# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Glenn Beck: I'm Done With Establishment Republicans, I Support Constitutonalists Like Rand

## Confederate

Glenn Beck: I'm done with the Republican establishment, it's time to support small government constitutionalists like Rand Paul



http://youtu.be/JYDf8yGaSaE

----------


## phill4paul



----------


## JoshLowry

/thread

----------


## TheGrinch

If you can't beat them, co-opt them. It worked decently well for beck and co with the tea party...

To be continued once I watch, but beck has done plenty enough to not be trusted.

----------


## phill4paul

> /thread


 H/T  to AF..........

----------


## torchbearer

Josh, is it ok for me to say "$#@! YOU, BECK" on your website?

----------


## TheTexan

Meh

----------


## trey4sports

Well lets hope this a trend among talking heads.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

Coming along nicely. I have watched him making progress for a long time.

----------


## JoshLowry

> Josh, is it ok for me to say "$#@! YOU, BECK" on your website?


Yea, $#@! that guy.

----------


## TheTexan

> Coming along nicely. I have watched him making progress for a long time.


See post #2

----------


## Czolgosz

> Josh, is it ok for me to say "$#@! YOU, BECK" on your website?



Good question.

----------


## matt0611

LOL

I'll never trust Beck but I think its funny that he knows which way the wind is blowing and is coming out to support Rand.

You know you're winning when they're trying to co-opt you.

----------


## Danke

> /thread


[img]http://api.ning.com/files/Fz5F3mhfefG0FfCs0O7JiYnzihoA8MMSPtPm5fKB7mDuIqvaY8  bIaixKTdzqZR7e6iADgS7euP47NjxMW6wlb-*Opqj8Rr0S/smokingmarijuana.jpg[/img]

----------


## JoshLowry

Get a new gimmick.

----------


## phill4paul

> [img]http://api.ning.com/files/Fz5F3mhfefG0FfCs0O7JiYnzihoA8MMSPtPm5fKB7mDuIqvaY8  bIaixKTdzqZR7e6iADgS7euP47NjxMW6wlb-*Opqj8Rr0S/smokingmarijuana.jpg[/img]


  I like letterz and numberz.......

----------


## Brett85

I hope Beck doesn't jump off the Rand bandwagon if Rand votes to confirm Hagel.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

It's nice to hear Rand's name listed as a top candidate that could win the nomination.  I thought this wouldn't happen for at least another 12-18 months.

----------


## Kords21

We'll see what tune he's singing when the presidential primaries happen.

----------


## torchbearer

> It's nice to hear Rand's name listed as a top candidate that could win the nomination. I thought this wouldn't happen for at least another 12-18 months.


I'm thinking that he'll get the ron paul treatment eventually.
like not included in polling, which has happened already.

----------


## jmdrake

Karl Rove and Glen Beck endorsing Rand in the same day (or few days)?  I can't take it anymore!  Seriously, looks like the strategy is working...almost too good.  We'll see what happens.

----------


## Confederate

I was watching The Five today on Fox and Bob Beckel mentioned that Rand would be a much stronger primary *and general election* candidate than Rubio.

----------


## phill4paul

> I was watching The Five today on Fox and Bob Beckel mentioned that Rand would be a much stronger primary *and general election* candidate than Rubio.


 Well, $#@!. It's in the bag then.

----------


## wormyguy

Remind me, did Beck end up endorsing ass-foam or crazy-eyes last time around?  I forget.

----------


## TheGrinch

Ah, nothing like a good old fashioned Glenn beck sucks thread to unite us 

They better be scared, gravy train is shutting down....

----------


## torchbearer

> Karl Rove and Glen Beck endorsing Rand in the same day (or few days)? I can't take it anymore! Seriously, looks like the strategy is working...almost too good. We'll see what happens.


change the game from checkers to chess.
if you first say your support someone then drop your support later, it would make a bigger impact on the negs, than if you were visably 'biased' against the person all along.
honey, honey, poison.

----------


## Confederate

> Well, $#@!. It's in the bag then.


Not in the bag at all. Just find it surprising that Rand is doing so much better than Rubio and that even a liberal democrat concedes that Rand is a much stronger candidate.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I'm thinking that he'll get the ron paul treatment eventually.
> like not included in polling, which has happened already.


I was going to say that has already been happening somewhat, but Rand is a remarkable force though.  He's been sublimely clever by positioning himself and raising his profile within the past few months.  There comes a point where the media just _has_ to cover you, especially locally.  Now couple that with some hefty fund raising and Rand could take his message directly to the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.  Rand will be much harder to define and keep hidden away and by the media.  On top of the that the man is a tireless campaigner so even if a small portion of the public miss him on cable tv they will likely have an opportunity to catch a speech locally.

----------


## TheGrinch

> change the game from checkers to chess.
> if you first say your support someone then drop your support later, it would make a bigger impact on the negs, than if you were visably 'biased' against the person all along.
> honey, honey, poison.


What do you think the Romney endorsement was? It only made his voice credible when he criticized his foreign policy a week or so later.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Karl Rove and Glen Beck endorsing Rand in the same day (or few days)?  I can't take it anymore!  Seriously, looks like the strategy is working...almost too good.  We'll see what happens.


That is rather funny.  Who would've thought that to have any street cred you would have to drop Rand's name in every interview you give.  Rove looks especially ridiculous doing it

----------


## torchbearer

> What do you think the Romney endorsement was? It only made his voice credible when he criticized his foreign policy a week or so later.



exactly.
we don't think like our enemies do.
but if we took the time to realize how they took our liberty, we could use the same method to get it back.
but we have so many politically naive people here- they would never understand or get it.

----------


## PatriotOne

Don't look away.  Beck will steal your wallet.

----------


## phill4paul

> Not in the bag at all. Just find it surprising that Rand is doing so much better than Rubio and that even a liberal democrat concedes that Rand is a much stronger candidate.


  It's all good.......

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/02/...ul-story-51283

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> exactly.
> we don't think like our enemies do.
> but if we took the time to realize how they took our liberty, we could use the same method to get it back.
> but we have so many politically naive people here- they would never understand or get it.


+Rep

You know the way this game is played.

----------


## phill4paul

> exactly.
> we don't think like our enemies do.
> but if we took the time to realize how they took our liberty, we could use the same method to get it back.
> but we have so many politically naive people here- they would never understand or get it.


  Take it back through hundreds of years of incrementalism?

  No thanks. 

  Nullify now.

----------


## wormyguy

> exactly.
> we don't think like our enemies do.
> but if we took the time to realize how they took our liberty, we could use the same method to get it back.
> but we have so many politically naive people here- they would never understand or get it.


There's a certain psychological element to "playing the game" to appease certain grassroots elements and make establishment figures feign respect, at least before the campaign begins in earnest.

But to take back our liberty the same way they took it, even in the pettiest of senses, we would somehow need to install persons in (appointed) positions of power who have strong personal or financial interests in reducing their own power, and also establish several major blocs of voters and big-money donors for whom the same applies.  Needless to say this is basically self-contradictory and impossible, and so our goals will always be far harder to achieve than those of our enemies through conventional means.

----------


## PatriotOne

> exactly.
> we don't think like our enemies do.
> but if we took the time to realize how they took our liberty, we could use the same method to get it back.
> but we have so many politically naive people here- they would never understand or get it.


I'm so far into thinking like our enemy does, I want to keep the drones when we get into power.  The target will be different but......

----------


## torchbearer

> Take it back through hundreds of years of incrementalism?
> 
> No thanks. 
> 
> Nullify now.


I didn't mention anything about incrementalism.
I'm talking about political strategy of honey,honey, poison.

we immediately rebuke our enemies because they are wrong.
what if we agreed with them, championed them- got the trust of the other supports as someone who supports the guy. then act like the guy betrays you at some point- flip out and take 25% of the room with you. just from random brain structure emotions alone.

i see this kind of stuff at work on this website.
you get the honey, honey, poison accounts.
they put in their honey post, they have their flame thread about OMGZ MASSIE IS JUWZ!!!!!

----------


## Cleaner44

I don't trust Beck at all but this is always welcome commentary.  When talking heads are hammering the GOP then they are doing good work.  Beck has slowly been learning what most of us learned earlier in our lives.  He may still be a sellout in the future, but he knows that we are right.  The truth is on our side.

----------


## torchbearer

> There's a certain psychological element to "playing the game" to appease certain grassroots elements and make establishment figures feign respect, at least before the campaign begins in earnest.
> 
> But to take back our liberty the same way they took it, even in the pettiest of senses, we would somehow need to install persons in (appointed) positions of power who have strong personal or financial interests in reducing their own power, and also establish several major blocs of voters and big-money donors for whom the same applies. Needless to say this is basically self-contradictory and impossible, and so our goals will always be far harder to achieve than those of our enemies through conventional means.


how many people agreed to the constitutional republic when it was founded? did all the mundanes create it in a democratic vote? or was a society based on forced protection of people's rights actually forced on the mundanes on the late 1700s?
truth is most people don't really understand, nor care to.

to change everyone to your way of thinking would take decades of extreme educational efforts working against a media world dominated by demagoguery.
even then, you probably wouldn't succeed.

----------


## angelatc

Marco Rubio is a small government guy - I'll bet $20 that Glenn Beck will say so within....3 years.  Of course I won't know, because I don't listen to him....so we're on the honor system here.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> See post #2


While I think it is a real "conversion" even if it is not he brings legitimacy to the message among Republican voters.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

Must Watch: Glenn Beck and Judge Napolitano explain libertarianism.

----------


## garyallen59

I think Beck is serious. Anyway I'm happy to hear him mention Rand with such high praise.

----------


## phill4paul

> *I think Beck is serious*. Anyway I'm happy to hear him mention Rand with such high praise.

----------


## Southerner

Josh, is it ok for me to say "$#@! ALL OF YOU WHO SAY $#@! YOU, BECK" on your website?

Some peoples kids... sheesh. Maybe you would prefer if Mark Levin or "El Rushbo" were the first tightie rightie pundit to "see the light"? As for me, I have been a Glenn Beck fan for years. Do I agree with him 100% $#@! NO! But for that matter nor do I agree 100% with either PAUL, Amash, Sanford, DeMint, Lee et al. The lot of you remind me of a teenager who hints at wanting a i-gizmo for Christmas to their gfriend/bfriend, and is ungrateful becuz they got you candy apple red rather then the lime green one you secretly lusted for.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

^ I have been following Beck and his websites and I have noticed a trend. Laugh all you want. Now will he be a perfect libertarian? No I don't expect that but neither am I.

----------


## TheTexan

> Now will he be a perfect libertarian? No I don't expect that but neither am I.


It has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with integrity, which he has none of

----------


## TheGrinch

> Josh, is it ok for me to say "$#@! ALL OF YOU WHO SAY $#@! YOU, BECK" on your website?
> 
> Some peoples kids... sheesh. Maybe you would prefer if Mark Levin or "El Rushbo" were the first tightie rightie pundit to "see the light"? As for me, I have been a Glenn Beck fan for years. Do I agree with him 100% $#@! NO! But for that matter nor do I agree 100% with either PAUL, Amash, Sanford, DeMint, Lee et al. The lot of you remind me of a teenager who hints at wanting a i-gizmo for Christmas to their gfriend/bfriend, and is ungrateful becuz they got you candy apple red rather then the lime green one you secretly lusted for.


I have no problem with people who subscribe to what Beck says most of the time, but rather an issue with a guy whose turned out to be a snake.

----------


## phill4paul

> Josh, is it ok for me to say "$#@! ALL OF YOU WHO SAY $#@! YOU, BECK" on your website?
> 
> Some peoples kids... sheesh. Maybe you would prefer if Mark Levin or "El Rushbo" were the first tightie rightie pundit to "see the light"? As for me, I have been a Glenn Beck fan for years. Do I agree with him 100% $#@! NO! But for that matter nor do I agree 100% with either PAUL, Amash, Sanford, DeMint, Lee et al. The lot of you remind me of a teenager who hints at wanting a i-gizmo for Christmas to their gfriend/bfriend, and is ungrateful becuz they got you candy apple red rather then the lime green one you secretly lusted for.


  You've not been here long enough to know the many faces of Glen Beck WRT to the R3volution and Ron Paul. If you had been you would know why many here say...


*  $#@! YOU GLEN BECK!*

  But, I swear, this time he is coming around....

----------


## COpatriot



----------


## No Free Beer

He's done, you guys.

----------


## Southerner

> You've not been here long enough to know the many faces of Glen Beck...


Yeah, well I have been on the sphere for over 54 years, and get the feeling that I was a Barry Goldwater fan long before most here were a glimmer in yer grandpas eye. Have been a Ron Paul admirer since before there was an internet, PC, and probably before there was an apple 1. I have SEEN political pundits change their skin faster than a DJ can adapt to a format change from AOR to EASY LISTENING, if it means keep a J O B. BECK was chased off FNC by colorofracism and their boycott for stating an OPINION, one I happen to agree with. 

This president, I think, has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture Im not saying he doesnt like white people, Im saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.

Love him or hate him, I think Beck has evolved, and speaks his mind. Many of these guys and gals don't, they preach to the choir.

----------


## torchbearer

Glenn Beck, "Ron Paul is the mayor of crazy town"

----------


## eleganz

I bet Ron gets a kick out of all of this stuff.

----------


## WIwarrior

Glenn Beck is an untrustworthy disgusting human being. I still don't know what to think of Rand because sometimes he sounds like his dad but other times he sounds like GW Bush. I think I am done with politics as a whole. This game is rigged and I'm done with it. Good luck to you guys.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Glenn Beck, "Ron Paul is the mayor of crazy town"


Hey, Hey...

Remember that time when Glenn Beck said Ron Paul is the newest member of the WBC, then two seconds later said we need more civility in this country?

HAHA.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yeah, well I have been on the sphere for over 54 years, and get the feeling that I was a Barry Goldwater fan long before most here were a glimmer in yer grandpas eye. Have been a Ron Paul admirer since before there was an internet, PC, and probably before there was an apple 1. I have SEEN political pundits change their skin faster than a DJ can adapt to a format change from AOR to EASY LISTENING, if it means keep a J O B. BECK was chased off FNC by colorofracism and their boycott for stating an OPINION, one I happen to agree with. 
> 
> “This president, I think, has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture… I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.”
> 
> Love him or hate him, I think Beck has evolved, and speaks his mind. Many of these guys and gals don't, they preach to the choir.


  Sure Beck has evolved. No doubt about it. Wherever the audience and the profits were best gained. 

  Congratulations you are a whole six $#@!in' years older than I am. I know people in their eighties that are as dumb as the owners of pet rocks.

----------


## QuickZ06

> 


LOL this gets me every damn time.

----------


## phill4paul

> LOL this gets me every damn time.


 Hat tip to AF. It's not my find though McMurphy has become my catch all. I'm honestly living in a madhouse I do believe.

----------


## eleganz

Waiting for Glen Beck to apologize for being wrong, and a dick to Ron.

----------


## Southerner

> Waiting for Glen Beck to apologize for being wrong, and a dick to Ron.


If GB can make the bachmann/santorum socon/neocons consider Paul the Jr in 2016, its all good.

----------


## phill4paul

> If GB can make the bachmann/santorum socon/neocons consider Paul the Jr in 2016, its all good.

----------


## Southerner

Bakatcha.

----------


## acptulsa

> Josh, is it ok for me to say "$#@! ALL OF YOU WHO SAY $#@! YOU, BECK" on your website?
> 
> Some peoples kids... sheesh. Maybe you would prefer if Mark Levin or "El Rushbo" were the first tightie rightie pundit to "see the light"? As for me, I have been a Glenn Beck fan for years. Do I agree with him 100% $#@! NO! But for that matter nor do I agree 100% with either PAUL, Amash, Sanford, DeMint, Lee et al. The lot of you remind me of a teenager who hints at wanting a i-gizmo for Christmas to their gfriend/bfriend, and is ungrateful becuz they got you candy apple red rather then the lime green one you secretly lusted for.


I'm good with candy apple red.  Lots of people would be good with candy apple red.  You're completely missing the point.  You never get your radio controlled car, in red or green.  Not from Uncle Glen.  You get socks.  Right in the kisser.

There is a thing called controlled opposition, and Glen Beck is it.  He is supposed to be us, but he is not us.  He has done this before.  The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.  This, for Beck, is the stroking season.  I'm done with big government Republicans.  Stroke, stroke.  I like Rand Paul.  Stroke, stroke.  And late in 2015, and from then through the primaries?  If you're stupid enough to tell all your friends to tune in to this $#@!, you will find yourself Beckstabbed.  Count on it.  Rand isn't electable; we need the lesser evil, vote for some establishment idiot like Bachmann or Santorum (or, more likely next round ol' Rubio isn't perfect but we must support his ugly ass).  Beckstabbed.

The man does it over and over and over again.  I'm off the merry go round.  Stay on there and get so dizzy you can't defend yourself when he comes to Beckstab you.  But don't come whining to me when (not if, *when*) you feel the blade between your vertebrae.

Barnum was so right.  There's a sucker born every damned minute.

----------


## anaconda

Could Glenn Beck be trying to associate himself with Rand expressly for the larger purpose of making Rand appear "fringe?"

----------


## fr33

j/k after every election Beck plays this game.

----------


## Southerner

> Could Glenn Beck be trying to associate himself with Rand expressly for the larger purpose of making Rand appear "fringe?"


Um, no. 

1. I *think* that the majority of the Beck haters here merely have ingested the koolaid, of what the evil msm wants YOU to believe about Beck, much the way they fed poison koolaid to the masses re: Ron Paul.

2. I *think* that the majority of you that will ONLY accept "perfection" in anyone, probably do not, and never will have a girlfriend, and probably still live in your parents basement. jmho.

----------


## phill4paul

> Um, no. 
> 
> 1. I *think* that the majority of the Beck haters here merely have ingested the koolaid, of what the evil msm wants YOU to believe about Beck, much the way they fed poison koolaid to the masses re: Ron Paul.
> 
> 2. I *think* that the majority of you that will ONLY accept "perfection" in anyone, probably do not, and never will have a girlfriend, and probably still live in your parents basement. jmho.


  You're a $#@!ing sad nutter.

  1) We were here and lived it. MSM didn't pour us any drinks.

  2) You're a $#@!ing sad nutter.

----------


## acptulsa

> Um, no. 
> 
> 1. I *think* that the majority of the Beck haters here merely have ingested the koolaid, of what the evil msm wants YOU to believe about Beck, much the way they fed poison koolaid to the masses re: Ron Paul.
> 
> 2. I *think* that the majority of you that will ONLY accept "perfection" in anyone, probably do not, and never will have a girlfriend, and probably still live in your parents basement. jmho.


The MSM did not tell me what to think about Glen Beck, friend.  I made up my very own mind after seeing what the man did.  There is a stroking season, and there is a stabbing season.  Like torchbearer said, honey, honey, poison.

And all your childish insults cannot change what did happen, what happened again, and the fact that it's following the exact same pattern right now.

By the way, if you ask nicely the mods here will change your screen name for you.  You're giving everyone south of the Mason-Dixon a bad name with your shilling, your insistence on being used and betrayed, and your unwarranted and unseemly desire to be a prick.

----------


## Southerner

> By the way, if you ask nicely the mods here will change your screen name for you.  You're giving everyone south of the Mason-Dixon a bad name with your shilling, your insistence on being used and betrayed, and your unwarranted and unseemly desire to be a prick.


Point taken. MINE! Thanks for helping me make it. Its why as long as we DEMAND "the perfect candidate", all we will ever get are more Bushs, McCains & Romneys.

----------


## acptulsa

> Point taken. MINE! Thanks for helping me make it. Its why as long as we DEMAND "the perfect candidate", all we will ever get are more Bushs, McCains & Romneys.


First, this thread is about the media, not a candidate.  Secondly, the only thing that quote of mine proves is he who lives by the flamewar dies by the flamewar.

What, exactly, is your point?  That you support Rand Paul's efforts to make libertarianism more appealing by explaining it to the rank and file in Fox Newspeak?  If so, why the hell don't you come out and say it instead of cursing and casting insulting aspersions?  The fact is, I agree with you, if that's what you're trying to say.  But we will continue to respect integrity above all, and integrity will be what wins us the general election.

And Glen Beck's track record indicates he won't help us one little bit.  Or, at the _very_ least, it indicates that when primary season rolls around and push comes to shove he will _not_ be there for us.

And all the insults, childish intimations and hissy fits in the world won't change his disgraceful record and his disingenuous method of operation.

The MSM is telling the world that Beck is there to backstab us.  That's funny right there.  I don't care who you are.

----------


## Origanalist

Lol at thread.

----------


## Article V

> Waiting for Glen Beck to apologize for being wrong, and a dick to Ron.


I doubt many here watch Glenn Beck enough to be there when he's made countless apologies, and I doubt those spewing all the hatred would be happy with his apologies when heard.  I think the haters don't really want an apology as much as they want Glenn Beck (and all who think differently) to lie prostrate on the ground and get repeatedly sodomized while screaming how wrong it was to support anyone other than Ron Paul.  And then they want the whole thing video taped and played back to them while they do it all over again.  Some people are sick and prefer liberty-by-force;  it helps them avoid having to earn respect the hard way: through the merit of their ideas and the confident, forgiving, and understanding nature of their humanity.

Beck is right.  Some "libertarians" are so radical, they're happy to let someone burn in a barn if he ever disagrees with them on even the most minor of points.

...I wish these people actually understood the message of Ron Paul.

----------


## kathy88

Beck called Ron the newest member of WBC like less than 2 weeks ago, idiots.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Coming along nicely. I have watched him making progress for a long time.


Interestingly, I thought the same thing in 2009.  Funny how it's always the year AFTER an election that it looks like Beck 'gets it' but then as soon as another election is impending, it back to the same old same old Beck we always knew...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think Beck is serious. Anyway I'm happy to hear him mention Rand with such high praise.


Aye, Beck was quite serious in 2009 when he was doing the exact same thing.  And in 2011.  And in 2013.....

I'm beginning to sense a pattern here....

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If GB can make the bachmann/santorum socon/neocons consider Paul the Jr in 2016, its all good.


