beck likes and can support, (Rand Paul, Mike Lee) and others that he can't support. (Ron Paul, Debra Medina) Beck is kind of a right-libertarian or moderate libertarian. I think Ron just went too far in some of his positions to get Beck's support, like when Ron made a statement in favor of abolishing the CIA. I think Beck just always had a problem with the more radical beliefs that Ron had.

[AuH20]

We just disagree. There have always been liberty candidates that Beck likes and can support, (Rand Paul, Mike Lee) and others that he can't support. (Ron Paul, Debra Medina) Beck is kind of a right-libertarian or moderate libertarian. I think Ron just went too far in some of his positions to get Beck's support, like when Ron made a statement in favor of abolishing the CIA. I think Beck just always had a problem with the more radical beliefs that Ron had.

Beck is still tied to the illusion that the U.S. government can be restored to it's former promise encoded in it's founding documents. He still beleives the U.S. is a force for good globally. That's the huge obstacle and usually the last domino to fall in these type of conversions. That is why he is resistant to criticism of the CIA and the mere thought of secession since it would directly challenge to his long-held identity as an American citizen. Some people can't look into the abyss without turning away.

[Cowlesy]

Beck has his own skeletons. He's a enigmatic individual with flirts of bipolarity. However, he is not this Machiavellian character that many theorize he is.

I really liked a lot of his programming he did on FNC; he'd have Scheuer on, all sorts of good guests. Did lots of investigative work into the monied ties on the left and radical progressive propaganda.

But then he turned into this messianic, spiritual/something-or-other figure to so many, linking up with the Pastor Hagee's of the world, and that's where he lost me. It has nothing to do with what they believe, but some Christians or people with that background don't want to hear about getting back in touch with God for 3 hours, or how not doing something or other invites his wrath. I just don't want to hear it. If you're talking politics and you go into "Well God expects this or that", sorry, changing the channel to Outlawwwwwww Country.

[AuH20]

I really liked a lot of his programming he did on FNC; he'd have Scheuer on, all sorts of good guests. Did lots of investigative work into the monied ties on the left and radical progressive propaganda.

But then he turned into this messianic, spiritual/something-or-other figure to so many, linking up with the Pastor Hagee's of the world, and that's where he lost me. It has nothing to do with what they believe, but some Christians or people with that background don't want to hear about getting back in touch with God for 3 hours, or how not doing something or other invites his wrath. I just don't want to hear it. If you're talking politics and you go into "Well God expects this or that", sorry, changing the channel to Outlawwwwwww Country.

Faith, hope and charity is not going to save me from a Predator drone. I agree.

[jmdrake]

Actually, Rand makes sense. He's approaching these controversial topics as HOW THEY ARE ON THE GROUND as opposed to HOW HE THINKS THEY SHOULD BE IN A PERFECT WORLD. A huge difference I might add. I don't have problems with a military tribunal based on the location of the charges. That's the sensible solution as opposed to wasting funds for the American Justice system to dispense justice on cases above their reach. Some libertarians live in a dream world and then throw around the neocon term when challenged on it.

Do you support convicting people based on testimony extracted from torture? Because I don't. Ron doesn't. I don't think Rand does. If I did, I would go from being a supporter of Rand Paul to an active opponent. But the way Rand worded some of his statements it made it seem like he supported it. Same with arrest and deportation of someone who attended a "radical speech." Maybe that person didn't know the speech would be radical. Maybe that person went to the speech to cover it for some U.S. news outlet. Lot's of reasons what that's a dumb idea both "on the ground" and in a "perfect world". Again, if I really believed Rand thought that way I would actively oppose him.

Edit: And I think the "torture testimony" issue really drives my point home. Even in the worst possible "on the ground" world that makes no sense. If you torture someone enough you can get him to admit to doing things he didn't do. How does that help fight terrorism? The only reason I could get past Rand saying that was because I realized that what he said was so incompetent that he had to be pulling the teocons' legs. You see testimony from torture isn't allowed in a military tribunal. But Rand acted like it was. In fact up until passage of the NDAA, there was more protection against torture in military tribunals than in civilian courts. That's because in a military tribunal you were not allowed to plead guilty to a capital crime. So it's not only the tortured confession that would get thrown out, but a guilty plea that might have come from torture would get thrown out as well. In fact I believe that's why Obama wanted to try KSM in a civilian court. KSM had been tortured and KSM was ready to plead guilty. In a civilian court all that would be left is the penalty phase. But in a military tribunal there would still have to be a full trial with a finding of guilt before moving to the penalty phase.