You do know that 2009-2011 Beck had morphed into a "Ron Paul supporter" only to slam right back into neoconnery during 2012 right?  You do know this is the same pattern Beck has exhibited with EVERY strict Constitutionalist since 2008, right?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm good with candy apple red.  Lots of people would be good with candy apple red.  You're completely missing the point.  You never get your radio controlled car, in red or green.  Not from Uncle Glen.  You get socks.  Right in the kisser.
> 
> There is a thing called controlled opposition, and Glen Beck is it.  He is supposed to be us, but he is not us.  He has done this before.  The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.  This, for Beck, is the stroking season.  I'm done with big government Republicans.  Stroke, stroke.  I like Rand Paul.  Stroke, stroke.  And late in 2015, and from then through the primaries?  If you're stupid enough to tell all your friends to tune in to this $#@!, you will find yourself Beckstabbed.  Count on it.  Rand isn't electable; we need the lesser evil, vote for some establishment idiot like Bachmann or Santorum (or, more likely next round ol' Rubio isn't perfect but we must support his ugly ass).  Beckstabbed.
> 
> The man does it over and over and over again.  I'm off the merry go round.  Stay on there and get so dizzy you can't defend yourself when he comes to Beckstab you.  But don't come whining to me when (not if, *when*) you feel the blade between your vertebrae.
> 
> Barnum was so right.  There's a sucker born every damned minute.


and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over 

_every single_ liberty candidate running for federal office _in the last 5 years_ has been beckstabbed _in the exact same way_.

At some point even the most gullible person in the world has to start finding it difficult to suspend disbelief.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I doubt many here watch Glenn Beck enough to be there when he's made countless apologies, and I doubt those spewing all the hatred would be happy with his apologies when heard.  I think the haters don't really want an apology as much as they want Glenn Beck (and all who think differently) to lie prostrate on the ground and get repeatedly sodomized while screaming how wrong it was to support anyone other than Ron Paul.  And then they want the whole thing video taped and played back to them while they do it all over again.  Some people are sick and prefer liberty-by-force;  it helps them avoid having to earn respect the hard way: through the merit of their ideas and the confident, forgiving, and understanding nature of their humanity.
> 
> Beck is right.  Some "libertarians" are so radical, they're happy to let someone burn in a barn if he ever disagrees with them on even the most minor of points.
> 
> ...I wish these people actually understood the message of Ron Paul.



Then again, some of us who have been eyeballs deep into this movement since early 2007 have seen Beck do this time and time and time again. It's the exact same pattern he has been using since the beginning.  In 2009 I was the guy telling people that Beck looks like he's starting to get it.  In 2011 I was the guy who said, maybe this time he's finally figuring it out.  In 2013 I'm saying to hell with this piece of rancid feces.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I doubt many here watch Glenn Beck enough to be there when he's made countless apologies, and I doubt those spewing all the hatred would be happy with his apologies when heard


Riddle me this: if Beck is so sorry & genuinely repentant, then why does he keep doing things he has to apologize for? Hmmmmm?

The man is either a fool - or he's playing his audience for fools. (Or both ...)

To hell with Glenn Beck, and to hell with his mealy-mouthed "apologies" - as he has repeatedly demonstrated, his "apologies" are not worth the spittle behind them.




> I think the haters don't really want an apology as much as they want Glenn Beck (and all who think differently) to lie prostrate on the ground and get repeatedly sodomized while screaming how wrong it was to support anyone other than Ron Paul.  *And then they want the whole thing video taped and played back to them* while they do it all over again.


The asinine little phantasm-cum-strawman you present here is pretty goddam hilarious - not to mention ironic - given that in actual fact we have an abundance of video- and audio-recorded proof of Glenn Beck's mockery of and contempt for the ideas & ideals championed by Ron Paul and the people who support him.




> Some people are sick and prefer liberty-by-force;  it helps them avoid  having to earn respect the hard way: through the merit of their ideas  and the confident, forgiving, and understanding nature of their  humanity.


WOW - I am impressed! You offer up ludicrous accusations of "liberty-by-force" - and denunciations of other people as "sick" - based on nothing more than a luridly grotesque fantasy of your own concoction that you presumptuously and insultingly attribute to "the haters" who don't like Glenn Beck.

That you are able to indulge such twaddle & poppycock is truly an amazing feat.

Serously! I stand in awe at the deranged and twisted audacity of such acumen ...




> Beck is right.  Some "libertarians" are so radical, they're happy to let someone burn in a barn if he ever disagrees with them on even the most minor of points.


Bull$#@!. A thousand times bull$#@!.

No one gives a damn about whether Beck disagrees with us. Lots of people disagree with us - and we don't regard them the same way we regard Beck.

We despise Beck because he has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be nothing but a back-stabbing, self-serving and mercurially hypocritical Janus.




> ...I wish these people actually understood the message of Ron Paul.


It is precisely because they do in fact understand the message of Ron Paul that they regard Beck the way they do.

Or, rather, it is because they see the rock-solid consistency and integrity of Ron Paul - and they recognize that Glenn Beck does not possess the tiniest iota of either of those qualities.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Riddle me this: if Beck is so sorry & genuinely repentant, then why does he keep doing things he has to apologize for? Hmmmmm?
> 
> The man is either a fool - or he's playing his audience for fools. (Or both ...)
> 
> To hell with Glenn Beck, and to hell with his mealy-mouthed "apologies" - as he has repeatedly demonstrated, his "apologies" are not worth the spittle behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> The asinine little phantasm-cum-strawman you present here is pretty goddam hilarious - not to mention ironic - given that in actual fact we have an abundance of video- and audio-recorded proof of Glenn Beck's mockery of and contempt for the ideas & ideals championed by Ron Paul and the people who support him.
> ...



Yes, exactly.  Our folks, myself in particular, are not only willing but actually have a solid history of building coalitions with people who agree with us far less than Beck pretends to.  Don't get me wrong, we DO have some problem with extreme purism amongst our movement, but rejection of Beck is NOT an example of that quite-real problem.  Rejection of Beck has to do with the fact that he does this exact same thing after every single election since he's started, and then he morphs right back into neoconnery just in time to lead his sheep to the establishment waters.  We know he does this, because he's been doing it without any change at all since 2007.

----------


## matt0611

> Beck called Ron the newest member of WBC like less than 2 weeks ago, idiots.


Ignorant here. What's the WBC?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Ignorant here. What's the WBC?


Westboro Baptist Church.  The people who protest soldier funerals with "God Hates ****" signs in pretty rainbow and tie-dye colors.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Yes, exactly.  Our folks, myself in particular, are not only willing but actually have a solid history of building coalitions with people who agree with us far less than Beck pretends to.  Don't get me wrong, we DO have some problem with extreme purism amongst our movement, but rejection of Beck is NOT an example of that quite-real problem.  Rejection of Beck has to do with the fact that he does this exact same thing after every single election since he's started, and then he morphs right back into neoconnery just in time to lead his sheep to the establishment waters.  We know he does this, because he's been doing it without any change at all since 2007.


Precisely!

I bear no love at all for the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - but unlike Glenn Beck, at least they never sidle up to me and pretend to be my best buds (while sharpening the knives they intend to plunge into my back).

----------


## compromise

It goes both ways. Rand pretends he is a Beck fan too. He promotes Glenn's book, "Broke" on his Senate site and praises Beck in "The Tea Party Goes to Washington" (although the book was ghostwritten by Hunter).

----------


## Neil Desmond

Spin doctors...

----------


## S.Shorland

Look at how he sabotaged Medina when she threatened property taxes and thus Agenda 21.How he sabotaged Ron.etc.

----------


## Origanalist

> Riddle me this: if Beck is so sorry & genuinely repentant, then why does he keep doing things he has to apologize for? Hmmmmm?
> 
> The man is either a fool - or he's playing his audience for fools. (Or both ...)
> 
> To hell with Glenn Beck, and to hell with his mealy-mouthed "apologies" - as he has repeatedly demonstrated, his "apologies" are not worth the spittle behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> The asinine little phantasm-cum-strawman you present here is pretty goddam hilarious - not to mention ironic - given that in actual fact we have an abundance of video- and audio-recorded proof of Glenn Beck's mockery of and contempt for the ideas & ideals championed by Ron Paul and the people who support him.
> ...


C'mon OB, I thought the drama was pretty amusing.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Beck called Ron the newest member of WBC like less than 2 weeks ago, idiots.


And equated him to Code Pink on his radio show. No joke, 5 seconds later, got all serious (typical GB strategy) and said "you know what we are missing? civility in the country."

The guy is a joke.

Profiteer.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> And equated him to Code Pink on his radio show. No joke, 5 seconds later, got all serious (typical GB strategy) and said "you know what we are missing? civility in the country."
> 
> The guy is a joke.
> 
> Profiteer.


It's because Ron has some apprehension about bombing middle eastern countries.  That is civility, to Glenn Beck.  

I know I'm one who is considered to be too much of a purist for some around here, but on foreign policy, given the immediate life-and-death consequences, there can and should be no compromise.  Believe it or not, I'm all for coalitions... just not with interventionists.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Yes, exactly.  Our folks, myself in particular, are not only willing but actually have a solid history of building coalitions with people who agree with us far less than Beck pretends to.  Don't get me wrong, we DO have some problem with extreme purism amongst our movement, but rejection of Beck is NOT an example of that quite-real problem.  Rejection of Beck has to do with the fact that he does this exact same thing after every single election since he's started, and then he morphs right back into neoconnery just in time to lead his sheep to the establishment waters.  We know he does this, because he's been doing it without any change at all since 2007.


Could not agree more.  Beck has proven he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

This is just his latest stunt to ingratiate himself with the small government supporters.  *We should never forget Beck was the msm point man to co-opt the Tea Party movement in which was turned into something else and Ron Paul disappeared from "Glenn Beck's Tea Party".*

His revelations is just a continuation of the co-opting.  I have no doubt he will stab us in the back when it counts.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> C'mon OB, I thought the drama was pretty amusing.


Oh, definitely! Like I said, I was quite impressed. You don't often see such breathtaking flights of pervy fancy in such discussions as these.

Now, let's see ... maybe we can get Ned Beatty to play the starring role when we film our "Glenn Beck butt-rape" video ... I'll make some calls ...

----------


## FrankRep

> I hope Beck doesn't jump off the Rand bandwagon if Rand votes to confirm Hagel.


Rand Paul's voting record will have a black mark if he confirms Hagel. Don't be stupid Rand, that vote will bite you.

----------


## Article V

> Then again, some of us who have been eyeballs deep into this movement since early 2007 have seen Beck do this time and time and time again. It's the exact same pattern he has been using since the beginning.  In 2009 I was the guy telling people that Beck looks like he's starting to get it.  In 2011 I was the guy who said, maybe this time he's finally figuring it out.  In 2013 I'm saying to hell with this piece of rancid feces.


I didn't crawl out from under a rock yesterday.

----------


## Brett85

I think Beck just likes some liberty candidates but not others.  I don't see how that's inconsistent or an example of him being opportunistic.

----------


## acptulsa

> I think Beck just likes some liberty candidates but not others.  I don't see how that's inconsistent or an example of him being opportunistic.


It isn't a question of who he like and who he doesn't.  It's about who he likes this year that he will not like during an election year.  Happens every single cycle.

Are we up to speed now?

----------


## FrankRep

> I think Beck just likes some liberty candidates but not others.  I don't see how that's inconsistent or an example of him being opportunistic.


Glenn Beck seems to only attack people when they support 9/11 Truth, support Abortion, Attack/Criticize the Troops, and Support a Weak Foreign Policy/National Defense (his perspective).


Rand Paul doesn't have any views that Glenn Beck would disagree with.

----------


## Brett85

> It isn't a question of who he like and who he doesn't.  It's about who he likes this year that he will not like during an election year.  Happens every single cycle.
> 
> Are we up to speed now?


I don't think Glenn Beck ever said that he supported Ron Paul.  He may have said that he agreed with him on certain issues, but he never came out and said that he supported Ron.  He was never a Ron Paul supporter.  He wasn't inconsistent about that.

----------


## acptulsa

The fact that he's done with establishment Republicans is an inconsistent position in and of itself.  And I see no reason to believe it.




> I didn't crawl out from under a rock yesterday.


It isn't when you crawled out from under the rock, but what (if anything) you've learned since that counts.

----------


## FrankRep

> I don't think Glenn Beck ever said that he supported Ron Paul.  He may have said that he agreed with him on certain issues, but he never came out and said that he supported Ron.  He was never a Ron Paul supporter.  He wasn't inconsistent about that.


Glenn Beck supported Ron Paul, except on Foreign Policy. That was the deal breaker for him.

----------


## acptulsa

> Glenn Beck supported Ron Paul, except on Foreign Policy. That was the deal breaker for him.


Considering that foreign policy is benefitting no one but the Military Industrial Complex, and is bankrupting the nation, the fact that Beck supports it would be a deal breaker for me--even if Beck _didn't_ Beckstab us every election year.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

Best line of the video was when Glenn referenced the purist element of libertarianism and said (paraphrasing) that they believe in maximum freedom, except when you disagree with them, then you cannot be part of the camp.

----------


## Brett85

> Glenn Beck supported Ron Paul, except on Foreign Policy. That was the deal breaker for him.


Yeah, but he never said that he would support Ron for President, which was my point.  It's not like Beck said that he was going to support Ron's run for President and then later changed his mind and decided not to support him.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Considering that foreign policy is benefitting no one but the Military Industrial Complex, and is bankrupting the nation, the fact that Beck supports it would be a deal breaker for me--even if Beck _didn't_ Beckstab us every election year.


Beck is a Jacksonian in his FP views.   Reagan and Goldwater were Jacksonian as well - both of whom were supported by Ron Paul.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Glenn Beck supported Ron Paul, except on Foreign Policy. That was the deal breaker for him.


Rand's views on foreign policy are certainly not the same as Ron's, but do you think they are so different (and if so, how?) that Glenn Beck will continue to support Rand?

----------


## FrankRep

> Considering that foreign policy is benefitting no one but the Military Industrial Complex, and is bankrupting the nation, the fact that Beck supports it would be a deal breaker for me--even if Beck _didn't_ Beckstab us every election year.


In either case, Rand Paul's foreign policy is more in line with Glenn Beck's. 

Maybe it even comes down to the fact that Rand Paul knows how to speak Conservative.

----------


## acptulsa

> Beck is a Jacksonian in his FP views.   Reagan and Goldwater were Jacksonian as well - both of whom were supported by Ron Paul.


Our current state of military adventurism is far beyond Jacksonian.  We've gone full-bore Lyndon Baines Johnsonian.  Ron Paul sees this.  We all see this.  Why can't (or why won't) Beck?

----------


## Brett85

> Rand's views on foreign policy are certainly not the same as Ron's, but do you think they are so different (and if so, how?) that Glenn Beck will continue to support Rand?


Beck said that his foreign policy views were somewhere in the middle between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, which makes it sound like Rand will be his ideal candidate.

----------


## Smudge Dog

I read that glen resents being rejected on libertarian websites. Which ones does he read?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Best line of the video was when Glenn referenced the purist element of libertarianism and said (paraphrasing) that they believe in maximum freedom, except when you disagree with them, then you cannot be part of the camp.


You think that is the best part?  It doesn't even make sense...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I didn't crawl out from under a rock yesterday.


Well then you apparently haven't been paying attention.  Beck has a 100% record of supporting our guy until the election when he decides everyone MUST support the establishmentarian.  It's not like he does it half the time or most of the time.  This is what he does ALL of the time. 100%.  He has never once behaved differently.  Expecting him to all the sudden (secretly, apparently) change when he is behaving identical to the last 5 years is lunacy.

How many times does a guy have to pretend to be your friend just long enough to stab you in the back until you figure out that he's not a friend?  Ten times?  A dozen?

This guy is poison.  Mark my words.  I was the guy in your shoes in 2009 and 2011.  It's not like this behavior is in any way _new_ for Beck.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Best line of the video was when Glenn referenced the purist element of libertarianism and said (paraphrasing) that they believe in maximum freedom, except when you disagree with them, then you cannot be part of the camp.


You have maximum freedom to call a pig a cow, but that doesn't make it so.

----------


## acptulsa

> You have maximum freedom to call a pig a cow, but that doesn't make it so.


And if we let RINOs into the club, we might as well let Greens in too, because we no longer stand for anything at all.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You think that is the best part?  It doesn't even make sense...


Makes perfect sense, and is evidenced on this site daily.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Beck said that his foreign policy views were somewhere in the middle between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, which makes it sound like Rand will be his ideal candidate.


That's a pretty wide range!  "_Somewhere_ in the middle" of such a wide range is about as vague as one can be.  I have a feeling this "somewhere" point is closer to Ricky than to Ron.  I still think Beck moves back into the Santorum camp if RS decides to run.

----------


## acptulsa

> Makes perfect sense, and is evidenced on this site daily.


Then why have I never seen a concensus on this site regarding, for example, immigration?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I read that glen resents being rejected on libertarian websites. Which ones does he read?


He resents that?  LOL, somebody call Glenn a waaaambulance.

----------


## Athan

This beck-stabber again?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I read that glen resents being rejected on libertarian websites. Which ones does he read?


I hope he reads this one.  I hope he reads this thread.  I was the guy _defending_ him for 3.5 years.  Just ask others on RPF's.  His track record is undeniable.  "Two years to the election?  I'm your best friend!!  Two months to the election?  VOTE ESTABLISHMENT OR DIE!"

Every time.

not 90% of the time

EVERY time.

How many times do we have to go through this before we get a clue?

I won't believe that Beck is waking up until he repents for the scores of times he's already don this to us.

Beck is one of the primary reasons we have not been able to form a real antiestablishment coalition in America.

Beck is one of the primary reasons the establishment is still in control.

Maybe some folks trust him that he's turned a new leaf (what's this, like the 10th new leaf now?) but it doesn't take me getting burned ten times before I figure out the stove is hot.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Makes perfect sense, and is evidenced on this site daily.


Uh, no.  Nothing you're referring to (things said by those of us who prefer to stick to principles) suggests that we don't want Glenn or anyone else to have total freedom.  

What is he, personally offended that we don't care for his offensive foreign policy views?

----------


## Brett85

> That's a pretty wide range!  "_Somewhere_ in the middle" of such a wide range is about as vague as one can be.  I have a feeling this "somewhere" point is closer to Ricky than to Ron.  I still think Beck moves back into the Santorum camp if RS decides to run.


Well, he said that Ron doesn't support enough military intervention, and Santorum supports too much military intervention.  It seems as though Beck is generally anti war except that he would go to war if Israel were attacked, and probably a few other situations.  That makes him similar to Rand.

----------


## Confederate

> Best line of the video was when Glenn referenced the purist element of libertarianism and said (paraphrasing) that they believe in maximum freedom, except when you disagree with them, then you cannot be part of the camp.


Yes, that seems to be the case in 90% of the threads here.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Well, he said that Ron doesn't support enough military intervention, and Santorum supports too much military intervention.  It seems as though Beck is generally anti war *except that he would go to war if Israel were attacked, and probably a few other situations.  That makes him similar to Rand.*


If that truly is Rand's official foreign policy stance, I cannot support him.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Uh, no.  Nothing you're referring to (things said by those of us who prefer to stick to principles) suggests that we don't want Glenn or anyone else to have total freedom.  
> 
> What is he, personally offended that we don't care for his offensive foreign policy views?


There is a tendency among Libertarians, and always has been, to desire a narrow, exclusive "club".  Any divergence from a very rigid set of ideals is seen as being a traitor and people are then labeled as sell-outs, enemies of freedom, etc.  I've seen it happen for decades now.  Truth be told though, the only ones that lose in that are the purists since their numbers never grow and their effectiveness wanes.  Just look at the 40+ year history of the LP for evidence of that.

The same can be said for hardcore paleo-cons.  They act in much the very same way, with little tolerance for any views that don't meet their orthodoxy.  That faction is honestly to the point where they hardly exist anymore.  Look to the CP for the evidence of that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yes, that seems to be the case in 90% of the threads here.


LIBERTY!*

*Does not apply to 178 Pakistani children, 500,000 Iraqi children... 


You can't be for an interventionist foreign policy AND be an advocate for liberty.  Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant.  You either are or you aren't.

----------


## seraphson

Double Agent Beck.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You can't be for an interventionist foreign policy AND be an advocate for liberty.  Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant.  You either or, or you aren't.


Can you explain then why Ron Paul supported Goldwater and Reagan?

----------


## acptulsa

With all due respect, Captain, exclusion from debates and a sea of talking heads either ignoring everyone who doesn't fit into the Mainstream Orthodoxy well enough to get nominated by one of the Approved Parties, or talking ominously about Throwing Your Vote Away _does_ factor in.  Your recap is far, far too simplistic for serious consideration.




> Can you explain then why Ron Paul supported Goldwater and Reagan?


Goldwater was arguably interested only in *de*fense.  And he turned on Reagan--a fact which you're too busy ignoring to explain.

----------


## Brett85

> If that truly is Rand's official foreign policy stance, I cannot support him.


I think I'll support a limited interventionist (Rand) over an unlimited interventionist (Rubio).

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> If that truly is Rand's official foreign policy stance, I cannot support him.


I'm with you.  I CAN-NOT sanction that.  I'm sorry if that makes me a purist.  I'll have enough to answer for when my time comes to stand before the Almighty, but I won't be answering for the sanctioning of non-defensive violence.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> There is a tendency among Libertarians, and always has been, to desire a narrow, exclusive "club".  Any divergence from a very rigid set of ideals is seen as being a traitor and people are then labeled as sell-outs, enemies of freedom, etc.  I've seen it happen for decades now.  Truth be told though, the only ones that lose in that are the purists since their numbers never grow and their effectiveness wanes.  Just look at the 40+ year history of the LP for evidence of that.
> 
> The same can be said for hardcore paleo-cons.  They act in much the very same way, with little tolerance for any views that don't meet their orthodoxy.  That faction is honestly to the point where the hardly exist anymore.  Look to the CP for the evidence of that.


Words have meaning, and their meaning is not fluid.  As I previously mentioned, the word "cow" is not used to describe a pig.  "Libertarian" is not used to describe someone with Glenn Beck's political views.  He may resent that, but he can pound sand as far as I'm concerned.  Our numbers may be small (according to you) but I still believe we scare the daylights out of people like Beck.  His strategy has been to hijack the word (just as he hijacked the Tea Party).  I'll be damned if I stay silent about that, and if that frustrates him, too bad.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Can you explain then why Ron Paul supported Goldwater and Reagan?


No, I can't.  I'm not Ron.  I can explain to you why I won't support anyone who advocates an interventionist foreign policy, however.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> With all due respect, Captain, exclusion from debates and a sea of talking heads either ignoring everyone who doesn't fit into the Mainstream Orthodoxy well enough to get nominated by one of the Approved Parties, or talking ominously about Throwing Your Vote Away _does_ factor in.  Your recap is far, far too simplistic for serious consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater was arguably interested only in *de*fense.  And he turned on Reagan--a fact which you're too busy ignoring to explain.


He turned on Reagan after his administration failed to deliver on its promises, and rightfully so.  But in 76 and 80 Ron supported Reagan who was not a non-interventionist.  The same for Goldwater.  Both Reagan and Goldwater were Jacksonian.

----------


## AuH20

> *It's because Ron has some apprehension about bombing middle eastern countries.  That is civility, to Glenn Beck. * 
> 
> I know I'm one who is considered to be too much of a purist for some around here, but on foreign policy, given the immediate life-and-death consequences, there can and should be no compromise.  Believe it or not, I'm all for coalitions... just not with interventionists.


More like Ron Paul states that blowback is *100% responsible* for Islamic extremism which isn't accurate or true.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> More like Ron Paul states that blowback is *100% responsible* for Islamic extremism which isn't accurate or true.


Regardless of whether that is accurate of Ron's position, or why Beck "can't support him", it does not follow that an interventionist foreign policy should be preferred.  

There are plenty of threats in the world, and plenty of causes.  It is immoral and illogical to advocate going around and engaging them.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> More like Ron Paul states that blowback is *100% responsible* for Islamic extremism which isn't accurate or true.


Wasn't Ron specifically speaking of the attack on 9-11 when he talked about blowback, not for all of Islamic extremism?

----------


## AuH20

> Regardless of whether that is accurate of Ron's position, or why Beck "can't support him", it does not follow that an interventionist foreign policy should be preferred.  
> 
> There are plenty of threats in the world, and plenty of causes.  It is immoral and illogical to advocate going around and engaging them.


I think it's illogical to be purely interventionist or purely noninterventionist without the facts at hand. Granted, I'm cut from the noninterventionist mold but I would never paint myself into such an isolated corner that my enemies could exploit.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Words have meaning, and their meaning is not fluid.  As I previously mentioned, the word "cow" is not used to describe a pig.  "Libertarian" is not used to describe someone with Glenn Beck's political views.  He may resent that, but he can pound sand as far as I'm concerned.  Our numbers may be small (according to you) but I still believe we scare the daylights out of people like Beck.  His strategy has been to hijack the word (just as he hijacked the Tea Party).  I'll be damned if I stay silent about that, and if that frustrates him, too bad.


"Libertarian" is a blanket term to describe several factions.  One of which are libertarian Republicans, or libertarian-conservatives (choose your label they are interchangeable).  That is what Rand, Amash, Massie, Labrador, Yoho, Cruz and others are.  Ron is probably best described at a "paleolibertarian".

Add to the general "Libertarian" umbrella and you have left-libertarians, agorists, an-caps, neo-libertarians, and other groups.  All of which may at times label themselves as "Libertarian".  Believe it or not, there are some groups out there that say that Ron Paul is not a Libertarian based on some of the views he held.  The left-libertarian camp ripped Paul for his views on abortion and gay rights.  Of course, no one really heard much about that because they are such a very small group of people.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Coming along nicely. I have watched him making progress for a long time.


It's a charade. We saw this before when he hijacked the original Tea Party. A prerequisite for treating him as anything other than an enemy agent in the future is having him come clean as to what he did to the Tea Party and why he did it. 

I witnessed firsthand the TP transformation from "no bailouts/no Obamacare" to a bunch of flag-waving Romney-zombies, and Glenn Beck was the #1 guy in making that happen. He heavily promoted the Tea Party march on DC not to support it, but to undermine and neuter it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I think it's illogical to be purely interventionist or purely noninterventionist without the facts at hand. Granted, I'm cut from the noninterventionist mold but I would never paint myself into such an isolated corner that my enemies could exploit.


Ron has always spoken on behalf of a strong national defense.  I don't think it's at all illogical to hold a noninterventionist position, and it is certainly the moral position.

----------


## roho76

A public apology to Debra Medina live on FOX News with a matching front page article on The Blaze would be a start. Until that moment, he's a snake and can't be trusted.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm with you.  I CAN-NOT sanction that.  I'm sorry if that makes me a purist.  I'll have enough to answer for when my time comes to stand before the Almighty, but I won't be answering for the sanctioning of non-defensive violence.


Whether you support helping out our allies overseas when they get attacked or not, helping out another country that's been attacked is not an example of an "offensive war."

----------


## Article V

> "Libertarian" is a blanket term to describe several factions.  One of which are libertarian Republicans, or libertarian-conservatives (choose your label they are interchangeable).  That is what Rand, Amash, Massie, Labrador, Yoho, Cruz and others are.  Ron is probably best described at a "paleolibertarian".
> 
> Add to the general "Libertarian" umbrella and you have left-libertarians, agorists, an-caps, neo-libertarians, and other groups.  All of which may at times label themselves as "Libertarian".  Believe it or not, there are some groups out there that say that Ron Paul is not a Libertarian based on some of the views he held.  The left-libertarian camp ripped Paul for his views on abortion and gay rights.  Of course, no one really heard much about that because they are such a very small group of people.


Yeah, "libertarian" has a lot of meanings depending on what group is using it, and our meaning for libertarian isn't any more or less correct than theirs.  In fact, libertarian in Europe means something very different.  Many communists even call themselves "libertarian."  We all need to remember that we are not the arbiters of word definitions or how others use them; we are merely the safe-keepers of our philosophy, whatever we choose to call it in whatever era/locale: classic liberalism, libertarianism, voluntaryism, anarchism, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Whether you support helping out our allies overseas when they get attacked or not, helping out another country that's been attacked is not an example of an "offensive war."


It's in no way non-defensive, as I specified.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> "Libertarian" is a blanket term to describe several factions.  One of which are libertarian Republicans, or libertarian-conservatives (choose your label they are interchangeable).  That is what Rand, Amash, Massie, Labrador, Yoho, Cruz and others are.  Ron is probably best described at a "paleolibertarian".
> 
> Add to the general "Libertarian" umbrella and you have left-libertarians, agorists, an-caps, neo-libertarians, and other groups.  All of which may at times label themselves as "Libertarian".  Believe it or not, there are some groups out there that say that Ron Paul is not a Libertarian based on some of the views he held.  The left-libertarian camp ripped Paul for his views on abortion and gay rights.  Of course, no one really heard much about that because they are such a very small group of people.


I'm sure you could probably find a way to tag Barack Obama as a "libertarian" but that doesn't mean he is.  Neither is Glenn Beck.

----------


## Brett85

> It's in no way non-defensive, as I specified.


Well, it isn't offensive either.  If you're walking along a street and see a man hold a gun to a three year old's head, and then you take out your gun and shoot that man in order to save the three year old, that's not an example of an "offensive" action.

----------


## FrankRep

> A public apology to Debra Medina live on FOX News with a matching front page article on The Blaze would be a start. Until that moment, he's a snake and can't be trusted.


Debra Medina made a critical mistake by dancing around the 9/11 Truth issue. Medina should have known that 9/11 is a hot button for Beck. Critical rookie mistake.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron has always spoken on behalf of a strong national defense.  I don't think it's at all illogical to hold a noninterventionist position, and it is certainly the moral position.


That's exactly how I feel as well.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Debra Medina made a critical mistake by dancing around the 9/11 Truth issue. Medina should have known that 9/11 is a hot button for Beck. Critical rookie mistake.


Beck knew damn good and well Medina was not a politician.  He shoved a loaded question at her that only a masterful politician could have smoothed over.  So I call bull$#@! on that one.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I'm sure you could probably find a way to tag Barack Obama as a "libertarian" but that doesn't mean he is.  Neither is Glenn Beck.


I'm going to say neither are you then.  I am going to solely label only the libertarian-conservative position as the true meaning of Libertarian, and any divergence from that point and you are no longer part of the camp - in fact you are an infiltrator, a we will not stand for your co-optation.  How dare you call yourself a Libertarian and not fall exactly in line with the exact ideology of Barry Goldwater? Be gone, you enemy of the Constitution.

See how stupid that sounds?  Now look in the mirror and listen to what you, yourself are saying.

Incidentally, there are some (voluntaryists, objectivists, anarcho-capitalists) who believe that Ron Paul people are co-opting the Libertarian movement.  http://www.examiner.com/article/are-...arian-movement  They don't want you around.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Well, it isn't offensive either.  If you're walking along a street and see a man hold a gun to a three year old's head, and then you take out your gun and shoot that man in order to save the three year old, that's not an example of an "offensive" action.


IF I personally assess a situation such as you pose and believe it to be an offensive act in the offing, that does not mean that I have the right to force other people to come to the defense of someone else.

If someone wants to go fight for the liberty of another country, I would not stand in their way.  They do not have the right to force other people to fight for their cause, however.

----------


## Article V

> I'm sure you could probably find a way to tag Barack Obama as a "libertarian" but that doesn't mean he is.  Neither is Glenn Beck.


cajuncocoa, I like you based off your name alone.  But I think you need to do more history on the word libertarian, because it's not a term that applies just to those who think like us.  Many libertarians have beliefs we vehemently disagree with, but that disagreement doesn't make them not libertarian--just like there are many variations on skin pigmentation and, thus, Seal can't intelligently call Beyonce not black.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I'm going to say neither are you then.  I am going to solely label only the libertarian-conservative position as the true meaning of Libertarian, and any divergence from that point and you are no longer part of the camp - in fact you are an infiltrator, a we will not stand for your co-optation.  How dare you call yourself a Libertarian and not fall exactly in line with the exact ideology of Barry Goldwater? Be gone, you enemy of the Constitution.
> 
> See how stupid that sounds?  Now look in the mirror and listen to what you, yourself are saying.
> 
> Incidentally, there are some (voluntaryists, objectivists, anarcho-capitalists) who believe that Ron Paul people are co-opting the Libertarian movement.  http://www.examiner.com/article/are-...arian-movement


Fundamental to the meaning of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle.  Granted, there can be some vaguary regarding the scope of the NAP, but it would seem pretty deductive that a non-interventionist foreign policy would be found pretty close to the center of that scope.

ETA: And I think it's pretty clear that the objections to Beck, and in some cases with those who have issues with Rand, rest largely over the question of foreign policy.  It's fairly non-negotiable.

----------


## FrankRep

> Beck knew damn good and well Medina was not a politician.  He shoved a loaded question at her that only a masterful politician could have smoothed over.  So I call bull$#@! on that one.


Glenn Beck told her that he received some emails claiming she was a 9/11 truther. He asked her straight up if she thought the U.S. government attacked its own citizens on 9/11. She didn't answer the question and danced around it. Fatal error.

----------


## Carlybee

> Debra Medina made a critical mistake by dancing around the 9/11 Truth issue. Medina should have known that 9/11 is a hot button for Beck. Critical rookie mistake.


She should've told him to go spin on a stick..that was her mistake.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Fundamental to the meaning of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle.  Granted, there can be some vaguary regarding the scope of the NAP, but it would seem pretty deductive that a non-interventionist foreign policy would be found pretty close to the center of that scope.
> 
> ETA: And I think it's pretty clear that the objections to Beck, and in some cases with those who have issues with Rand, rest largely over the question of foreign policy.  It's fairly non-negotiable.


Well Beck isn't running for anything so it doesn't matter.  And if Rand isn't your guy in 2016, then I am sure there will be some no-name out there that meets your needs.  Good luck with that.

But your "non-negotiable" statement illustrates exactly what Beck was talking about when he referenced the Libertarian habit of cannibalization.  No big deal though. Life goes on with or without you.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Well Beck isn't running for anything so it doesn't matter.  And if Rand isn't your guy in 2016, then I am sure there will be some no-name out there that meets your needs.  Good luck with that.
> 
> But your "non-negotiable" statement illustrates exactly what Beck was talking about when he referenced the Libertarian habit of cannibalization.  No big deal though. Life goes on with or without you.


Way to miss the ENTIRE point of that post.  Holy...

Let's try this again - Fundamental to the meaning of "libertarianism" is the NAP.  Sure, there may be some negotiation as to what defines the NAP, it seems pretty OBVIOUS that a _non-interventionist_ foreign policy IS included.  

Your post basically reads, "rawr I'm mad at your words and definitions, so to heck with you".  SMH.

----------


## Confederate

> If that truly is Rand's official foreign policy stance, I cannot support him.


You won't support him anyway.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Glenn Beck told her that he received some emails claiming she was a 9/11 truther. He asked her straight up if she thought the U.S. government attacked its own citizens on 9/11. She didn't answer the question and danced around it. Fatal error.


Aaaaand Beck almost certainly received emails about Rick Perry believing in chemtrails...but he never confronted him on that now did he?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Way to miss the ENTIRE point of that post.  Holy...


No I get your point.  There are two schools of thought here at work.

One is folks like myself.  We might not agree with everything that Beck or whomever states, but the good far outweighs the bad and we see the value in what they do.  We can agree to disagree on some issues.

Then there is the other side, which I believe you are representative of that does not agree with everything that Beck says, are so incensed by those points of disagreement that you find little if any value in what they have to say.  So rather than "agreeing to disagree", you prefer to shun him.

You know there were people out there who did the very same thing to Ron Paul.  Instead of focusing on the areas where they agreed with him, they focused on the areas of disagreement and shunned him.  Beck is guilty of that, and it was wrong.

----------


## Carlybee

I suspect Beck's ratings are in down spiral mode. The establishment probably told him to get bent and he is desperate to salvage his following. The man is so wishy washy he is on permanent spin cycle.  The best way to neutralize him is to stop listening to him. He has made liberty an embarrassing term and as long as he keeps trying to define himself as part of the liberty movement, it's potential appeal to outsiders is dead in the water.

----------


## Carlybee

> Aaaaand Beck almost certainly received emails about Rick Perry believing in chemtrails...but he never confronted him on that now did he?


Perry's campaign was in collusion with Beck to do whatever was necessary to neutralize Debra.

----------


## amonasro

Beck has been at work since 2008 trashing liberty candidates with a style that would make Elmer Gantry blush. If you can't see that you are either too new, too trusting, or have some vested interest to promote him.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No I get your point.  There are two schools of thought here at work.
> 
> One is folks like myself.  We might not agree with everything that Beck or whomever states, but the good far outweighs the bad and we see the value in what they do.  We can agree to disagree on some issues.
> 
> Then there is the other side, which I believe you are representative of that does not agree with everything that Beck says, are so incensed by those points of disagreement that you find little if any value in what they have to say.  So rather than "agreeing to disagree", you prefer to shun him.
> 
> You know there were people out there who did the very same thing to Ron Paul.  Instead of focusing on the areas where they agreed with him, they focused on the areas of disagreement and shunned him.  Beck is guilty of that, and it was wrong.


You are aware that I've made this exact argument almost word for word right here in RPF's before right?

Because Beck 'sees the light' like clockwork, a couple months _after_ every single election.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No I get your point.  There are two schools of thought here at work.
> 
> One is folks like myself.  We might not agree with everything that Beck or whomever states, but the good far outweighs the bad and we see the value in what they do.  We can agree to disagree on some issues.
> 
> Then there is the other side, which I believe you are representative of that does not agree with everything that Beck says, are so incensed by those points of disagreement that you find little if any value in what they have to say.  So rather than "agreeing to disagree", you prefer to shun him.
> 
> You know there were people out there who did the very same thing to Ron Paul.  Instead of focusing on the areas where they agreed with him, they focused on the areas of disagreement and shunned him.  Beck is guilty of that, and it was wrong.


It's not a point of disagreement.  An interventionist foreign policy kills people, right now.  It's fundamental to the non-aggression principle (and therefore libertarianism), Christian ethics, and just plain old human decency.  

Beck in particular has a soapbox, and if he leads people AWAY from a non-interventionist foreign policy, there is NO WAY that even if he convinces some people that the Fed is bad, for instance, he can do more good than harm.  

Besides, as has been shown in this thread, Beck's M.O. has been to derail the liberty movement.

----------


## ctiger2

Beck is self loathing then. Snake.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> He has made liberty an embarrassing term and as long as he keeps trying to define himself as part of the liberty movement, it's potential appeal to outsiders is dead in the water.


This is key, as well.

----------


## Brett85

> IF I personally assess a situation such as you pose and believe it to be an offensive act in the offing, that does not mean that I have the right to force other people to come to the defense of someone else.
> 
> If someone wants to go fight for the liberty of another country, I would not stand in their way.  They do not have the right to force other people to fight for their cause, however.


I'm not arguing in favor of helping out other countries overseas that have been attacked.  I'm only arguing that it shouldn't be defined as being an "offensive action."  The War in Iraq was an example of an offensive war, where we attacked a country that wasn't attacking anyone else and was simply minding their own business.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I'm not arguing in favor of helping out other countries overseas that have been attacked.  I'm only arguing that it shouldn't be defined as being an "offensive action."  The War in Iraq was an example of an offensive war, where we attacked a country that wasn't attacking anyone else and was simply minding their own business.


But I specifically said, "non-defensive violence" the post you quoted.  I said I couldn't sanction non-defensive violence.  Are we just talking past each other?

----------


## Brett85

> But I specifically said, "non-defensive violence" the post you quoted.  I said I couldn't sanction non-defensive violence.  Are we just talking past each other?


What exactly is the difference between a "non defensive war" and an "offensive war"?

----------


## supermario21

Wasn't Goldwater a big interventionist during his presidential campaign?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> But I specifically said, "non-defensive violence" the post you quoted.  I said I couldn't sanction non-defensive violence.  Are we just talking past each other?


To be fair, the legal definition of 'defense' is "self defense and defense of others."

By law (and as it happens, by the NAP) you are as authorized to use deadly force to defend your neighbor as you are yourself.

I'm not trying to imply whether or not this applies at the national level, but if what we are doing is taking the individual concept of "NAP" or "defense" then we have to account for the legitimacy of 'defense of others' in BOTH of those frameworks.

Also, from a strictly constitutional standpoint, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10 to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations" is one even we Paulers tend to overlook.

Point being not that defending another nation is necessarily right, but rather than EVEN in the NAP, the legal definition of 'defense,' and in the US Constitution the issue is not remotely as cut and dry as it's being made out to be.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm going to say neither are you then.  I am going to solely label only the libertarian-conservative position as the true meaning of Libertarian, and any divergence from that point and you are no longer part of the camp - in fact you are an infiltrator, a we will not stand for your co-optation.  How dare you call yourself a Libertarian and not fall exactly in line with the exact ideology of Barry Goldwater? Be gone, you enemy of the Constitution.
> 
> See how stupid that sounds?  Now look in the mirror and listen to what you, yourself are saying.
> 
> Incidentally, there are some (voluntaryists, objectivists, anarcho-capitalists) who believe that Ron Paul people are co-opting the Libertarian movement.  http://www.examiner.com/article/are-...arian-movement  They don't want you around.





> cajuncocoa, I like you based off your name alone.  But I think you need to do more history on the word libertarian, because it's not a term that applies just to those who think like us.  Many libertarians have beliefs we vehemently disagree with, but that disagreement doesn't make them not libertarian--just like there are many variations on skin pigmentation and, thus, Seal can't intelligently call Beyonce not black.


Here's what works for me....

this is my score




Ron Paul:



Rand Paul:



Marco Rubio:



Rick Santorum:



I wish we could find Glenn Beck's score (if he's taken that test)...I'll bet he would score between Rubio and Santorum rather than between the two Pauls.

----------


## Article V

> Fundamental to the meaning of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle.


Actually, there are lots of libertarian philosophers and libertarian groups that promote aggression.  The Non-Aggression Principle is fundamental to the Libertarian Party, but many other libertarians do not subscribe to the principle.

I, for one, believe in the non-aggression principle; but I can't in earnest pretend that those who don't aren't libertarians--they're just not my kind of libertarians.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Here's what works for me....
> 
> this is my score


Oh my, your dot doesn't fall on the exact same spot as Ron Paul's.  Someone prepare the stake, we're going to have a witch burning today!!

----------


## AuH20

> Wasn't Goldwater a big interventionist during his presidential campaign?


Not really a doctrinaire interventionist. He wanted to end the Vietnam War ASAP via asserted action. Note that many of our contemporary interventionists have no problem pledging an amorphous, undefinable 100 year campaign to the WoT (see John McCain).

----------


## Petar



----------


## cajuncocoa

> You won't support him anyway.


That's not a certainty; a lot can happen in 3 years.  But if Rand keeps moving closer to Beck's views and farther away from his father's, I probably won't.

----------


## Article V

> I wish we could find Glenn Beck's score (if he's taken that test)...I'll bet he would score between Rubio and Santorum rather than between the two Pauls.


You think Beck--a guy who regularly promotes the legalization of drugs and the total abolishment of the Federal Reserve--is going to score between Rubio and Santorum?  Haha.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Oh my, your dot doesn't fall on the exact same spot as Ron Paul's.  Someone prepare the stake, we're going to have a witch burning today!!

----------


## AuH20

> You think Beck--a guy who regularly promotes the legalization of drugs and the total abolishment of the Federal Reserve--is going to score between Rubio and Santorum?  Haha.


Beck didn't even like many of Santorum's stances when he endorsed him. There is an interview floating around when he castigated Santorum on his show for his questionable votes and comments. Nevertheless, he still felt Santorum was a more palatable choice than Ron Paul, who was too "all or nothing" for his liking.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You think Beck--a guy who regularly promotes the legalization of drugs and the total abolishment of the Federal Reserve--is going to score between Rubio and Santorum?  Haha.


while telling his audience NEVER to vote for candidates who promote the legalization of drugs and the abolishment of the Fed.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> What exactly is the difference between a "non defensive war" and an "offensive war"?


I was making the distinction between a defensive war - one in which a country is attacked - and a "third party" defensive war.

----------


## Article V

> Here's what works for me....
> 
> this is my score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Paul:


By the way, both your score and Ron's score are a little too moderate for my taste; but I don't go around demonizing.  In my opinion, the more libertarian one becomes the more one learns to accept others rather than demonize them, and trust that eventually your ideas will prevail and convince them if you can figure out a way to communicate.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Beck didn't even like many of Santorum's stances when he endorsed him. There is an interview floating around when he castigated Santorum on his show for his questionable votes and comments. Nevertheless, he still felt Santorum was a more palatable choice than Ron Paul, who was too "all or nothing" for his liking.


And yet Santorum was 10-fold more 'all or nothing' (on his pet social issues) than Ron Paul has ever been.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> To be fair, the legal definition of 'defense' is "self defense and defense of others."
> 
> By law (and as it happens, by the NAP) you are as authorized to use deadly force to defend your neighbor as you are yourself.
> 
> I'm not trying to imply whether or not this applies at the national level, but if what we are doing is taking the individual concept of "NAP" or "defense" then we have to account for the legitimacy of 'defense of others' in BOTH of those frameworks.
> 
> Also, from a strictly constitutional standpoint, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10 to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations" is one even we Paulers tend to overlook.
> 
> Point being not that defending another nation is necessarily right, but rather than EVEN in the NAP, the legal definition of 'defense,' and in the US Constitution the issue is not remotely as cut and dry as it's being made out to be.


Granted, Gunny.  

In that post, I was specifically referring to my personal moral objections.

----------


## Confederate

> And yet Santorum was 10-fold more 'all or nothing' (on his pet social issues) than Ron Paul has ever been.