[AuH20]

Do you support convicting people based on testimony extracted from torture? Because I don't. Ron doesn't. I don't think Rand does. If I did, I would go from being a supporter of Rand Paul to an active opponent. But the way Rand worded some of his statements it made it seem like he supported it. Same with arrest and deportation of someone who attended a "radical speech." Maybe that person didn't know the speech would be radical. Maybe that person went to the speech to cover it for some U.S. news outlet. Lot's of reasons what that's a dumb idea both "on the ground" and in a "perfect world". Again, if I really believed Rand thought that way I would actively oppose him.

That speech was poorly worded. I agree.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Of course not, he wants to co opt YAL first and make them think he is a friend. He won't say it's great but he'll minimize it. Until 2016 when it will be the reason Cruz or someone else is better.

Cruz was born in Canada and can't run for President.

[Brett85]

Do you support convicting people based on testimony extracted from torture? Because I don't. Ron doesn't. I don't think Rand does. If I did, I would go from being a supporter of Rand Paul to an active opponent. But the way Rand worded some of his statements it made it seem like he supported it. Same with arrest and deportation of someone who attended a "radical speech." Maybe that person didn't know the speech would be radical. Maybe that person went to the speech to cover it for some U.S. news outlet. Lot's of reasons what that's a dumb idea both "on the ground" and in a "perfect world". Again, if I really believed Rand thought that way I would actively oppose him.

You might have to oppose him then, because Rand voted in favor of the Ayotte amendment that barred funds from being spent to close down Gitmo and try terrorists in civilian courts. He believes that the prisoners at Gitmo should be tried in military tribunals, and only after all of the tribunals have concluded should the prison be closed down.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think it goes far beyond that. Ron was not a good politician. Too many loose statements that made him unpalatable to many.

Hearing people here talk about how Ron is sooo "unpalatable" makes me as sick as listening to a liberal talk about gun control and feminism. Unpalatable, give me a fucking break. It gives me visions of serving people their oatmeal in bed, feeding them with a spoon and wiping off the dribble with a napkin. I'm not going to hold anyone's hand. If you find Ron unpalatable, that's your problem.

[jmdrake]

You might have to oppose him then, because Rand voted in favor of the Ayotte amendment that barred funds from being spent to close down Gitmo and try terrorists in civilian courts. He believes that the prisoners at Gitmo should be tried in military tribunals, and only after all of the tribunals have concluded should the prison be closed down.

Please read more carefully. I said:

Do you support convicting people based on testimony extracted from torture? Because I don't. Ron doesn't. I don't think Rand does.

Supporting military tribunals is not the same as supporting torture. And I added this in my edit:

Edit: And I think the "torture testimony" issue really drives my point home. Even in the worst possible "on the ground" world that makes no sense. If you torture someone enough you can get him to admit to doing things he didn't do. How does that help fight terrorism? The only reason I could get past Rand saying that was because I realized that what he said was so incompetent that he had to be pulling the teocons' legs. You see testimony from torture isn't allowed in a military tribunal. But Rand acted like it was. In fact up until passage of the NDAA, there was more protection against torture in military tribunals than in civilian courts. That's because in a military tribunal you were not allowed to plead guilty to a capital crime. So it's not only the tortured confession that would get thrown out, but a guilty plea that might have come from torture would get thrown out as well. In fact I believe that's why Obama wanted to try KSM in a civilian court. KSM had been tortured and KSM was ready to plead guilty. In a civilian court all that would be left is the penalty phase. But in a military tribunal there would still have to be a full trial with a finding of guilt before moving to the penalty phase.

Now, if Rand, back in 2010, really believed that testimony from torture was admissible in a military tribunal then he really was (and maybe is) as ignorant as the leftists try to portray him to be. But I don't think Rand is ignorant. I think he was parsing his words to make it sound like he was supporting the "Jack Bauer" wing of the GOP when he really wasn't.

[Brett85]

Ok. I see what you're saying.