Santorum is quite a bit better than Ron on social issues.

----------


## FrancisMarion

I used to watch Glenn on TV for awhile and then stopped.  I have listened to him on the radio recently as I have been traveling more.  I don't declare that I know as much of him and his tactics as you do.  However, I do find that what he says is agreeable in large part to my thinking and if I can collectively say so, what this board thinks as a whole.

So I bring this as an inquisitive analogy and question:

Since when do endorsements matter?  Since Rand endorsed Romney?  The argument for Rand's endorsement of Romney was that the real determination of Rand's worth in in his record and daily political statements and posturing.  I agree.

What if GB has had to play a different game with the same dynamics?  What if he has had to do this last minute "endorsing" to continue to be a presence?

What if he is more of an ally than you think?  Should his judgement be determined through what he says from day to day or what he says come election time?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You think Beck--a guy who regularly promotes the legalization of drugs and the total abolishment of the Federal Reserve--is going to score between Rubio and Santorum?  Haha.


I wish there had been a question about the Federal Reserve on the test, but there wasn't.  I don't think the drug law enforcement question would be enough to qualify Beck as a libertarian. Just my opinion.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Santorum is quite a bit better than Ron on social issues.


I hope this is sarcasm.....

----------


## AuH20

> And yet Santorum was 10-fold more 'all or nothing' (on his pet social issues) than Ron Paul has ever been.


I don't think Ron won any fans by being tricked into supporting heroin use on national TV nor constantly advocating that we must remove every foreign base by next Tuesday. I believe that ideoligical rigidity drove away potential voters including Beck, who largely agree with Ron Paul's general message.

----------


## Confederate

> I hope this is sarcasm.....


Santorum is anti-abortion, Ron Paul isn't. Santorum is anti-birth control, Ron Paul isn't. 

IMO, Santorum is much better than Ron on those issues.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> By the way, both your score and Ron's score are a little too moderate for my taste; but I don't go around demonizing.  In my opinion, the more libertarian one becomes the more one learns to accept others rather than demonize them, and trust that eventually your ideas will prevail and convince them if you can figure out a way to communicate.


It isn't about demonization.  It's about what we are willing to accept _morally_, in my case and I'm willing to bet in cc's, also.  

Our position on this issue means that we're not going to support a candidate, or a personality, who is going to as a matter of policy or a matter of advocacy, result in people being killed in wars of aggression.  

While I can understand how that might seem like we're "demonizing", it might be worthwhile for some folks who are willing to make such coalitions to consider those consequences.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> By the way, both your score and Ron's score are a little too moderate for my taste; but I don't go around demonizing.  In my opinion, the more libertarian one becomes the more one learns to accept others rather than demonize them, and trust that eventually your ideas will prevail and convince them if you can figure out a way to communicate.


It's not about "demonizing"....whether I would support you politically (or you would support me) doesn't mean we can't respect one another.  This is about the improper use of a word; trying to make it mean something other than what it really means.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't think Ron won any fans by being tricked into supporting heroin use on national TV nor constantly advocating that we must remove every foreign base by next Tuesday. I believe that ideoligical rigidity drove away potential voters including Beck.


Only because Beck agreed with Santorum's 1000x "all or nothings" while he didn't like Ron Paul's 100x "all or nothings."

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I wish there had been a question about the Federal Reserve on the test, but there wasn't.  I don't think the drug law enforcement question would be enough to qualify Beck as a libertarian. Just my opinion.


A lot of those tests are poorly written.  There was one I saw that skewed the answers in such a way that only a die hard socialist would choose anything but the "libertarian" answer.  And of course, when you completed the test you were shown to be a "libertarian" - congrats to you, sign up for our newsletter.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Santorum is anti-abortion, Ron Paul isn't. Santorum is anti-birth control, Ron Paul isn't. 
> 
> IMO, Santorum is much better than Ron on those issues.


o.O

Ok, we're just going to have to agree that I now consider you a space alien.

----------


## Carlybee

> Santorum is quite a bit better than Ron on social issues.



How so?

----------


## AuH20

> Only because Beck agreed with Santorum's 1000x "all or nothings" while he didn't like Ron Paul's 100x "all or nothings."


I wouldn't say that was the prime reason. It was more of a faith based bias. Beck gravitated more to Santorum despite ample disagreement, because he felt he was a man of God, which isn't as prounounced with Ron.

----------


## Confederate

> o.O
> 
> Ok, we're just going to have to agree that I now consider you a space alien.


Why's that? Ron Paul isn't consistently pro-life because he does not object to the "morning after" abortion pill or birth control that potentially aborts a fertilized egg by preventing implantation.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I wouldn't say that was the prime reason. It was more of a faith based bias. Beck gravitated more to Santorum despite ample disagreement, because he felt he was a man of God, which isn't as prounounced with Ron.


Yeah, yet another problem I have with Beck.  His understanding of God and what it means to be a Christian are bizarre and offensive to me.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I don't think Ron won any fans by being tricked into supporting heroin use on national TV [...]


I'm not sure which is more ridiculous - the assertion that Ron "supported" heroin use, or the notion that he was "tricked" into doing so ...

----------


## Confederate

> Yeah, yet another problem I have with Beck.  His understanding of God and what it means to be a Christian are bizarre and offensive to me.


Well he is a Mormon...

----------


## Carlybee

> Why's that? Ron Paul isn't consistently pro-life because he does not object to the "morning after" abortion pill or birth control that potentially aborts a fertilized egg by preventing implantation.


So what. If Santorum had his way women would be outfitted with chastity belts at puberty.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I wouldn't say that was the prime reason. It was more of a faith based bias. Beck gravitated more to Santorum despite ample disagreement, because he felt he was a man of God, which isn't as prounounced with Ron.


and a clear indication of Beck's LACK of godliness.  One of the primary teachings of Christ is that the tax collector and blatant sinner who has a humble heart and repents before God is more of a man of God than the perfect Pharisee who is proud and lords his sanctimony over his peers.  The same Spirit which drove that teaching 2000 years ago is the same Spirit which moves the men of God today.  I would argue that anybody who thinks Santorum is even half as Godly as Paul are themselves lacking the Spirit.  Certainly the spirit of discernment.

----------


## mad cow

> By the way, both your score and Ron's score are a little too moderate for my taste; but I don't go around demonizing.  In my opinion, the more libertarian one becomes the more one learns to accept others rather than demonize them, and trust that eventually your ideas will prevail and convince them if you can figure out a way to communicate.


Truth.I have taken that test countless times and I have never scored as low as Ron Paul's dot there.
I will take my allies where I can get them,even if just on one or two particulars we happen to agree on and maybe just for that one particular battle.

I don't need any more enemies.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> and a clear indication of Beck's LACK of godliness.  One of the primary teachings of Christ is that the tax collector and blatant sinner who has a humble heart and repents before God is more of a man of God than the perfect Pharisee who is proud and lords his sanctimony over his peers.  The same Spirit which drove that teaching 2000 years ago is the same Spirit which moves the men of God today.  I would argue that anybody who thinks Santorum is even half as Godly as Paul are themselves lacking the Spirit.  Certainly the spirit of discernment.


Owe.  You.  Rep.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't think Ron won any fans by being tricked into supporting heroin use on national TV nor constantly advocating that we must remove every foreign base by next Tuesday. I believe that ideoligical rigidity drove away potential voters including Beck, who largely agree with Ron Paul's general message.


I support Ron for his "ideological rigidity".... you never have to wonder where he stands on something.  He's consistent.  Of course people aren't ready for that...they're too used to listening to the wishy-washy opinions of people like Beck, who decide how they feel about an issue depending on which party proposed it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Well he is a Mormon...


To be clear, my objections have nothing to do with him being a Mormon.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So what. If Santorum had his way women would be outfitted with chastity belts at puberty.


No kidding!

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Good times yet I get that Levin and Beck have track records of flipping when it counts. That said, Rand has been bullet proofing his message and it definitely won't be easy trying to demagogue him as much as they did Ron.

----------


## Confederate

> So what. If Santorum had his way women would be outfitted with chastity belts at puberty.


No, and to say so is intellectually dishonest. Saying that is not much better than when the media labelled Ron as supporting drug use and prostitution.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Wow. Glenn Beck finally gets it! This is wonderful news!

On a more serious note, is Glenn Beck on radio or TV anymore? And did his attempt at becoming the next Pastor Hagee somehow not work out?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Why's that? Ron Paul isn't consistently pro-life because he does not object to the "morning after" abortion pill or birth control that potentially aborts a fertilized egg by preventing implantation.


The bible defines that life is in the blood.  If you come from a strictly Christian perspective, "life begins at conception" is a fiction.  Per scripture, and I mean genesis through revelation scripture - the whole thing - life comes from the breath of God that is carried in the blood.  An unborn child becomes 'alive' the moment there is a presence of blood.  Which is ~12 days after conception.  From a purely scriptural theology, the morning after pill and birth control are perfectly acceptable.

The reason you end up with 'life begins at conception' zealots, is the same reason you have Baptists screaming hellfire and damnation over wine and dancing.  Organic corruption.  This is one of the top-5 complaints that Jesus Christ made against the Pharisees - drawing hedges around the law.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Good times yet I get that Levin and Beck have track records of flipping when it counts. That said, Rand has been bullet proofing his message and it definitely won't be easy trying to demagogue him as much as they did Ron.


If that remains true, it only means Rand has moved too far away from his Dad's views for me.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, and to say so is intellectually dishonest. Saying that is not much better than when the media labelled Ron as supporting drug use and prostitution.


I agree that was an exaggeration, but good Lord Santorum is a pharisaical theocrat!  Not even a theological theocrat like BlackTerrell, a _pharisaical_ theocrat!  That's like....the fastest way to piss God off that mankind has ever devised!!!

----------


## AuH20

> If that remains true, it only means Rand has moved too far away from his Dad's views for me.


More like that he has "arrived", politically speaking. He is considered a legitimate presidential candidate, despite all the attempts to nullify his ascent.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Wow. Glenn Beck finally gets it! This is wonderful news!
> 
> On a more serious note, is Glenn Beck on radio or TV anymore? And did his attempt at becoming the next Pastor Hagee somehow not work out?


He has a network now I believe it is on one of the satellite providers and I think they are trying to get cable providers to pick it up.  I catch maybe 15 minutes of him here and there when I am out and about so I am not sure of the details.

----------


## Article V

> Beck didn't even like many of Santorum's stances when he endorsed him. There is an interview floating around when he castigated Santorum on his show for his questionable votes and comments. Nevertheless, he still felt Santorum was a more palatable choice than Ron Paul, who was too "all or nothing" for his liking.





> while telling his audience NEVER to vote for candidates who promote the legalization of drugs and the abolishment of the Fed.


Beck told his audience they should support an orange (the fruit) over Barack Obama.  Beck said that he'd literally vote for ANYONE who was not Barack Obama.  The only reasons Beck didn't endorse Ron Paul is because Beck didn't think Ron had a snowball's chance of winning and thought Ron's policy of sit-back-and-watch-Iran-get-a-nuke was suicidal.  I obviously disagree with Beck on those two points, but he's not un-libertarian for thinking those things and then making a regrettable political endorsement based off what he considered less than desirable circumstances.  Ultimately, I believe Beck was just acting as a preservationist trying to hold a wall as best he could until a future election presents him with a candidate he agrees with more.  I'm not going to demonize him for that, especially when his next candidate (Rand) is my next candidate!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The bible defines that life is in the blood.  If you come from a strictly Christian perspective, "life begins at conception" is a fiction.  Per scripture, and I mean genesis through revelation scripture - the whole thing - life comes from the breath of God that is carried in the blood.  An unborn child becomes 'alive' the moment there is a presence of blood.  Which is ~12 days after conception.  From a purely scriptural theology, the morning after pill and birth control are perfectly acceptable.
> 
> The reason you end up with 'life begins at conception' zealots, is the same reason you have Baptists screaming hellfire and damnation over wine and dancing.  Organic corruption.  This is one of the top-5 complaints that Jesus Christ made against the Pharisees - drawing hedges around the law.


Thanks for this; I'm ashamed to say that I did not know this.

I had no idea that, based strictly upon an areligious, philosophical stance, I hold a more strict view regarding abortion than the Bible!

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I support Ron for his "ideological rigidity".... you never have to wonder where he stands on something.  He's consistent.  Of course people aren't ready for that...they're too used to listening to the wishy-washy opinions of people like Beck, who decide how they feel about an issue depending on which party proposed it.


Ron's "ideological rigidity" appealed to two types of folks.  One is long time libertarian/paleo-con folks like myself that understand what he is speaking about, and the other were the new people that were "tired of the same old politicians" and appreciated the frankness of what he said.  The problem was the 99% of the rest of the voters whom he scared $#@!less with that rigidity.

----------


## Carlybee

> No, and to say so is intellectually dishonest. Saying that is not much better than when the media labelled Ron as supporting drug use and prostitution.


Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but not far off base. The guy is scary right wing and unacceptable to many women of the libertarian bent.  Perhaps Phyllis Schaffly likes him. LOL

----------


## cajuncocoa

> More like that he has "arrived", politically speaking. He is considered a legitimate presidential candidate, despite all the attempts to nullify his ascent.


He has definitely "arrived" and is "ascending"....I just don't know for certain yet if I'm on board with him.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Beck told his audience they should support an orange (the fruit) over Barack Obama.  Beck said that he'd literally vote for ANYONE who was not Barack Obama.  The only reasons Beck didn't endorse Ron Paul is because Beck didn't think Ron had a snowball's chance of winning and thought Ron's policy of sit-back-and-watch-Iran-get-a-nuke was suicidal.  I obviously disagree with Beck on those two points, but he's not un-libertarian for thinking those things and then making a regrettable political endorsement based off what he considered less than desirable circumstances.  Ultimately, I believe Beck was just acting as a preservationist trying to hold a wall as best he could until a future election presents him with a candidate he agrees with more.  I'm not going to demonize him for that, especially when his next candidate (Rand) is my next candidate!


I listen to Beck regularly.  I disagree with two things here:

1. Beck would wholly endorse a preemptive attack on Iran.  That makes him un-libertarian, in the sense which we all here are using it.

2. Beck got fully on the Romney bandwagon.  He was - and I $#@! you not, here - comparing him (favorably!) to George Washington.  He gave no indication that he was making a regrettable endorsement.  It's true, his first pick was Santorum and/or Bachmann, but he was ALL IN for Romney, to the point that it was embarrassing.

----------


## Confederate

> Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but not far off base. The guy is scary right wing and unacceptable to many women of the libertarian bent.  Perhaps Phyllis Schaffly likes him. LOL


Schaffly is an amazing woman and I wish more young women looked up to her as a role model.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Beck told his audience they should support an orange (the fruit) over Barack Obama.  Beck said that he'd literally vote for ANYONE who was not Barack Obama.  The only reasons Beck didn't endorse Ron Paul is because Beck didn't think Ron had a snowball's chance of winning and thought Ron's policy of sit-back-and-watch-Iran-get-a-nuke was suicidal.  I obviously disagree with Beck on those two points, but he's not un-libertarian for thinking those things and then making a regrettable political endorsement based off what he considered less than desirable circumstances.  Ultimately, I believe Beck was just acting as a preservationist trying to hold a wall as best he could until a future election presents him with a candidate he agrees with more.  I'm not going to demonize him for that, especially when his next candidate (Rand) is my next candidate!


Beck could be the most libertarian human being on the planet Earth.  It's irrelevant.  Every election like clockwork he demands that his people vote for the hard-core establishmentarian.  That's whats relevant.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron's "ideological rigidity" appealed to two types of folks.  One is long time libertarian/paleo-con folks like myself that understand what he is speaking about, and the other were the new people that were "tired of the same old politicians" and appreciated the frankness of what he said.  The problem was the 99% of the rest of the voters whom he scared $#@!less with that rigidity.


At least they were _told_ to be scared $#@!less.  We're talking about people who don't regularly think for themselves.  Glenn Beck is responsible for a lot of that thinking, hence I can never have anything but contempt for Beck.

TPTB did everything in their power to marginalize Ron and paint him as a kook...Ron threatened the status quo like nobody has done before or since.

----------


## Carlybee

I remember Beck from the early post 9-11 days with all his Freedom Rallies...no bigger gung ho Bush apologist warmonger around at the time.

----------


## AuH20

> I listen to Beck regularly.  I disagree with two things here:
> 
> 1. Beck would wholly endorse a preemptive attack on Iran.  That makes him un-libertarian, in the sense which we all here are using it.
> 
> 2. Beck got fully on the Romney bandwagon.  He was - and I $#@! you not, here - comparing him (favorably!) to George Washington.  He gave no indication that he was making a regrettable endorsement.  It's true, his first pick was Santorum and/or Bachmann, but he was ALL IN for Romney, to the point that it was embarrassing.


Point #1 is correct. But #2 is misleading. I heard Beck frequently criticize Romney as a lackluster choice during election season, but a necessary evil in comparison to Obama.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Schaffly is an amazing woman and I wish more young women looked up to her as a role model.


One facepalm isn't enough for this one.

----------


## georgiaboy

> Beck got fully on the Romney bandwagon.


/thread

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> At least they were _told_ to be scared $#@!less.  We're talking about people who don't regularly think for themselves.  Glenn Beck is responsible for a lot of that thinking, hence I can never have anything but contempt for Beck.
> 
> TPTB did everything in their power to marginalize Ron and paint him as a kook...Ron threatened the status quo like nobody has done before or since.


They did, but I do not agree with the statement that "we're talking about people who don't regularly think for themselves".  I know many people with whom I am friends with who did not support Ron because of his "black & white" type of speaking.  These are intelligent people who were successful in their careers and lives.  It is elitist to assume that everyone that didn't "get it" is somehow not thinking for themselves.  The left uses similar language and it is disingenuous.

In all honesty how is saying "we're talking about people who don't regularly think for themselves" any different that when Obama referred to people as "clinging to their guns and their Bibles"?

----------


## Article V

> Originally Posted by Article V
> 
> You think Beck--a guy who regularly promotes the legalization of drugs and the total abolishment of the Federal Reserve--is going to score between Rubio and Santorum? Haha.
> 
> 
> I wish there had been a question about the Federal Reserve on the test, but there wasn't. I don't think the drug law enforcement question would be enough to qualify Beck as a libertarian. Just my opinion. I wish there had been a question about the Federal Reserve on the test, but there wasn't.  I don't think the drug law enforcement question would be enough to qualify Beck as a libertarian. Just my opinion.


Well, I wasn't trying to say whether Beck is or isn't libertarian (only Beck knows for certain); I was more laughing at the idea that Beck would score between Rubio and Santorum on any political test.  There's just no way that's true.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, I wasn't trying to say whether Beck is or isn't libertarian (only Beck knows for certain); I was more laughing at the idea that Beck would score between Rubio and Santorum on any political test.  There's just no way that's true.


Looks true to me.  But then I discern based on actions not words.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I remember Beck from the early post 9-11 days with all his Freedom Rallies...no bigger gung ho Bush apologist warmonger around at the time.


I had only heard *of* him before 2008...when his show was first broadcast in the NOLA market, I listened (and like some here, I fell for it...but not for long!!)  During the summer of 2008, he was critical of Bush and called him a "progressive" (and Beck hinted at the idea that he was becoming a libertarian even then)....damn, I thought he was getting it!!  Over time, it became obvious that he's nothing but a charlatan. By the time Debra Medina was on his show I had already stopped listening regularly, but I tuned in that morning to hear how that would go.  That was the last straw for me.

----------


## Confederate

> One facepalm isn't enough for this one.


Why don't you like her? She's extremely anti-UN and globalism, pro-US sovereignty and great on social issues. Thanks to her the horrible equal rights amendment was defeated. She founded the Eagle Forum which is anti-vaccine.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> They did, but I do not agree with the statement that "we're talking about people who don't regularly think for themselves".  I know many people with whom I am friends with who did not support Ron because of his "black & white" type of speaking.  These are intelligent people who were successful in their careers and lives.  It is elitist to assume that everyone that didn't "get it" is somehow not thinking for themselves.  The left uses similar language and it is disingenuous.
> 
> In all honesty how is saying "we're talking about people who don't regularly think for themselves" any different that when Obama referred to people as "clinging to their guns and their Bibles"?


How do you see those two statements as alike?  I don't.  You can "cling" to guns and the Bible and still be a person who thinks for him/herself.  People who only parrot what Beck and Hannity say are clearly allowing those two to do their thinking.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

a bit off-topic, but regarding the fact that even we Paulers tend to overlook the 'law of nations' piece in the US Constitution, did you know that America is Constitutionally authorized to use the military to punish America for violation of the law of nations?




> Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:
> (1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.
> 
> (5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.


Therefore, per the US Constitution, it is legal for the United States to use military force against the United States for violating the Law of Nations per Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10.

Weird huh?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> How do you see those two statements as alike?  I don't.  You can "cling" to guns and the Bible and still be a person who thinks for him/herself.  People who only parrot what Beck and Hannity say are clearly allowing those two to do their thinking.


They both reek of elitism.  You have expressed that mindset often on here and I disagree with it.  There are plenty of intelligent people out there that are conservative, constitutionalist, and libertarian in their views that did not fawn all over Ron Paul.  Assuming that people who did not are not thinking for themselves is elitism.

----------


## erowe1

> Why don't you like her? She's extremely anti-UN and globalism, pro-US sovereignty and great on social issues.


Great on almost all issues.

Education, national ID, constitutionalism. If we can't have alliances with her ilk, we might as well stop pretending anything good can ever come of elections.

----------


## Carlybee

> Schaffly is an amazing woman and I wish more young women looked up to her as a role model.



I never looked up to her although I agree with some of her stances regarding the UN and some other issues. She promotes female subservience ergo she is no advocate of liberty. She is a hard right wing conservative hence my comment that she would like Santorum.

----------


## Confederate

> I never looked up to her although I agree with some of her stances regarding the UN and some other issues. She promotes female subservience ergo she is no advocate of liberty. She is a hard right wing conservative hence my comment that she would like Santorum.


No, she does not promote subservience. She promotes traditional complimentarian gender roles. Don't twist her views.

----------


## erowe1

> Point #1 is correct. But #2 is misleading. I heard Beck frequently criticize Romney as a lackluster choice during election season, but a necessary evil in comparison to Obama.


Beck was doing his best to help Romney throughout the entire primary season. He was sly about it. And he threw in criticisms and fake endorsements of other candidates so that he could say he wasn't. But he was.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Why don't you like her? She's extremely anti-UN and globalism, pro-US sovereignty and great on social issues.


Not so great on social issues, in my opinion.  

PS strikes me as a woman who, while being successful in her own right, would prefer _other_ women to stay barefoot and pregnant in their kitchens.  I don't agree with every aspect of feminism, but it has allowed women to have choices that they didn't have prior to the 1970s.

----------


## erowe1

> She promotes female subservience ergo she is no advocate of liberty.


Why can't advocates of liberty do that?

----------


## Confederate

> Great on almost all issues.
> 
> Education, national ID, constitutionalism. If we can't have alliances with her ilk, we might as well stop pretending anything good can ever come of elections.


I really hope she and her organizations endorse Rand. She endorsed Bachmann last time around.

----------


## Confederate

> Not so great on social issues, in my opinion.  
> 
> PS strikes me as a woman who, while being successful in her own right, would prefer _other_ women to stay barefoot and pregnant in their kitchens.  I don't agree with every aspect of feminism, but it has allowed women to have choices that they didn't have prior to the 1970s.


She's almost perfect on social issues, IMO.

----------


## Carlybee

> No, she does not promote subservience. She promotes traditional complimentarian gender roles. Don't twist her views.


I say potato you say potahto. I call it as I see it and am not twisting anything.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> They both reek of elitism.  You have expressed that mindset often on here and I disagree with it.  There are plenty of intelligent people out there that are conservative, constitutionalist, and libertarian in their views that did not fawn all over Ron Paul.  Assuming that people who did not are not thinking for themselves is elitism.


I do not imply that *all* were not thinking for themselves.  But *many* were not.  I stand by that assertion.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> She's almost perfect on social issues, IMO.


 Please explain why you think so...I'd really be interested in hearing this.

----------


## Article V

> I listen to Beck regularly.  I disagree with two things here:
> 
> 1. Beck would wholly endorse a preemptive attack on Iran.  That makes him un-libertarian, in the sense which we all here are using it.
> 
> 2. Beck got fully on the Romney bandwagon.  He was - and I $#@! you not, here - comparing him (favorably!) to George Washington.  He gave no indication that he was making a regrettable endorsement.  It's true, his first pick was Santorum and/or Bachmann, but he was ALL IN for Romney, to the point that it was embarrassing.


While I disagree with Beck on both of those things, I don't think either of them make Beck un-libertarian even in the sense which we all here are using it.  Let me explain:

1.  In Beck's opinion, Iran has already expressed the desire to destroy both America and Israel and will not hesitate to use the bomb if they can get it; so for Beck, attacking Iran if they are incredibly close to acquiring a nuke is a matter of self-defense as he considers Iran at that point an imminent threat based off Iran's rhetoric.  It's the libertarian equivalent to attacking a madman outside your window who's screaming, "I'm gonna kill you!" while he's finishing loading his gun.

2.  Fully on the Romney bandwagon after Romney is the presumptive nominee does not make one un-libertarian.  Rand got fully on the Romney bandwagon while Ron Paul was still in the race!  People don't make endorsements with words like "I regret to make this endorsement but..."; so I'm not sure exactly what you were expecting Beck to do.  Once Romney was the nominee, Beck would have said almost anything to support him because Beck thought Obama that much of a threat--but when Romney wasn't the presumptive nominee, he openly said "Romney isn't different than Obama" and "if the Tea Party supports Romney when they have other GOP choices, then they might very well be a bunch of racists because otherwise what's the difference between Romney and Obama?"  

I think you're falling into the trap of confusing political strategy with philosophical thought.  Beck isn't willing to let his political strategy undermine his philosophical thought, so he plays the rhetoric game when necessary in order not to lose ground.  Ron Paul didn't care about political strategy and so regularly undermined his philosophical goals; Rand seems to want to avoid the pitfalls his father actively walked into, which is why Beck thinks Rand could be the first libertarian to win.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I really hope she and her organizations endorse Rand. She endorsed Bachmann last time around.


Well, OK then.  I guess you supported bat$#@! crazy Michelle too?

----------


## AuH20

> Beck was doing his best to help Romney throughout the entire primary season. He was sly about it. And he threw in criticisms and fake endorsements of other candidates so that he could say he wasn't. But he was.


Did you hear the story when Romney blew off Beck at a campaign event????? Beck delivered George Washington's resignation letter to Romney at an event and was completely shunned by Romney and his security staff. Beck was never a Romney guy, even going as far to tweet in October that there was little difference between him and Obama. Beck's endorsement was purely anti-Obama as was most of the republican support.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not going to demonize him for that, especially when his next candidate (Rand) is my next candidate!


But Rand won't be his candidate when it matters.

----------


## Carlybee

> Why can't advocates of liberty do that?


Liberty denotes freedom. Subservience denotes slavery. If one chooses to be subservient that is free choice. Mrs. Schafly at best is a hypocrite.

----------


## AuH20

> But Rand won't be his candidate when it matters.


I think he will. Rand is the pefect modulation between Ron and a social con.

----------


## erowe1

> Did you hear the story when Romney blew off Beck at a campaign event????? Beck delivered George Washington's resignation letter to Romney at an event and was completely shunned by Romney and his security staff. Beck was never a Romney guy, even going as far to tweet in October that there was little difference between him and Obama. Beck's endorsement was purely anti-Obama as was most of the republican support.


So Romney was smart enough to distance himself from Beck. But Beck was a Romney shill from beginning to end. That's why he was so anti-Newt and endorsed Bachman and then Santorum.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Point #1 is correct. But #2 is misleading. I heard Beck frequently criticize Romney as a lackluster choice during election season, but a necessary evil in comparison to Obama.


Hmm... I listened to him pretty regularly, and I would agree that he did start out as lukewarm on Romney, but by the fall he was favorably comparing him to George Washington, as I mentioned, and practically making it a religious crusade.  By the end of the campaign, he was as far up Romney's ass as another person can get without cutting off his oxygen.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> She promotes female subservience ergo she is no advocate of liberty.





> Why can't advocates of liberty do that?


Let me get this straight:  *are you seriously asking why advocates of liberty cannot promote female subservience?????*

----------


## Confederate

> Well, OK then.  I guess you supported bat$#@! crazy Michelle too?


No, because I don't agree with her on foreign policy and don't think she's fiscally conservative enough. Ron is better on both those issues, he's pretty much perfect on fiscal issues and good on foreign policy.

----------


## erowe1

> Liberty denotes freedom. Subservience denotes slavery. If one chooses to be subservient that is free choice. Mrs. Schafly at best is a hypocrite.


Which is it? Is subservience slavery or is it a free choice?

----------


## erowe1

> Let me get this straight:  *are you seriously asking why advocates of liberty cannot promote female subservience?????*


Of course. I don't see why someone would say they can't.

----------


## Confederate

> Let me get this straight:  *are you seriously asking why advocates of liberty cannot promote female subservience?????*


If someone were to promote that (which is completely different to complimentarian gender roles) but didn't use the,force of the state to impose those views on others why couldn't they be an advocate for liberty? Isn't liberty all about voluntary choices? If a woman voluntarily wants to live a subservient life, isn't that her right? How does that affect your liberty? How does that make her any less pro-liberty?

----------


## erowe1

> 1.  In Beck's opinion, Iran has already expressed the desire to destroy both America and Israel and will not hesitate to use the bomb if they can get it; so for Beck, attacking Iran if they are incredibly close to acquiring a nuke is a matter of self-defense as he considers Iran at that point an imminent threat based off Iran's rhetoric.  It's the libertarian equivalent to attacking a madman outside your window who's screaming, "I'm gonna kill you!" while he's finishing loading his gun.


The whole point of promoting that propaganda is to use it to defend one's desire for big government.

----------


## Confederate

> Liberty denotes freedom. Subservience denotes slavery. If one chooses to be subservient that is free choice. Mrs. Schafly at best is a hypocrite.


Mrs. Schlafly doesn't promote subservience and doesn't advocate using the force of the state to impose traditional gender roles within marriage and family. How is she a hypocrite?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think he will. Rand is the pefect modulation between Ron and a social con.


Why would liberty candidate #43 be treated any differently than the 42 liberty candidates Beck has destroyed in the past?

----------


## erowe1

Some people were talking about Beck wanting to legalize drugs earlier.

I'm skeptical of that.

Got a link?

----------


## Carlybee

> Which is it? Is subservience slavery or is it a free choice?


Forced or legislated subservience is not free choice. I said if someone chooses to be subservient that is their choice. You can lead a horse to water..et al. Are you being purposely obtuse?

----------


## AuH20

> Why would liberty candidate #43 be treated any differently than the 42 liberty candidates Beck has destroyed in the past?


Because this is finally the liberty candidate with the intelligence and chops to break down barriers. It's not as simple as merely labeling Rand a crazy person, after hearing him talk. That tired game plan is finally over. This is the liberty candidate you can bring home to mom and dad.

----------


## Carlybee

> If someone were to promote that (which is completely different to complimentarian gender roles) but didn't use the,force of the state to impose those views on others why couldn't they be an advocate for liberty? Isn't liberty all about voluntary choices? If a woman voluntarily wants to live a subservient life, isn't that her right? How does that affect your liberty? How does that make her any less pro-liberty?


Its when she spends a lifetime trying to force the rhetoric down other peoples throats that it becomes anti liberty.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> While I disagree with Beck on both of those things, I don't think either of them make Beck un-libertarian even in the sense which we all here are using it.  Let me explain:
> 
> 1.  In Beck's opinion, Iran has already expressed the desire to destroy both America and Israel and will not hesitate to use the bomb if they can get it; so for Beck, attacking Iran if they are incredibly close to acquiring a nuke is a matter of self-defense as he considers Iran at that point an imminent threat based off Iran's rhetoric.  It's the libertarian equivalent to attacking a madman outside your window who's screaming, "I'm gonna kill you!" while he's finishing loading his gun.


If that's Beck's view, he's a simpleton.  

One nuclear weapon does not destroy a country.  Iran doesn't even have one.  If Iran ever acquired a nuclear weapon, the odds of it being used successfully are extraordinarily low.  There's really no libertarian justification for pre-emptively attacking a country under those circumstances.

A better analogy would be attacking a little boy who's wielding a stick who is standing on the other side of your neighborhood screaming incomprehensibly.  




> 2.  Fully on the Romney bandwagon after Romney is the presumptive nominee does not make one un-libertarian.  Rand got fully on the Romney bandwagon while Ron Paul was still in the race!  People don't make endorsements with words like "I regret to make this endorsement but..."; so I'm not sure exactly what you were expecting Beck to do.  Once Romney was the nominee, Beck would have said almost anything to support him because Beck thought Obama that much of a threat--but when Romney wasn't the presumptive nominee, he openly said "Romney isn't different than Obama" and "if the Tea Party supports Romney when they have other GOP choices, then they might very well be a bunch of racists because otherwise what's the difference between Romney and Obama?"  
> 
> I think you're falling into the trap of confusing political strategy with philosophical thought.  Beck isn't willing to let his political strategy undermine his philosophical thought, so he plays the rhetoric game when necessary in order not to lose ground.  Ron Paul didn't care about political strategy and so regularly undermined his philosophical goals; Rand seems to want to avoid the pitfalls his father actively walked into, which is why Beck thinks Rand could be the first libertarian to win.


I only have his words to go by.  He didn't have to favorably compare him to George Washington, and all the other various assorted bizarreness.  All he had to do was endorse him and tell his audience that we better get him elected or we're screwed... He seemed pretty all-in, to me.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Why would liberty candidate #43 be treated any differently than the 42 liberty candidates Beck has destroyed in the past?


For one, Beck is moving in the right direction at least in his recent rhetoric.  People change over time.  Heck many of the people here I am sure used to be neo-cons, did they have the ability to change?  And on the second point, Rand is a far more mainstream candidate that bridges the divide between libertarian thought and main street Republican voters.  While that movement on Rand's part upsets a certain segment of libertarianism, the gains far outweigh the losses.

----------


## Confederate

> Its when she spends a lifetime trying to force the rhetoric down other peoples throats that it becomes anti liberty.


So exercising freedom of speech is anti-liberty? I guess Ron Paul is anti-liberty for advocating his principles for almost half a century. 

When has Schlafly used the force of the state to impose her traditional values on other women? What law has she had passed or advocated for that would force married couples to have traditional gender roles in their marriage and family?

----------


## ZENemy

> If you can't beat them,* co-opt* them. It worked decently well for beck and co with the tea party...
> 
> To be continued once I watch, but beck has done plenty enough to not be trusted.



YUP!!

----------


## erowe1

> For one, Beck is moving in the right direction at least in his recent rhetoric.


Beck's rhetoric continues in one direction about as long as a moth's flight path does. And with both of those, there exists a way to make their trajectory become predictable by attracting them to a light, or to an establishment Republican come presidential election time.

----------


## erowe1

> Its when she spends a lifetime trying to force the rhetoric down other peoples throats that it becomes anti liberty.


How does she do that?

----------


## Carlybee

> Mrs. Schlafly doesn't promote subservience and doesn't advocate using the force of the state to impose traditional gender roles within marriage and family. How is she a hypocrite?


Get real and stop trying to blur the lines. She promoted female subservience her whole life ergo she think women should be second class citizens due to their gender. While she herself enjoyed the benefits that women who chose to step out of that role laid the groundwork for.

----------


## AuH20

> For one, Beck is moving in the right direction at least in his recent rhetoric.  People change over time.  Heck many of the people here I am sure used to be neo-cons, did they have the ability to change?  And on the second point, Rand is a far more mainstream candidate that bridges the divide between libertarian thought and main street Republican voters.  While that movement on Rand's part upsets a certain segment of libertarianism, the gains far outweigh the losses.


I don't think it's even that. I view Beck as almost bi-polar, politically speaking, in a constant struggle to balance his faith dominated side against his libertarian side. As a result, some strange opinions emanate from his mouth.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Slightly off topic, but isn't The Blaze's catch-phrase, "the Truth Lives Here"?  

How can the truth live there if he is "becoming more libertarian"?  Does that mean that it turns out that the stuff he said yesterday isn't as true as the stuff he says today?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Of course. I don't see why someone would say they can't.





> If someone were to promote that (which is completely different to complimentarian gender roles) but didn't use the,force of the state to impose those views on others why couldn't they be an advocate for liberty? Isn't liberty all about voluntary choices? If a woman voluntarily wants to live a subservient life, isn't that her right? How does that affect your liberty? How does that make her any less pro-liberty?





> Mrs. Schlafly doesn't promote subservience and doesn't advocate using the force of the state to impose traditional gender roles within marriage and family. How is she a hypocrite?


I disagree.  Schlafly's opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment was due to the fact that she believed the ERA to be *a direct threat to the protection that mothers and working women enjoyed in American society"*.....this "protection" of which she speaks came from laws that treated women differently from men.  She was, therefore, advocating for the state to provide this questionable "protection".

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't think it's even that. I view Beck as almost bi-polar, politically speaking, in a constant struggle to balance his faith oriented side against his libertarian side. As a result, some strange opinions emanate from his mouth.


If he actually understood either, he'd be perfectly consistent.

----------


## erowe1

> Forced or legislated subservience is not free choice.


What's an example of forced or legislated subservience?

Are you talking about her opposing laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex or something?

----------


## Carlybee

> So exercising freedom of speech is anti-liberty? I guess Ron Paul is anti-liberty for advocating his principles for almost half a century. 
> 
> When has Schlafly used the force of the state to impose her traditional values on other women? What law has she had passed or advocated for that would force married couples to have traditional gender roles in their marriage and family?


I never said she did..although I suspect if she thought she could get away with it she would.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Slightly off topic, but isn't The Blaze's catch-phrase, "the Truth Lives Here"?  
> 
> How can the truth live there if he is "becoming more libertarian"?  Does that mean that it turns out that the stuff he said yesterday isn't as true as the stuff he says today?


LOL

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to A Son of Liberty again.

----------


## compromise

> Well, OK then.  I guess you supported bat$#@! crazy Michelle too?


Both Bachmann and Rand market themselves as Tea Party constitutional conservatives. Bachmann is also anti-foreign aid and opposed intervention in Libya. I would not be surprised if Bachmann backed Rand in 2016.

----------


## erowe1

> I disagree.  Schlafly's opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment was due to the fact that she believed the ERA to be *“a direct threat to the protection that mothers and working women enjoyed in American society"*.....this "protection" of which she speaks came from laws that treated women differently from men.  She was, therefore, advocating for the state to provide this questionable "protection".


So, one of the issues where you say she's anti-liberty is her opposition to this?

----------


## SilentBull

Right. Until the primary. Then he will find an establishment guy to support. It's the same bull$#@! story every time. He'll support Rand now because it doesn't matter at the moment.

----------


## erowe1

> Both Bachmann and Rand market themselves as Tea Party constitutional conservatives. Bachmann is also anti-foreign aid and opposed intervention in Libya. I would not be surprised if Bachmann backed Rand in 2016.


If she backs him, that would mean that he would have by then committed wholeheartedly to getting us into a war with Iran, in which case I probably won't support him any more.

----------


## Carlybee

Really Confederate? You neg repped me for disagreeing with you on Schafly? Screw you...my conversation with you is over.

----------


## Confederate

> Some people were talking about Beck wanting to legalize drugs earlier.
> 
> I'm skeptical of that.
> 
> Got a link?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So, one of the issues where you say she's anti-liberty is her opposition to this?


YES.  As a woman, I do not require any more protection from the state than that which they provide to men. I would like to see a lot less "protection" from the state for both genders.

----------


## AuH20

This is why I don't get worked up about Glenn Beck. I focus on noted traitors like Bill Bennett and the rest of the establishment...

----------


## compromise

> If she backs him, that would mean that he would have by then committed wholeheartedly to getting us into a war with Iran, in which case I probably won't support him any more.


She's a politician. Remember how she was such a Ron Paul fan back in '08?

Helping Rand will help her and she knows that. Same with Beck. Beck's ditching Rubio because he knows that Rubio is unelectable and a pawn of the establishment.

Rand is the true rising star within the Republican Party.

----------


## erowe1

> YES.  As a woman, I do not require any more protection from the state than that which they provide to men. I would like to see a lot less "protection" from the state for both genders.


OK. Just don't pretend your view on this has anything to do with liberty.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Really Confederate? You neg repped me for disagreeing with you on Schafly? Screw you...my conversation with you is over.


That's ridiculous.  I'll rep you again to make up for it when I can.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> OK. Just don't pretend your view on this has anything to do with liberty.


So you're OK with state protectionism?  And you call this a pro-liberty stance?

----------


## Confederate

> Get real and stop trying to blur the lines. She promoted female subservience her whole life ergo she think women should be second class citizens due to their gender. While she herself enjoyed the benefits that women who chose to step out of that role laid the groundwork for.


Again, your twisting what she really advocates and instead you're demagoguing traditional family values as some sort of oppression. Many traditionalists would argue that feminism is extremely damaging to women, and I would agree with that. 

Schlafly has never advocated women become second class citizens nor has she ever advocated for laws to force women, married couples, or families to live by traditionalist values.

----------


## erowe1

> So you're OK with state protectionism?  And you call this a pro-liberty stance?


I'm against an Equal Rights Amendment. I'm certain Ron Paul is too.

I don't know what "state protectionism" means.

----------


## Confederate

> Really Confederate? You neg repped me for disagreeing with you on Schafly? Screw you...my conversation with you is over.


I neg repped you for continually and intentionally misrepresenting her views and saying she's anti-liberty when she's never advocated for using the force of the state to impose her views on others.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> For one, Beck is moving in the right direction at least in his recent rhetoric.  People change over time.  Heck many of the people here I am sure used to be neo-cons, did they have the ability to change?  And on the second point, Rand is a far more mainstream candidate that bridges the divide between libertarian thought and main street Republican voters.  While that movement on Rand's part upsets a certain segment of libertarianism, the gains far outweigh the losses.


Beck was 90% there in 2009.  85% there in 2011.  80% there in 2013.  How is that moving in the right direction?

Have you been just ignoring everything I've said this whole thread?

----------


## Carlybee

> So you're OK with state protectionism?  And you call this a pro-liberty stance?


I suspect erowe and confederate are of the Glen Beck liberty variety.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I suspect erowe and confederate are of the Glen Beck liberty variety.


For the love of God please put both "n's" in that man's name!!!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Again, your twisting what she really advocates and instead you're demagoguing traditional family values as some sort of oppression. Many traditionalists would argue that feminism is extremely damaging to women, and I would agree with that. 
> 
> Schlafly has never advocated women become second class citizens nor has she ever advocated for laws to force women, married couples, or families to live by traditionalist values.


What she did is stand in the way of *removing state protectionism* that treated women differently from men.  How is that different from advocating for those laws if they hadn't existed in the first place?

I'm all for certain traditional roles for women...I've been a stay-at-home mom since my children were born.  That's a choice I made for myself...I don't want the state making that choice for me or for other women.

----------


## erowe1

> For the love of God please put both "n's" in that man's name!!!


Carly, you better do what Glenn says.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I neg repped you for continually and intentionally misrepresenting her views and saying she's anti-liberty when she's never advocated for using the force of the state to impose her views on others.


But you're wrong; she _has_.   I think you owe Carlybee an apology (and a make-up *+rep* when you get the opportunity to do so).

----------


## Carlybee

> I neg repped you for continually and intentionally misrepresenting her views and saying she's anti-liberty when she's never advocated for using the force of the state to impose her views on others.



I got it. You neg repped me for having an opinion that disagrees with yours. Perhaps you can uninsert your nose from Mrs.Schafly's rectum long enough to realize that I never said she legally imposed anything but as a public and political figure has spent her life strongly advocating for what amounts to female oppression.

----------


## compromise

> 






He also wants the government out of marriage.

----------


## erowe1

> What she did is stand in the way of *removing state protectionism* that treated women differently from men.  How is that different from advocating for those laws if they hadn't existed in the first place?


Could you explain that? How did she oppose removing state protectionism that treated women differently from men? At the link I gave to the Equal Rights Amendment, I didn't see anything about that. All I saw was a bunch of stuff about how Congress should be able to boss around the states.

----------


## Confederate

> What she did is stand in the way of *removing state protectionism* that treated women differently from men.  How is that different from advocating for those laws if they hadn't existed in the first place?
> 
> I'm all for certain traditional roles for women...I've been a stay-at-home mom since my children were born.  That's a choice I made for myself...I don't want the state making that choice for me or for other women.


No, she opposed an expansion of the federal government into things that should be handled at the state and local level.  If you support the ERA you support an ever expanding federal government. Just look at how vaguely worded the amendment was, what the federal government could do it would make what it's done with the Commerce Clause look like (insert simile here). 

I'm glad you chose to be a stay at home mom, that's in my opinion the most fulfilling and rewarding work a woman can do. I don't advocate forcing women to do that, though and neither does Schlafly. She does not advocate using the state to force women to stay at home and be mothers.

----------


## Carlybee

> For the love of God please put both "n's" in that man's name!!!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Carly, you better do what Glenn says.


OK that's it.  You're on my Predator Drone list now buddy!

----------


## Confederate

> I got it. You neg repped me for having an opinion that disagrees with yours. Perhaps you can uninsert your nose from Mrs.Schafly's rectum long enough to realize that I never said she legally imposed anything but as a public and political figure has spent her life strongly advocating for what amounts to female oppression.


How is voluntarily choosing to abide by traditional gender roles in marriage and family oppression? How is being a stay at home mom oppression? 

How is using your right to free speech to advocate for people to voluntarily choose to live a traditional lifestyle oppression?

----------


## erowe1

> How is voluntarily choosing to abide by traditional gender roles in marriage and family oppression? How is being a stay at home mom oppression? 
> 
> How is using your right to free speech to advocate for people to voluntarily choose to live a traditional lifestyle oppression?


What we're seeing here is something that I see a lot.

A ton of those who call themselves "libertarians" chose that label because they thought it meant a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. It really has nothing to do with freedom. They're basically Eric Dondero types.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm against an Equal Rights Amendment. I'm certain Ron Paul is too.
> 
> I don't know what "state protectionism" means.


Maybe you'd better get educated about state protectionism then.

----------


## Carlybee

Confederate how is my exercising my free speech worthy of a neg rep. Again you are twisting my words and you make a big mistake thinking I give a damn what your opinion is on traditional gender roles is.  Jesus...did you just take the time machine from the middle ages?

----------


## Romulus

alright ---- lets see if we can guess HOW he's going to try and poison the Rand well.. ?

----------


## Confederate

> Maybe you'd better get educated about state protectionism then.


So you're in favor of the federal government being granted even more power by a vaguely worded amendment which would mean they could literally get involved in almost every issue?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Could you explain that? How did she oppose removing state protectionism that treated women differently from men? At the link I gave to the Equal Rights Amendment, I didn't see anything about that. All I saw was a bunch of stuff about how Congress should be able to boss around the states.





> No, she opposed an expansion of the federal government into things that should be handled at the state and local level.  If you support the ERA you support an ever expanding federal government. Just look at how vaguely worded the amendment was, what the federal government could do it would make what it's done with the Commerce Clause look like (insert simile here). 
> 
> I'm glad you chose to be a stay at home mom, that's in my opinion the most fulfilling and rewarding work a woman can do. I don't advocate forcing women to do that, though and neither does Schlafly. She does not advocate using the state to force women to stay at home and be mothers.


Her opposition to that amendment had nothing to do with state vs. federal, and everything to do with how she viewed the role of women in society.  If it had been more of the former, I might find more agreement with her.  But I lived through those years; I actually listened to her when she was speaking out against this.  I know better.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So you're in favor of the federal government being granted even more power by a vaguely worded amendment which would mean they could literally get involved in almost every issue?


see post #319

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> If that remains true, it only means Rand has moved too far away from his Dad's views for me.


Uh, I meant that Ron shot from the hip w/o regard for the way the media could demagogue him in their sound byte style. Rand is bullet proofing the message to prevent what happened to Ron. I've long got your point that you reject any attempts at re-pitching the message at all. Ok fine, have it your way. Keep force feeding.

----------


## Confederate

> Confederate how is my exercising my free speech worthy of a neg rep. Again you are twisting my words and you make a big mistake thinking I give a damn what your opinion is on traditional gender roles is.  Jesus...did you just take the time machine from the middle ages?


Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences of that speech. 

You've deliberately and constantly misrepresented Schlafly's views as well as what traditional complimentarian gender roles mean. That's worthy of a neg rep. You also seem to be of the opinion that non-violent advocacy of a voluntary choice is somehow anti-liberty.

----------


## erowe1

> Maybe you'd better get educated about state protectionism then.


Could you help me with that?

Please explain, in your opinion, why libertarians support the Equal Rights Amendment.

Also, I just looked for the article on "state protectionism" on wikipedia, and there isn't one. Could you recommend a good source that explains what it is?

----------


## Article V

> The whole point of promoting that propaganda is to use it to defend one's desire for big government.


Maybe.  Or he could actually believe it.  Only Beck knows for sure.  If it wasn't clear, my only point was that it's not un-libertarian _if_ Beck actually made those choices for the reasons he said he made them.



> Some people were talking about Beck wanting to legalize drugs earlier.
> 
> I'm skeptical of that.
> 
> Got a link?


how about you google it.  there's hundreds of thousands of links to hundreds of times Beck has said it.  If you aren't sure about this stance which he's been so consistent and adamant and verbal about, then you probably should refrain from discussing Beck. 



> Beck's rhetoric continues in one direction about as long as a moth's flight path does. And with both of those, there exists a way to make their trajectory become predictable by attracting them to a light, or to an establishment Republican come presidential election time.


Since you think this is a regular problem of Beck's, could you please name some philosophical policy positions (not political strategy/endorsement/support decisions) that Beck was once libertarian on then became more authoritarian on?  I'd love to be persuaded, but I've never seen him say something like "You know, I thought we should end the Fed, but now I guess we should print more money."

----------


## Carlybee

> How is voluntarily choosing to abide by traditional gender roles in marriage and family oppression? How is being a stay at home mom oppression? 
> 
> How is using your right to free speech to advocate for people to voluntarily choose to live a traditional lifestyle oppression?


Because while doing that she inferred that those who did not choose that were somehow inferior as women. I suggest you read between the lines. But I don't expect you to step outside of your own pomposity long enough to do that nor do I expect you to even get what I am saying.

----------


## Confederate

> see post #319


So because you disagree with your perceived motivations for her opposing the ERA you support increased federal power?

----------


## Confederate

> Because while doing that she inferred that those who did not choose that were somehow inferior as women. I suggest you read between the lines. But I don't expect you to step outside of your own pomposity long enough to do that nor do I expect you to even get what I am saying.


And how is inferring something anti-liberty if she's not using the force of the state to impose her views on others?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Could you help me with that?
> 
> Please explain, in your opinion, why libertarians support the Equal Rights Amendment.
> 
> Also, I just looked for the article on "state protectionism" on wikipedia, and there isn't one. Could you recommend a good source that explains what it is?


The act of being protected by the state (self-evident definition is self-evident?)  Examples:  those who wish to protect us against global warming, big-gulp colas, "assault" weapons....the list goes on.

----------


## erowe1

> Her opposition to that amendment had nothing to do with state vs. federal, and everything to do with how she viewed the role of women in society.  If it had been more of the former, I might find more agreement with her.  But I lived through those years; I actually listened to her when she was speaking out against this.  I know better.


Let's say you're right about that (I doubt it, but for the sake of argument we can pretend you are).

So your problem with her is that she takes the right position on some political issue, but she has the wrong personal opinion about gender roles. And in your opinion, no libertarian could agree with Schaffly's personal opinion on gender roles.

I just don't see why that has to be the case.

----------


## Carlybee

> Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences of that speech. 
> 
> You've deliberately and constantly misrepresented Schlafly's views as well as what traditional complimentarian gender roles mean. That's worthy of a neg rep. You also seem to be of the opinion that non-violent advocacy of a voluntary choice is somehow anti-liberty.


I didn't say that but I can't help how you choose to interpret.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And how is inferring something anti-liberty if she's not using the force of the state to impose her views on others?


Did you not read what I posted?  She advocated for *preventing the removal of laws* that kept women as second-class citizens.

----------


## erowe1

> The act of being protected by the state (self-evident definition is self-evident?)  Examples:  those who wish to protect us against global warming, big-gulp colas, "assault" weapons....the list goes on.


I still don't get it.

What does this have to do with the Equal Rights Amendment or anything Schaffly said?

----------


## erowe1

> Did you not read what I posted?  She advocated for *preventing the removal of laws* that kept women as second-class citizens.


What laws?

The thing I saw that you posted wasn't her advocating for preventing the removal of laws, it was her opposing the addition of laws, specifically those laws that would have been required by the Equal Rights Amendment.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Let's say you're right about that (I doubt it, but for the sake of argument we can pretend you are).
> 
> So your problem with her is that she takes the right position on some political issue, but she has the wrong personal opinion about gender roles. And in your opinion, no libertarian could agree with Schaffly's personal opinion on gender roles.
> 
> I just don't see why that has to be the case.


If you don't see it, I don't know what I can say to help you.

----------


## Carlybee

> And how is inferring something anti-liberty if she's not using the force of the state to impose her views on others?


It doesn't mean her stances are not anti liberty which is all I said in the first place and all I am disagreeing with. One doesn't have to be in office or write legislation in order to hold anti liberty views.

----------


## Confederate

> Did you not read what I posted?  She advocated for *preventing the removal of laws* that kept women as second-class citizens.


Which laws?

----------


## Confederate

> It doesn't mean her stances are not anti liberty which is all I said in the first place and all I am disagreeing with. One doesn't have to be in office or write legislation in order to hold anti liberty views.


How are her stances anti-liberty?

----------


## erowe1

> If you don't see it, I don't know what I can say to help you.


No need to help. I'm pretty sure I do get it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What laws?
> 
> The thing I saw that you posted wasn't her advocating for preventing the removal of laws, it was her opposing the addition of laws, specifically those laws that would have been required by the Equal Rights Amendment.


In the 1970s, it was perfectly legal to discriminate against women in many ways (hiring, promotion,  access to credit, etc.)  If you, like PS, see that discrimination as a good thing, you have a long way to go before you can call yourself a liberty activist in my opinion.  Libertarians tend to view discrimination against race, *gender*, religion, sexual orientation as abhorrent.

----------


## erowe1

> In the 1970s, it was perfectly legal to discriminate against women in many ways (hiring, promotion,  access to credit, etc.).


It should be perfectly legal.




> Libertarians tend to view discrimination against race, *gender*, religion, sexual orientation as abhorrent.


Libertarians do not support laws prohibiting discrimination.

Whether my personal opinion is that discriminating is abhorrent or not has nothing at all to do with whether or not I'm a libertarian.

ETA: Also your explanation here only further demonstrates how confused you are about your own position. Earlier, you refered to Schaffly supporting laws of state protectionism, when in fact, it's you who support them, since you want laws protecting women from discrimination. The reason you hate Phyllis Schaffly is that she's not enough of a statist for you.

----------


## Confederate

> In the 1970s, it was perfectly legal to discriminate against women in many ways (hiring, promotion,  access to credit, etc.)  If you, like PS, see that discrimination as a good thing, you have a long way to go before you can call yourself a liberty activist in my opinion.


So you think the power of the state should be used to force companies to pay women the same as men and tell them that they must hire and promote women and that they have to lend money to women?




> Libertarians tend to view discrimination against race, *gender*, religion, sexual orientation as abhorrent.


Libertarians also tend to view the state as having no role in determining a business' decisions. I guess you also support the federal government forcing business owners to serve everyone, even if they don't want to?

----------


## Article V

> In the 1970s, it was perfectly legal to discriminate against women in many ways (hiring, promotion,  access to credit, etc.)  If you, like PS, see that discrimination as a good thing, you have a long way to go before you can call yourself a liberty activist in my opinion.  Libertarians tend to view discrimination against race, *gender*, religion, sexual orientation as abhorrent.


Libertarians are allowed to discriminate and support the right for others to discriminate if they so choose.  It's one of the reasons Ron Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Libertarians are against forcing those who wish to discriminate from prohibiting access to their private property, and libertarians are against equal-pay-for-equal-work laws.  You're starting to sound very un-libertarian, cajuncocoa.

----------


## Smudge Dog

I'm aware of your rep! Been some long time and a long lost profile but all of us who have reached outside the fold to make alliances are criticised for it. Sometimes the alliances bear sweet fruit and sometimes it's rotten. The trying helped us clarify our positions.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Interesting twist this thread took

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You're starting to sound very un-libertarian, cajuncocoa.


Sticking with my earlier theme

----------


## Article V

> Sticking with my earlier theme


Hahaha!  I'd +Rep you for that, but I need to spread some Rep around first.

For the record, I'm all for non-libertarians joining the conversation.  We'll convince them sooner or later.  No need to run them off or burn them.

----------


## compromise

Cajun just got owned.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Libertarians are allowed to discriminate and support the right for others to discriminate if they so choose.  It's one of the reasons Ron Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Libertarians are against forcing those who wish to discriminate from prohibiting access to their private property, and libertarians are against equal-pay-for-equal-work laws.  *You're starting to sound very un-libertarian, cajuncocoa.*


Not at all, AV.  

I would agree that the CRA went too far by forcing what private business can and can't do.  HOWEVER, prior to the CRA  it was illegal to for "Negroes" (as African Americans were called back in the day) to use certain PUBLIC facilities such as public parks, public schools, public bathrooms, public water fountains, etc.  Whether those public facilities should exist isn't the point either.  So I agree with a lot of what the CRA did and disagree with imposing it on private businesses.  

As far as women's rights are concerned, I am not advocating for the state to impose its will on private businesses either. * But in the same way that an African American might have contempt for someone who tried to stand in the way of private businesses welcoming them, I have contempt for PS advocating for women to stay under their husband's thumb (whether you see it that way or not, that's exactly what she was advocating).*

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Cajun just got owned.


LOL, you wish.

----------


## erowe1

> But in the same way that an African American might have contempt for someone who tried to stand in the way of private businesses welcoming them, I have contempt for PS advocating for women to stay under their husband's thumb (whether you see it that way or not, that's exactly what she was advocating).


Whether or not one sees it that way is precisely what one of the issues is here. I'm certain that PS doesn't see it that way. She more likely sees the doting wife not as under her husband's thumb so much as under his nurturing care, protection, and guidance. It still seems to get back to your distaste for her personal opinions, even when they lead her to the right politicy positions.

If you were given the choice between keeping the current laws requiring young men to register for selective service or expanding that to include women, which choice would you make? Which choice do you think would be the "libertarian" choice?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If you were given the choice between keeping the current laws requiring young men to register for selective service or expanding that to include women, which choice would you make? Which choice do you think would be the "libertarian" choice?


The libertarian choice would be to do away with selective service.  Period.

----------


## Article V

> Not at all, AV.  
> 
> I would agree that the CRA went too far by forcing what private business can and can't do.  HOWEVER, prior to the CRA  it was illegal to for "Negroes" (as African Americans were called back in the day) to use certain PUBLIC facilities such as public parks, public schools, public bathrooms, public water fountains, etc.  Whether those public facilities should exist isn't the point either.  So I agree with a lot of what the CRA did and disagree with imposing it on private businesses.  
> 
> As far as women's rights are concerned, I am not advocating for the state to impose its will on private businesses either. * But in the same way that an African American might have contempt for someone who tried to stand in the way of private businesses welcoming them, I have contempt for PS advocating for women to stay under their husband's thumb (whether you see it that way or not, that's exactly what she was advocating).*


I'm not weighing in on "PS" because I know little to nothing on that topic.  But whether or not you agree with what someone advocates personally (Ron advocates non-drug use and advocates traditional marriage) has little to do with whether they are libertarian (since Ron also advocates the law should not be prohibit drug use or un-traditional marriage).

In the same way, I still think erowe1 probably shouldn't have weighed in on Glenn Beck since he doesn't seem to know Beck's policy positions.

----------


## erowe1

> The libertarian choice would be to do away with selective service.  Period.


Of course. But what about the choices given?

Or, to relate it more closely to the Schaffly discussion, suppose there were a bill to be voted on in Congress to expand selective service to include females, and suppose Schaffly opposed it (which I'm sure she would, and probably already has), would you criticize her for taking that position?

----------


## Confederate

> The libertarian choice would be to do away with selective service.  Period.


How does expanding that to women help?

----------


## georgiaboy

Glenn Beck is plain and simple outside the circle of trust.

His repeated past actions have put him there.

To be in the circle of trust, someone can say things that I may not disagree with, but in the end, their actions and support line up with taking the strong stand for small gov't.

Rand, Ron, Justin, Thomas, easily fall within the circle of trust.

Talking heads for the most part fall outside the circle of trust, including Glenn Beck.  Maybe they'll come our way, maybe not, but I've yet to see any of them really put it on the line for this movement towards smaller government and more liberty.  Without fail, when the rubber met the road, they faltered when it mattered most, even when they're all the while talking my language.

Give me a talker guy or gal that will, through thick and thin, support the small government team.  I'll gladly welcome them into the circle.

----------


## Carlybee

> Of course. But what about the choices given?
> 
> Or, to relate it more closely to the Schaffly discussion, suppose there were a bill to be voted on in Congress to expand selective service to include females, and suppose Schaffly opposed it (which I'm sure she would, and probably already has), would you criticize her for taking that position?


It's a moot point since women currently serve in the military and will no doubt be drafted should the draft ever be reinstated...even though it is wrong for anyone to be drafted, IMO.  It wouldn't matter if she opposes it or not.  Personally I think if women WANT to serve, let them.  It's their hide.  Although I am unequivocally opposed to selective service for either gender.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Josh, is it ok for me to say "$#@! ALL OF YOU WHO SAY $#@! YOU, BECK" on your website?
> 
> Some peoples kids... sheesh. Maybe you would prefer if Mark Levin or "El Rushbo" were the first tightie rightie pundit to "see the light"? As for me, I have been a Glenn Beck fan for years. Do I agree with him 100% $#@! NO! But for that matter nor do I agree 100% with either PAUL, Amash, Sanford, DeMint, Lee et al. The lot of you remind me of a teenager who hints at wanting a i-gizmo for Christmas to their gfriend/bfriend, and is ungrateful becuz they got you candy apple red rather then the lime green one you secretly lusted for.


thankyou sir, may i have another...
thankyou sir, may i have another...
thankyou sir, may i have another...
thankyou sir, may i have another...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFLPn30dvQ

----------


## erowe1

> It's a moot point


No it isn't. It's perfectly in line with this conversation. The way it looks when you and CC avoid giving your answers to that question is that you know you've taken indefensible positions.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Of course. But what about the choices given?
> 
> Or, to relate it more closely to the Schaffly discussion, suppose there were a bill to be voted on in Congress to expand selective service to include females, and suppose Schaffly opposed it (which I'm sure she would, and probably already has), would you criticize her for taking that position?


I would most likely criticize her for not opposing it for men as well.

----------


## erowe1

> I would most likely criticize her for not opposing it for men as well.


Do you know for a fact that she doesn't oppose it for men as well?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> How does expanding that to women help?


Maybe it would make people who only have daughters (George W. Bush, is that you? Dick Cheney??)  think twice about sending other peoples' sons to war.  

Yeah, that's a little sarcasm....I can only advocate for doing away with it all together.  Anything else is a false choice for me.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Do you know for a fact that she doesn't oppose it for men as well?


Do you?

----------


## Carlybee

> No it isn't. It's perfectly in line with this conversation. The way it looks when you and CC avoid giving your answers to that question is that you know you've taken indefensible positions.


I disagree...it may look that way to you, but you are wrong.

----------


## erowe1

> Do you?


No. And I wouldn't criticize her for taking a position I had no reason to think she took.

----------


## Article V

> Glenn Beck is plain and simple outside the circle of trust.
> 
> His repeated past actions have put him there.
> 
> To be in the circle of trust, someone can say things that I may not disagree with, but in the end, their actions and support line up with taking the strong stand for small gov't.
> 
> Rand, Ron, Justin, Thomas, easily fall within the circle of trust.
> 
> Talking heads for the most part fall outside the circle of trust, including Glenn Beck.  Maybe they'll come our way, maybe not, but I've yet to see any of them really put it on the line for this movement towards smaller government and more liberty.  Without fail, when the rubber met the road, they faltered when it mattered most, even when they're all the while talking my language.
> ...


I'll welcome any influential person who advocates our policies and educates people about them, even if they always end up endorsing the wrong candidate.  In the end, I think voters make up their own minds rather than rely on celebrity endorsements; so if Beck tells people the right policies, I trust that people will apply them correctly once they adapt them.  And, for that reason, I think a person who educates and advocates our policies is more helpful to our cause then hurtful, even when they endorse the wrong candidate.

Are there specific policies (not endorsements) you're upset at Glenn Beck for being once libertarian then authoritarian on?*

*Note: I'm looking for you to show where he's been untrustworthy in the actual libertarian policies he preaches.

----------


## erowe1

> Anything else is a false choice for me.


But it's not a false choice. It's a real choice that really comes up in the real world.

----------


## Confederate

> But it's not a false choice. It's a real choice that really comes up in the real world.


Don't talk about the real world, it doesn't exist for cajun.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No it isn't. It's perfectly in line with this conversation. The way it looks when you and CC avoid giving your answers to that question is that you know you've taken indefensible positions.


I haven't avoided any of your questions.  Selective service is slavery in my opinion.  I'm not going to advocate for women what I don't advocate for men.  


Look, if I really believed that Schlafly's opposition to the ERA was always about opposition to statism, I would wholeheartedly agree with that part (and only that part) of her argument.  The problem is, I've heard her speak, and I don't think that's what she was about AT ALL.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Don't talk about the real world, it doesn't exist for cajun.

----------


## Carlybee

_The passage of ERA, she declared, would mean Government-funded abortions, homosexual schoolteachers, women "forced" into military combat, men refusing to support their wives, and unisex bathrooms._  I have no issue with being against the ERA..frankly the less government is in anyone's business, the better but some of her reasons for being against the ERA are just asinine to me.  I mean really?  Unisex bathrooms?   LOL.  The woman is ridiculous and a far right activist.  As an activist and a very public one at that with "followers" people are influenced by her rhetoric therefore she is open game for critique and she has implemented programs that would affect legislation which goes beyond freedom of speech and into trying to influence policy.  When she stops telling women to get in the kitchen and make a sandwich then she can call herself pro-liberty.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> _The passage of ERA, she declared, would mean Government-funded abortions, homosexual schoolteachers, women "forced" into military combat, men refusing to support their wives, and unisex bathrooms._  I have no issue with being against the ERA..frankly the less government is in anyone's business, the better but some of her reasons for being against the ERA are just asinine to me.  I mean really?  Unisex bathrooms?   LOL.  The woman is ridiculous and a far right activist.  As an activist and a very public one at that with "followers" people are influenced by her rhetoric therefore she is open game for critique and she has implemented programs that would affect legislation which goes beyond freedom of speech and into trying to influence policy.  When she stops telling women to get in the kitchen and make a sandwich then she can call herself pro-liberty.


Don't forget this one:



> Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women.


http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...hmlpsM36C0D.99

----------


## erowe1

> I haven't avoided any of your questions.  Selective service is slavery in my opinion.  I'm not going to advocate for women what I don't advocate for men.  
> 
> 
> Look, if I really believed that Schlafly's opposition to the ERA was always about opposition to statism, I would wholeheartedly agree with that part (and only that part) of her argument.  The problem is, I've heard her speak, and I don't think that's what she was about AT ALL.


Looking over the anti-ERA stuff at her website, I have trouble seeing what the problem is.
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html

It seems like, no matter what policy position she takes, even if you can't deny that it's the right position, she still has to be the enemy just because of her religion.

----------


## erowe1

> I have no issue with being against the ERA..frankly the less government is in anyone's business, the better but some of her reasons for being against the ERA are just asinine to me.  I mean really?  Unisex bathrooms?   LOL.


Am I misreading you, or are you saying you do want a constitutional amendment requiring unisex bathrooms?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Looking over the anti-ERA stuff at her website, I have trouble seeing what the problem is.
> http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html
> 
> It seems like, no matter what policy position she takes, even if you can't deny that it's the right position, she still has to be the enemy just because of her religion.


And what religion of hers do you suppose I have a problem with?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Am I misreading you, or are you saying you do want a constitutional amendment requiring unisex bathrooms?




Dear God.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> And what religion of hers do you suppose I have a problem with?


I would suppose because she does not dabble in the black art of witchcraft?

Sorry, it was just too easy.  I'll stop now.

----------


## erowe1

> And what religion of hers do you suppose I have a problem with?


Apparently her religious views on the differences between men and women disqualify her from being an ally in politics.

----------


## Confederate

So this is what you support cajuncocoa?




> 1. ERA would take away legal rights that women possessed - not confer any new rights on women.
> 
> ERA would take away women's traditional exemption from military conscription and also from military combat duty. The classic "sex discriminatory" laws are those which say that "male citizens of age 18" must register for the draft and those which exempt women from military combat assignment. The ERAers tried to get around this argument by asking the Supreme Court to hold that the 14th Amendment already requires women to be drafted, but they lost in 1981 in Rostker v. Goldberg when the Supreme Court upheld the traditional exemption of women from the draft under our present Constitution.
> 
> ERA would take away the traditional benefits in the law for wives, widows and mothers. ERA would make unconstitutional the laws, which then existed in every state, that impose on a husband the obligation to support his wife.
> 2. ERA would take away important rights and powers of the states and confer these on other branches of government which are farther removed from the people.
> 
> ERA would give enormous power to the Federal courts to decide the definitions of the words in ERA, "sex" and "equality of rights." It is irresponsible to leave it to the courts to decide such sensitive, emotional and important issues as whether or not the language applies to abortion or homosexual rights.
> 3. Section II of ERA would give enormous new powers to the Federal Government that now belong to the states. ERA would give Congress the power to legislate on all those areas of law which include traditional differences of treatment on account of sex: marriage, property laws, divorce and alimony, child custody, adoptions, abortion, homosexual laws, sex crimes, private and public schools, prison regulations, and insurance. ERA would thus result in the massive redistribution of powers in our Federal system.
> ...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Apparently her religious views on the differences between men and women disqualify her from being an ally in politics.


What makes you believe I oppose her on religious grounds?  If it came to that, she and I may be able to find a sliver of common ground.  I have religious views myself, but I don't go around imposing them on the entire country.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So this is what you support cajuncocoa?


I already told you that I don't support the ERA for many reasons; reasons that are completely different from those Mrs. Schlafly based her opposition.  

That said, that sure looks like a very biased assessment of the ERA...did that come from Schlafly's website?

----------


## Confederate

> I already told you that I don't support the ERA for many reasons; reasons that are completely different from those Mrs. Schlafly based her opposition.  
> 
> That said, that sure looks like a very biased assessment of the ERA...did that come from Schlafly's website?


Yup a direct copy paste. It may be worded in a biased way, but I challenge you to refute a single point.

----------


## erowe1

I can understand disagreeing with Phyllis Schafly on some things. I'm sure I do. I'm just surprised at where some people are saying we ought to disagree with her.

Apparently the main positions she's taken that we're supposed to reject are:
1) She doesn't want to draft women into the military.
2) She doesn't want the federal government dictating to states what their laws regarding sexual discrimination must be.
3) She doesn't want to amend the Constitution to require unisex bathrooms.

And the good points about her are limited to little side issues, like the UN, education, the right to bear arms, getting the government out of health care, and stuff like that.

----------


## Carlybee

> Am I misreading you, or are you saying you do want a constitutional amendment requiring unisex bathrooms?


Of course not..just pointing out the ridiculous assumption that it would become part and parcel or that women who want equal rights would demand to share a urinal.

----------


## erowe1

> What makes you believe I oppose her on religious grounds?


Because, so far, in this entire thread, that's what all of your criticisms of her have been.

You've basically just said over and over, "Sure she takes the right position on this issue, but the religious convictions that lead her to that conclusion are all wrong."

----------


## Confederate

> Of course not..just pointing out the ridiculous assumption that it would become part and parcel or that women who want equal rights would demand to share a urinal.


The ERA would have made separate public bathroom for different genders illegal.

----------


## erowe1

> Of course not..just pointing out the ridiculous assumption that it would become part and parcel or that women who want equal rights would demand to share a urinal.


So, then, do I understand you correctly, that the problem you have with Phyllis Schaffly is that you agree with her about not wanting a constitutional amendment requiring unisex bathrooms? And you would like her more if she took the position you disagree with of supporting such an amendment?

----------


## Carlybee

> I can understand disagreeing with Phyllis Schafly on some things. I'm sure I do. I'm just surprised at where some people are saying we ought to disagree with her.
> 
> Apparently the main positions she's taken that we're supposed to reject are:
> 1) She doesn't want to draft women into the military.
> 2) She doesn't want the federal government dictating to states what their laws regarding sexual discrimination must be.
> 3) She doesn't want to amend the Constitution to require unisex bathrooms.
> 
> And the good points about her are limited to little side issues, like the UN, education, the right to bear arms, getting the government out of health care, and stuff like that.


Hyperbole much?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yup a direct copy paste. It may be worded in a biased way, but I challenge you to refute a single point.


Why would I worry about doing that?  What part of "I don't support the ERA" don't you understand?  I do think the article is silly, and shows in many ways that Mrs. Schlafly's concern is not statism; clearly she is more concerned that women will only stop being treated like the fragile flowers she thinks we are.

----------


## Confederate

> I can understand disagreeing with Phyllis Schafly on some things. I'm sure I do. I'm just surprised at where some people are saying we ought to disagree with her.
> 
> Apparently the main positions she's taken that we're supposed to reject are:
> 1) She doesn't want to draft women into the military.
> 2) She doesn't want the federal government dictating to states what their laws regarding sexual discrimination must be.
> 3) She doesn't want to amend the Constitution to require unisex bathrooms.
> 
> And the good points about her are limited to little side issues, like the UN, education, the right to bear arms, getting the government out of health care, and stuff like that.


You forgot to mention the fact that she uses her non-violent freedom of speech to peacefully advocate for people to voluntarily choose to live traditional lifestyles! Oh the horror!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Because, so far, in this entire thread, that's what all of your criticisms of her have been.
> 
> You've basically just said over and over, "Sure she takes the right position on this issue, but the religious convictions that lead her to that conclusion are all wrong."


Please provide a link where I've said what you've "quoted"

----------


## Carlybee

> So, then, do I understand you correctly, that the problem you have with Phyllis Schaffly is that you agree with her about not wanting a constitutional amendment requiring unisex bathrooms? And you would like her more if she took the position you disagree with of supporting such an amendment?


if you don't get the problem I have with her get in the kitchen and make me a sammich mentality you will never get it. My quoting her about the unisex bathrooms was an example of just how ridiculous she can be.

----------


## Confederate

> Why would I worry about doing that?  What part of "I don't support the ERA" don't you understand?  I do think the article is silly, and shows in many ways that Mrs. Schlafly's concern is not statism; clearly she is more concerned that women will only stop being treated like the fragile flowers she thinks we are.


She's never said women are fragile flowers. She clearly doesn't believe that, she doesn't believe women need to use the force of the state to offer them special protections. 




> “A Positive Woman cannot defeat a man in a wrestling or boxing match, but she can motivate him, inspire him, encourage him, teach him, restrain him, and reward him, and have power over him that he can never achieve over her with all his muscle”


Hardly the words someone who thinks women are weak would use.

----------


## cajuncocoa

erowe1 and Confederate, you two have just jumped on the crazy train.  

It's one thing to have an adult discussion about things with which we disagree, it's another to distort things that your discussion opponents have said. This discussion has taken a turn such as I would expect to have on FreeRepublic or the Hannity forum; not Ron Paul's. 

When this thread gets back to discussing Glenn Beck, I will come back.  Until then, peace out.

----------


## erowe1

> if you don't get the problem I have with her get in the kitchen and make me a sammich mentality you will never get it


I do get it. Like I said, you hate her personal religious views.

----------


## Confederate

> if you don't get the problem I have with her get in the kitchen and make me a sammich mentality you will never get it. My quoting her about the unisex bathrooms was an example of just how ridiculous she can be.


You clearly either do not understand what traditional complimentarian gender roles mean or you're purposely continuing to distort the meaning. Complimentarian gender roles does not mean the wife is some sort of inferior slave whose sole purpose is to please her husband by making sandwiches and blindly following his orders.

----------


## Article V

Why are we being subjected to a Phyllis Schlafly discussion for endless pages in a Glenn Beck thread?  

I'd just like to point out that no one has named a single policy issue (not campaign endorsement) that Beck has become less libertarian, more authoritarian on.  With all the vehement Beck hate, I was hoping I'd hear a bunch of policies that he's flip-flopped on, but at this point I'll settle for one.  Bueller?  Bueller?

----------


## Carlybee

> I do get it. Like I said, you hate her personal religious views.


Lol..what an idiotic statement. I have not once even mentioned her religious views. What a grand assumption on your part.  I disagree with stances she has made...like once you are married there is no such thing as rape in the marital bed.  In other words its okay for your husband to force you to have sex against your will. Of course you and Confederate probably agree with that.

SMDH

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Here's my whole thing with Phyllis Schlafly:

I cannot say her last name without feeling like I'm drunk.

----------


## Confederate

> Lol..what an idiotic statement. I have not once even mentioned her religious views. What a grand assumption on your part.  I disagree with stances she has made...like once you are married there is no such thing as rape in the marital bed.  In other words its okay for your husband to force you to have sex against your will. *Of course you and Confederate probably agree with that.*
> 
> SMDH


Wow. Where the $#@! did you get that from?

Oh like a typical liberal, your misconstruing what Schlafly said.

----------


## Carlybee

Holy sidetrack Batman. If anyone cares to engage me about Schalfly further start a new thread. I mentioned her in passing with regard to Santorum and Confederate went off the rails followed shortly by eRowe.

Basically I just dislike many of her opinions. If you have a problem with that..sue me.

----------


## erowe1

> Lol..what an idiotic statement. I have not once even mentioned her religious views.


Yes you have, you specifically said, "her get in the kitchen and make me a sammich mentality."

----------


## Article V

> Here's my whole thing with Phyllis Schlafly:
> 
> I cannot say her last name without feeling like I'm drunk.


I can't say her whole name without sounding like I have a lisp.

----------


## Carlybee

> Wow. Where the $#@! did you get that from?
> 
> Oh like a typical liberal, your misconstruing what Schlafly said.


I am hardly a liberal or anything close to it unless you mean classical liberalism. I'm just assuming like you have been. I can read you idiot.

----------


## Shane Harris

he seems to be the one who wants to shut out anyone who has a different definition of Libertarianism.

----------


## Carlybee

> Yes you have, you specifically said, "her get in the kitchen and make me a sammich mentality."



Lmao..what religion would that be?

----------


## erowe1

> Lmao..what religion would that be?


Whatever religion Schafly is. I assume some variety of Christianity.

----------


## Carlybee

> Whatever religion Schafly is. I assume some variety of Christianity.


I could care less what her religious affiliation is and I certainly never mentioned it so I could hardly hate her for it when I don't even know what it is.  I do have a hearty dislike of shoving religious doctrine down anyones throat.

----------


## georgiaboy

> I'll welcome any influential person who advocates our policies and educates people about them, even if they always end up endorsing the wrong candidate.  In the end, I think voters make up their own minds rather than rely on celebrity endorsements; so if Beck tells people the right policies, I trust that people will apply them correctly once they adapt them.  And, for that reason, I think a person who educates and advocates our policies is more helpful to our cause then hurtful, even when they endorse the wrong candidate.
> 
> Are there specific policies (not endorsements) you're upset at Glenn Beck for being once libertarian then authoritarian on?*
> 
> *Note: I'm looking for you to show where he's been untrustworthy in the actual libertarian policies he preaches.


I don't listen to Glenn enough to have a specific policy beef.  He and the other conservative pundits agree with me many times on issues related to shrinking the size of gov't.  Candidate support is the critical piece of the puzzle.  If we talk about shrinking gov't and then support, nominate, vote for, and elect, candidates who won't work to implement what we favor, then we get exactly nowhere or worse.

----------


## Confederate

> I could care less what her religious affiliation is and I certainly never mentioned it so I could hardly hate her for it when I don't even know what it is.  I do have a hearty dislike of *shoving religious doctrine down anyones throat*.


Yeah that pesky 1st Amendment should be re-written so that it doesn't protect religious speech. I mean non-violent advocacy is so damaging to your liberty, right?

----------


## erowe1

> I could care less what her religious affiliation is and I certainly never mentioned it so I could hardly hate her for it when I don't even know what it is.  I do have a hearty dislike of shoving religious doctrine down anyones throat.


But like you already admitted, she doesn't shove it down anyone's throat, at least not using state force. Not one of your complaints against her have involved her shoving anything down anyone's throat. The entirety of your opposition to her in this thread has revolved around what her personal religious convictions are.

The "no such thing as marital rape" line is another one. So what if she thinks that (and I'm not familiar with the debate, or whether or not she does)? Do you think the states should treat what husbands do to their wives the same way they treat rape between unmarried people? If not, then your position is probably the same as Schafly's. And once again, your whole problem with her is that she takes the same policy position as you, but bases it on the wrong personal religious views.

----------


## Carlybee

Keep the neg reps coming Confederate. I'm out of this thread. I choose not to converse with whiny little pussy men who can't handle any criticism of their idols.

----------


## Confederate

> Keep the neg reps coming Confederate. I'm out of this thread. I choose not to converse with whiny little pussy men who can't handle any criticism of their idols.


Of course I'm going to neg rep you when you claim I'm in favor of rape.

----------


## erowe1

There are people out there who have this sexist idea that men base their judgments on rational thought and women base them on inarticulate emotional hunches.

By all appearances Cajun and Carly have been trying their hardest to convince more people of that.

----------


## Southerner

> Santorum is quite a bit better than Ron on social issues.


Thanks for explaining to those who didn't understand. Santorum is closer to YOUR POSITION than Ron on social issues. Frankly I'm closer to Ron Paul on most social issues. I understand where you are coming from because most folks surrounding me are like you. Unfortunately for them, social issues that parallel those of the "moral majority" will NEVER bring a majority of votes nationally, ever again. Obviously I am WAAAAYYYY in the minority when it comes to immigration, thats one of my hot button issues, but... in order to get REAL FISCAL CONSERVATISM (which is what I think we need MOST) I can overlook the fact that NO CANDIDATE is going to mirror me on every issue... and I know of NO potential GOP candidate for 2016, that would be as bad as obama, or hillary.

----------


## twomp

I don't want to go through all 42 pages to see what you guys are talking about but I just wanted to contribute to the $#@! YOU GLENN BECK theme. Whew that felt good.

----------


## Southerner

Why do I feel like I am on a msnbc forum here? 

$#@! ALL OF YOU who say $#@! GLENN BECK.

----------


## Confederate

> Why do I feel like I am on a msnbc forum here?


Because the liberaltarians have pretty much taken over the forum.

----------


## JoshLowry

You both give the south a bad name.

----------


## AuH20

> Why do I feel like I am on a msnbc forum here? 
> 
> $#@! ALL OF YOU who say $#@! GLENN BECK.


I'm no fan of Glenn Beck and some of the things he says, but he's definitely not the enemy. I somewhat agree with your statement.

----------


## AuH20

> Because the liberaltarians have pretty much taken over the forum.


shortsighted libertarians. No one has to like Glenn Beck or subscribe to his channel but the extreme hate, given the many other pressing matters, is pretty baffling. Glenn Beck isn't the problem. It's the psychopaths entrenched in the two-party duopoly that will be undoing of us.

----------


## erowe1

> shortsighted libertarians. No one has to like Glenn Beck or subscribe to his channel but the extreme hate, given the many other pressing matters, is pretty baffling. Glenn Beck isn't the problem. It's the psychopaths entrenched in the two-party duopoly that will be undoing of us.


Beck worked hard to earn every bit of the hate he has here.

----------


## AuH20

> Beck worked hard to earn every bit of the hate he has here.


In large part because he retalliated against the truther contingent. Beck acted just as childish as his detractors.  And then the feud started. Then enter the Alex Jones factor and it's the Hatfields and the McCoys. I'm an open-minded person who isn't hyper-sensitive to comments. If you're paddling in the anti-establishment direction, I'll support you. That goes for Alex Jones, Adam Kokesh and whomever. I don't have the time nor energy to create more enemies when Godzilla is stomping down the boulevard.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> shortsighted libertarians. No one has to like Glenn Beck or subscribe to his channel but the extreme hate, given the many other pressing matters, is pretty baffling. Glenn Beck isn't the problem. It's the psychopaths entrenched in the two-party duopoly that will be undoing of us.


*Beck implied that Ron Paul supporters are terrorists.*  I don't suffer asshats.

----------


## twomp

> Why do I feel like I am on a msnbc forum here? 
> 
> $#@! ALL OF YOU who say $#@! GLENN BECK.



$#@! GLENN BECK! He has trashed Ron Paul AND his supporters which if you haven't noticed includes us. If he wants to support Rand Paul, that's all good. Any support is better then no support but it doesn't mean we forget what he's done in the past. He is a tyrant in liberty clothing. He supports HIS version of libertarians. 

This is meant towards Glenn Beck NOT his listeners so I don't see why you are so offended? Maybe there is a better forum for you out there where you can cheer the man on but you are on the wrong website if you think we have forgotten what he has done and said TOWARDS US.

----------


## AuH20

> *Beck implied that Ron Paul supporters are terrorists.*  I don't suffer asshats.


Do you know how much hate mail Beck received???????? Death threats, bomb threats............ Do you think he just created this classification out of thin air??????? Beck acted like a petulant child but do you really believe he did that without provocation??????? Cmon. People need to grow up. And this applies to Beck as well as the most ardent 911ers who went out of their way to terrorize Beck.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> In large part because he retalliated against the truther contingent. Beck acted just as childish as his detractors.  And then the feud started. Then enter the Alex Jones factor and it's the Hatfields and the McCoys. I'm an open-minded person who isn't hyper-sensitive to comments. If you're paddling in the anti-establishment direction, I'll support you. That goes for Alex Jones, Adam Kokesh and whomever. I don't have the time nor energy to create more enemies when Godzilla is stomping down the boulevard.


That assumes Beck IS paddling in the anti-establishment direction.  I used to think so, but I no longer do.  I am utterly convinced that he exists to try and draw naive "freedom minded people" into the establishment fold in order to maintain the status quo at all costs.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Do you know how much hate mail Beck received???????? Death threats, bomb threats............ Do you think he just created this classification out of thin air??????? Beck acted like a petulant child but do you really believe he did that without provocation??????? Cmon. People need to grow up. And this applies to Beck as well as the most ardent 911ers who went out of their way to terrorize Beck.


Yes, that hate mail came out of thin air, it had nothing to do with Beck calling Paul a terrorist.  Nothing at all.  Go back to sleep, we have everything under control...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Do you know how much hate mail Beck received???????? Death threats, bomb threats............ Do you think he just created this classification out of thin air??????? Beck acted like a petulant child but do you really believe he did that without provocation??????? Cmon. People need to grow up. And this applies to Beck as well as the most ardent 911ers who went out of their way to terrorize Beck.


I wonder if that hate mail came before or after the video I linked above?  If before, he certainly did  nothing to quell the tide by calling us terrorists.

----------


## AuH20

> Yes, that hate mail came out of thin air, it had nothing to do with Beck calling Paul a terrorist.  Nothing at all.  Go back to sleep, we have everything under control...


It actually occurred far before that. The seeds of this antagonistic relationship were planted long before. Jones and Beck both have huge egos. And Jones naturally pitted his audience against Beck's for obvious reasons. And then Beck went out of his way to discredit Jones. It's just ugly all around.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It actually occurred far before that. The seeds of this antagonistic relationship were planted long before. Jones and Beck both have huge egos. And Jones naturally pitted his audience against Beck's for obvious reasons. And then Beck went out of his way to discredit Jones. It's just ugly all around.


I was there.  I actually watched Beck at the time, and my recollection is dramatically different from yours.

ETA - and no, I have nothing whatever to do with Jones, and I never have.

----------


## AuH20

> I was there.  I actually watched Beck at the time, and my recollection is dramatically different from yours.
> 
> ETA - and no, I have nothing whatever to do with Jones, and I never have.


We're dealing with two man-children who want to be top dog. They then dispatch their audience to do their bidding and create this unproductive shooting war.

----------


## twomp

Glenn Beck helped discredit the Tea Party. The group that he now wants to distance himself from. He is now working on the libertarians. That man is a parasite.

----------


## AuH20

> I was there.  I actually watched Beck at the time, and my recollection is dramatically different from yours.
> 
> *ETA - and no, I have nothing whatever to do with Jones, and I never have.*


But that is where the thrust of the hate came from. And then Beck being the immature douche he is, anted up and went out of his way to counter Jones. And the ping-pong game was afoot.

----------


## RockEnds

> That assumes Beck IS paddling in the anti-establishment direction.  I used to think so, but I no longer do.  I am utterly convinced that he exists to try and draw naive "freedom minded people" into the establishment fold in order to maintain the status quo at all costs.


I agree.

----------


## jmdrake

> But like you already admitted, she doesn't shove it down anyone's throat, at least not using state force. Not one of your complaints against her have involved her shoving anything down anyone's throat. The entirety of your opposition to her in this thread has revolved around what her personal religious convictions are.
> 
> The "no such thing as marital rape" line is another one. So what if she thinks that (and I'm not familiar with the debate, or whether or not she does)? Do you think the states should treat what husbands do to their wives the same way they treat rape between unmarried people? If not, then your position is probably the same as Schafly's. And once again, your whole problem with her is that she takes the same policy position as you, but bases it on the wrong personal religious views.


Well looks like I came late to this thread that apparently got Confederate banned.  I will say this.  I went to a liberal law school (are there any that aren't), and once we went over the hair trigger that is rape law in some states, even the most liberal feminists in the class felt at least a little squeamish about applying the same standard for rape inside marriage to rape in general.  I'm not talking about the obvious "Man with knife ties woman up and has his way with her" rape.  No.  We read a case where a man was convicted of rape when the admitted facts were the woman invited him into her bed, let him get on top, and then said no once he had started penetration.  He was convicted of rape for not pulling out fast enough!  While these feminist women were bothered by this, a little, they still felt "no" should apply in that situation.  But in the case of a married couple?  Well...they weren't so sure.  It seemed like it would be too easy for an angry wife to set her husband up for a rape charge.  Anyhow, if someone's marriage is so toxic that the marriage bed becomes a potential crime scene it's time for a divorce.

----------


## Article V

> Glenn Beck helped discredit the Tea Party. The group that he now wants to distance himself from.


Please defend this claim when Beck just had a black-tie Tea Party special on his tv show two weeks ago.

----------


## Article V

> *Beck implied that Ron Paul supporters are terrorists.*  I don't suffer asshats.


Did you read the transcript?  Beck said quite specifically that he felt the "vast majority" of Ron Paul supporters "get it"; but that he feared "some of the fringe supporters" might take the word 'revolution' a bit too seriously especially when bolstered by Guy Fawkes imagery.

I wasn't a fan of that clip, but I didn't for one minute think Beck thought Ron Paul supporters are terrorists.

----------


## Article V

> I don't listen to Glenn enough to have a specific policy beef.  He and the other conservative pundits agree with me many times on issues related to shrinking the size of gov't.  Candidate support is the critical piece of the puzzle.  If we talk about shrinking gov't and then support, nominate, vote for, and elect, candidates who won't work to implement what we favor, then we get exactly nowhere or worse.


So basically you put Beck outside the circle of trust as a libertarian because he chose to endorse a candidate other than Ron Paul.  Personally, knowing Beck's policy beliefs, I never thought he'd endorse Ron Paul; but I have to admit that Beck is still a libertarian.  And I like to think that Beck's years of daily support for libertarian policy is more beneficial than any fleeting candidate endorsement which most people aren't influenced by anyway.  Voters vote based off policy and personality;  if Beck teaches voters libertarian policy and voters identify with a candidate's personality, then Beck's endorsement or non-endorsement is irrelevant and his libertarian teaching is a net positive for our movement.

The guy's not evil; he's just not as libertarian as all of us.

----------


## Article V

> Well looks like I came late to this thread that apparently got Confederate banned.


He got banned?  For what?  I didn't notice anything incendiary enough for anyone to get banned.

----------


## cajuncocoa

If Beck is a libertarian, then I am Miss America.

----------


## mad cow

Don't squint so much Cajun and you might have a shot.

----------


## garyallen59

I will say that I didn't start listening to Beck until about October of last year after I got a driving job, but I've been here when he called us terrorists and it pissed me off, and when he basically ruined Medina in Texas and I was furious, and plenty of the other stuff he has done. I don't agree with him in a lot of instances, but I really do feel like he is fed up with the establishment Republicans and will stick behind Rand. I could be wrong and you all can laugh at me if that time comes (some will say "when that time comes"), but I remain optimistic at this point and feel that it is better that Beck speaks well of libertarian ideas and Rand Paul than him doing the opposite.

JMHO

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Don't squint so much Cajun and you might have a shot.


It's gonna take a little more than that!! LOL

----------


## Article V

> If Beck is a libertarian, then I am Miss America.


Well, hello there, Miss America; and thanks for the pic!   




> Definition of LIBERTARIAN
> 1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
> 2a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action 
> 2b _capitalized_ : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles


Glenn fits both definitions 1 and 2a.  I don't believe Glenn is a member of any political party, but even Ron Paul himself does not fit definition 2b

----------


## DylanWaco

Glenn Beck likes money.

----------


## matt0611

> Westboro Baptist Church.  The people who protest soldier funerals with "God Hates ****" signs in pretty rainbow and tie-dye colors.


Hmm ok, I know who they are are but why would Beck associate Ron with them? Beck is against gay marriage as well if I recall.

----------


## garyallen59

> Hmm ok, I know who they are are but why would Beck associate Ron with them? Beck is against gay marriage as well if I recall.


Because of Ron's tweet about Chris Kyle.

Beck was being a moron.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Why would liberty candidate #43 be treated any differently than the 42 liberty candidates Beck has destroyed in the past?


Because Rand prefaces every speech that he believes in a strong national defense.  That sentence alone puts very many voters at ease.  There was a lot of general support for Ron and sympathy for the brand of conservatism he preached, but voters came away thinking he was a pacifist that wouldn't defend the country.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I don't think it's even that. I view Beck as almost bi-polar, politically speaking, in a constant struggle to balance his faith dominated side against his libertarian side. As a result, some strange opinions emanate from his mouth.


I see things much like you.  Beck doesn't strike me as some evil conspiratorial genius.  Let's not forget he was just a drunk radio DJ for most of his adult life.  I think he's trying to figure things out and stumbling along the way, like the vast majority of Americans do.  This country has been indoctrinated with propaganda since grade-school, throughout college, and then by the media in their adult life.  Our population are a ahistorical, confused and fearful lot.  I try not to hold their sometimes schizophrenic political thoughts against them.  They are largely products of their environment.  It takes years to undo the programming for people to snap out of this mentality.  Even so, a lot of people will never come to that revelation.

----------


## Brett85

> Hmm ok, I know who they are are but why would Beck associate Ron with them? Beck is against gay marriage as well if I recall.


No, Beck supports gay marriage.

----------


## torchbearer

> Glenn Beck seems to only attack people when they support 9/11 Truth, support Abortion, Attack/Criticize the Troops, and Support a Weak Foreign Policy/National Defense (his perspective).
> 
> 
> *Rand Paul doesn't have any views that Glenn Beck would disagree with*.



............(wait for it)..........................yet.

----------


## twomp

> Please defend this claim when Beck just had a black-tie Tea Party special on his tv show two weeks ago.


Watch the video linked in the OP. See what he says about the Tea Party there?

----------


## sam1952

> Because Rand prefaces every speech that he believes in a strong national defense.  That sentence alone puts very many voters at ease.  There was a lot of general support for Ron and sympathy for the brand of conservatism he preached, but voters came away thinking he was a pacifist that wouldn't defend the country.


I probably spent more time trying to explain why Ron Paul wasn't a pacifist to more people than any other of his positions. The number of times I've heard people say they like what they hear about him but he won't defend us just pisses me off. And who do I blame, the msm, the talking heads, even Ron himself? Maybe Rand will finally get the message out on a strong national defense...

----------


## Carlybee

> Well looks like I came late to this thread that apparently got Confederate banned.  I will say this.  I went to a liberal law school (are there any that aren't), and once we went over the hair trigger that is rape law in some states, even the most liberal feminists in the class felt at least a little squeamish about applying the same standard for rape inside marriage to rape in general.  I'm not talking about the obvious "Man with knife ties woman up and has his way with her" rape.  No.  We read a case where a man was convicted of rape when the admitted facts were the woman invited him into her bed, let him get on top, and then said no once he had started penetration.  He was convicted of rape for not pulling out fast enough!  While these feminist women were bothered by this, a little, they still felt "no" should apply in that situation.  But in the case of a married couple?  Well...they weren't so sure.  It seemed like it would be too easy for an angry wife to set her husband up for a rape charge.  Anyhow, if someone's marriage is so toxic that the marriage bed becomes a potential crime scene it's time for a divorce.



Yes it would be easy for a dishonest person to set someone up.  But there are also instances where a woman has married a psychopath or sociopath.  Rape is an act of violence even though it results in sex.  If a man, husband or not, forces a woman to have sex against her will it is rape.  Pretty plain and simple to me.  Of course that woman would need to follow all protocol...going to a doctor, rape kit, etc. and even then she would probably have a hard time proving it and one would hope that if that happened she would sever all ties with him immediately.  For someone to say that there is no such thing as marital rape is just asinine however. I haven't looked up statistics but I know if there are men out there who beat their wives black and blue, there are probably men who rape them as well.  Getting married does not mean giving up the basic human right to protect oneself from violation if one is unfortunate enough to find themselves with that type of person.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I will say that I didn't start listening to Beck until about October of last year after I got a driving job, but I've been here when he called us terrorists and it pissed me off, and when he basically ruined Medina in Texas and I was furious, and plenty of the other stuff he has done. I don't agree with him in a lot of instances, but I really do feel like he is fed up with the establishment Republicans and will stick behind Rand. I could be wrong and you all can laugh at me if that time comes (some will say "when that time comes"), but I remain optimistic at this point and feel that it is better that Beck speaks well of libertarian ideas and Rand Paul than him doing the opposite.
> 
> JMHO


And that's fine.  At least most people on this forum will recognize if/when Beck starts turning on Rand and see it for what it is and abandon Beck instead of Rand.  It's the other people who just dabble in politics that worry me if/when Beck starts leading them away to someone like Rubio.

----------


## purplechoe

$#@! you Frank... and Glenn Beck too...

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Glenn Beck is plain and simple outside the circle of trust.
> 
> His repeated past actions have put him there.
> 
> To be in the circle of trust, someone can say things that I may not disagree with, but in the end, their actions and support line up with taking the strong stand for small gov't.
> 
> Rand, Ron, Justin, Thomas, easily fall within the circle of trust.
> 
> Talking heads for the most part fall outside the circle of trust, including Glenn Beck.  Maybe they'll come our way, maybe not, but I've yet to see any of them really put it on the line for this movement towards smaller government and more liberty.  Without fail, when the rubber met the road, they faltered when it mattered most, even when they're all the while talking my language.
> ...


Thread Winner.

----------


## georgiaboy

> So basically you put Beck outside the circle of trust as a libertarian because he chose to endorse a candidate other than Ron Paul.  Personally, knowing Beck's policy beliefs, I never thought he'd endorse Ron Paul; but I have to admit that Beck is still a libertarian.  And I like to think that Beck's years of daily support for libertarian policy is more beneficial than any fleeting candidate endorsement which most people aren't influenced by anyway.  Voters vote based off policy and personality;  if Beck teaches voters libertarian policy and voters identify with a candidate's personality, then Beck's endorsement or non-endorsement is irrelevant and his libertarian teaching is a net positive for our movement.
> 
> The guy's not evil; he's just not as libertarian as all of us.


Wait, so you're saying that if Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Prager, Medved, Ingraham, Coulter, Erickson, Boortz, etc, had all come out enthusiastically supporting Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, voters would've still chosen McCain and Romney?

HA!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

That's funny. I'm done with Glenn Beck as well.

Must say, I don't see how you could avoid yourself. With that kind of irony I'm a little surprised a 'Bleck hole' wasn't created swallowing his entire program.

----------


## Article V

> Watch the video linked in the OP. See what he says about the Tea Party there?


I think maybe _you_ need to go back and watch the video in the OP.  Perhaps jot down a transcript for yourself.  Glenn Beck doesn't try to distance himself from the Tea Party or Tea Party values in the OP; he clearly states that he's anti-Republican establishment, but that he thinks the Tea Party has largely made themselves irrelevant. That's not distancing himself, that's simple honest evaluation. 

I agree with Beck: the Tea Party _has_ largely made itself irrelevant by allowing itself to be co-opted by the establishment or represented by completely hopeless candidates like O'Donnell or Herman Cain.  Can you honestly pretend that Christine O'Donnell's Senate nomination isn't an example of the Tea Party actively making itself irrelevant?  In politics, if you want to protect your reputation, no candidate is better than a bad candidate; just like in business, no product is better than a bad product.  


A new brand has little room for error if it seeks to establish a desired image in the eyes of the populace.

----------


## Article V

> Wait, so you're saying that if Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Prager, Medved, Ingraham, Coulter, Erickson, Boortz, etc, had all come out enthusiastically supporting Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, voters would've still chosen McCain and Romney?
> 
> HA!


Please don't put words in my mouth.  One thing being false does not make the opposite true.  Any imbecile should understand that so I'm not sure why you're putting up straw-men arguments reliant on twisted logic.




> _Geogiaboy Claim_: Cows hate whales.
> _My response_: No, that's not true.
> _Georgiaboy counter-argument_: Wait, so you're saying cows love whales? HA!
> _My response_: You're either a troll or dumber than an imbecile.  Pick one.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think maybe _you_ need to go back and watch the video in the OP.  Perhaps jot down a transcript for yourself.  Glenn Beck doesn't try to distance himself from the Tea Party or Tea Party values in the OP; he clearly states that he's anti-Republican establishment, but that he thinks the Tea Party has largely made themselves irrelevant. That's not distancing himself, that's simple honest evaluation. 
> 
> I agree with Beck: the Tea Party _has_ largely made itself irrelevant by allowing itself to be co-opted by the establishment or represented by completely hopeless candidates like O'Donnell or Herman Cain.  Can you honestly pretend that Christine O'Donnell's Senate nomination isn't an example of the Tea Party actively making itself irrelevant?  In politics, if you want to protect your reputation, no candidate is better than a bad candidate; just like in business, no product is better than a bad product.  
> 
> 
> A new brand has little room for error if it seeks to establish a desired image in the eyes of the populace.


Um.  Dude.  It was _Glenn Beck_ who *made* the Tea Parties irrelevant, by sending tem after status quo establishmentarians until the while concept was meaningless.  You've misunderstood him completely, he's just taking pride in his own work.

----------


## kathy88

> I agree with Beck: the Tea Party has largely made itself irrelevant by allowing itself to be co-opted by the establishment or represented by completely hopeless candidates like O'Donnell or Herman Cain. Can you honestly pretend that Christine O'Donnell's Senate nomination isn't an example of the Tea Party actively making itself irrelevant? In politics, if you want to protect your reputation, no candidate is better than a bad candidate; just like in business, no product is better than a bad product.


Glenn is the one who initially co-opted the tea party. He is just butt hurt because it got co-opted from him yet again.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Glenn is the one who initially co-opted the tea party. He is just butt hurt because it got co-opted from him yet again.


The co-option issue is sort of a Catch 22.  A political movement wants to grow and bring in new people to the movement.  But as a movement grows it is going to bring in people with different views on some issues, and differences of opinion on some strategies. Some from the movement, then will claim the movement is being co-opted.

If the movement wants to remain "pure" and only bring in people that will march in lock step with a particular ideology or belief, then the movement will fail to grow significantly.

----------


## kathy88

> The co-option issue is sort of a Catch 22.  A political movement wants to grow and bring in new people to the movement.  But as a movement grows it is going to bring in people with different views on some issues, and differences of opinion on some strategies. Some from the movement, then will claim the movement is being co-opted.
> 
> If the movement wants to remain "pure" and only bring in people that will march in lock step with a particular ideology or belief, then the movement will fail to grow significantly.


Points taken. But the fact remains that Glenn Beck took credit for starting the tea party, which is just a lie. Then the establishment stepped in and now he's all mad about it. Karma, grasshoppper, is a bitch.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Points taken. But the fact remains that Glenn Beck took credit for starting the tea party, which is just a lie. Then the establishment stepped in and now he's all mad about it. Karma, grasshoppper, is a bitch.


Understood.  I think sometimes folks spend way too much time worrying about labels.  If one is focusing on political strategy, then go out get elected and help others get elected.  If education is the strategy then organize classes, lectures and book speakers.  Worry less about what movement you are in or what it is called, and just go out there and do the work that needs to be done.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The co-option issue is sort of a Catch 22.  A political movement wants to grow and bring in new people to the movement.  But as a movement grows it is going to bring in people with different views on some issues, and differences of opinion on some strategies. Some from the movement, then will claim the movement is being co-opted.
> 
> If the movement wants to remain "pure" and only bring in people that will march in lock step with a particular ideology or belief, then the movement will fail to grow significantly.


Agreed, to an extent.  On the other hand, if a movement brings in many new people with many different views on some issues to a significant extent, the movement fails to continue as a movement.  A _movement_ is to a significant degree is defined by a limited set of principles or an ideology.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> just go out there and do the work that needs to be done.


Agreed.  And that's my approach.

Although, after seeing DHS's new targets, maybe it's time to hunker down.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Instant tea is just so...sour. Not sweet like the home made stuff.

At least it's clearly labeled though if one takes the time to give it a once over.

Can see it being prepared and served up from a mile away. Always service with a smile too.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Agreed, to an extent.  On the other hand, if a movement brings in many new people with many different views on some issues to a significant extent, the movement fails to continue as a movement.  A _movement_ is to a significant degree is defined by a limited set of principles or an ideology.


Right, which is why in my follow up I said just go out there and do the work.  Worry less about what "movement" you are a part of, because at the end of the day it boils down to individual action.

----------


## georgiaboy

> Please don't put words in my mouth.  One thing being false does not make the opposite true.  Any imbecile should understand that so I'm not sure why you're putting up straw-men arguments reliant on twisted logic.



Doesn't feel so nice, does it?


Seriously, though, you and I obviously disagree on this.

It's great for folks like Glenn to preach the good news of small government principles to the masses.  On that we agree.

I think it's horrible for him to then point to politicians that also talk about small government (sometimes), but enact big gov't policies.  I think it has direct impact on public opinion, including for whom they vote.

You think who Glenn talks up is of minor impact to public opinion in the voting booth.  I disagree.

Cool?

----------


## supermario21

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joe-sc...ie-157401.html

I know our opinions of Glenn range from neutral (or slightly positive) to very negative, but we should probably stand with him in this spat with Scarborough over Christie.

----------


## Brett85

> http://www.politico.com/blogs/joe-sc...ie-157401.html
> 
> I know our opinions of Glenn range from neutral (or slightly positive) to very negative, but we should probably stand with him in this spat with Scarborough over Christie.


I can't stand Scarborough.  He should just make it official and join the Democratic Party.

----------


## trey4sports

Just stay on the Randwagon and dont get scared when we have to make rhetorical concessions in order to build an alliance with Republicans.

----------


## twomp

> I think maybe _you_ need to go back and watch the video in the OP.  Perhaps jot down a transcript for yourself.  Glenn Beck doesn't try to distance himself from the Tea Party or Tea Party values in the OP; he clearly states that he's anti-Republican establishment, but that he thinks the Tea Party has largely made themselves irrelevant. That's not distancing himself, that's simple honest evaluation. 
> 
> I agree with Beck: the Tea Party _has_ largely made itself irrelevant by allowing itself to be co-opted by the establishment or represented by completely hopeless candidates like O'Donnell or Herman Cain.  Can you honestly pretend that Christine O'Donnell's Senate nomination isn't an example of the Tea Party actively making itself irrelevant?  In politics, if you want to protect your reputation, no candidate is better than a bad candidate; just like in business, no product is better than a bad product.  
> 
> 
> A new brand has little room for error if it seeks to establish a desired image in the eyes of the populace.


Maybe YOU should jot down some notes. You see when someone champions a group then claims that they are now irrelevant, THAT IS DISTANCING HIMSELF FROM THEM. It's like being on a team then saying the team can't hack it anymore. Glenn Beck was ALL about the Tea Party in 2009-2010 and now claims they are irrelevant and is moving on to the libertarians yet somehow you can't connect the dots and see that he is moving AWAY from the Tea Party? Watch it again and jot down some notes.

----------


## matt0611

I can't stand Beck but IMO this just proves the genius of Rand Paul.

----------


## scottditzen

What...the.....Oh hell no!




> Santorum is quite a bit better than Ron on social issues.

----------


## Slutter McGee

As much as you people hate Beck.(I don't hate him, but don't trust him either)..he was right about libertarians eating their own. It is ridiculous. Never seen anything like it.

Slutter McGee

----------


## supermario21

But Glenn Beck is not stupid. Rand Paul is not stupid. Ted Cruz is not stupid. Justin Amash and Tom Massie aren't stupid. Neither is Mike Lee. Everyone distances themselves from their damaged goods. Letting people like Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, and Sarah Palin become the face of the Tea party will help kill it. Rand Paul is continuing the intellectual movement of his father and is allowing that to mesh with grassroots activists which has gotten us more candidates who are closer to us rather than say John McCain. Let's not let the morons take over essentially our tea party.

----------


## Article V

> Maybe YOU should jot down some notes. You see when someone champions a group then claims that they are now irrelevant, THAT IS DISTANCING HIMSELF FROM THEM. It's like being on a team then saying the team can't hack it anymore. Glenn Beck was ALL about the Tea Party in 2009-2010 and now claims they are irrelevant and is moving on to the libertarians yet somehow you can't connect the dots and see that he is moving AWAY from the Tea Party? Watch it again and jot down some notes.


Not true.  I think you need to have some more worldly experience and spend some more recreational time in a dictionary.

I went into my business last week and told them, "We've become irrelevant in this industry.  If we want to survive, if we want to be the force we were 14 years ago, we have to re-evaluate.  It's going to be hard, it's going to painful, and many of you may not be able to handle it; but it's what we need."  And now I've set up a huge task force, a litany of internal & external evaluation systems, and am spending all my time reshaping the business and rediscovering the vision of our mission in action.  Blunt honesty, even with those you like, can be painful, but it doesn't imply distancing.

----------


## Article V

> What...the.....Oh hell no!


Yeah, that struck me as odd too.  I can't think of anyone worse on social issues than Santorum.  Maybe it was a comment meant in jest or maybe it has an ultra-specific context known only to the poster.  Either way, I'm guessing that post was one of the reasons he got banned.

----------


## twomp

> Not true.  I think you need to have some more worldly experience and spend some more recreational time in a dictionary.
> 
> I went into my business last week and told them, "We've become irrelevant in this industry.  If we want to survive, if we want to be the force we were 14 years ago, we have to re-evaluate.  It's going to be hard, it's going to painful, and many of you may not be able to handle it; but it's what we need."  And now I've set up a huge task force, a litany of internal & external evaluation systems, and am spending all my time reshaping the business and rediscovering the vision of our mission in action.  Blunt honesty, even with those you like, can be painful, but it doesn't imply distancing.


Maybe you should take your own advice and use a dictionary. He has stated SEVERAL times now that he's a libertarian? He has stated the Tea Party is becoming close to irrelevant. So let me summarize again for you and read this slowly so you get it. He said the Tea Party is becoming irrelevant and he is now going to play with the libertarians. Get that? 

That's like me telling my girlfriend I think she's irrelevant and I"m going to play with this other girl. How do you think she will take that? Will she say ooh thanks for the blunt honesty? Glenn Beck is about making money and he sees these kooky libertarians seem to be popular with the youth so he is going where the money is.

----------


## Article V

> Doesn't feel so nice, does it?
> 
> 
> Seriously, though, you and I obviously disagree on this.
> 
> It's great for folks like Glenn to preach the good news of small government principles to the masses.  On that we agree.
> 
> I think it's horrible for him to then point to politicians that also talk about small government (sometimes), but enact big gov't policies.  I think it has direct impact on public opinion, including for whom they vote.
> 
> ...


1) When did I put words in your mouth?  If I did, I'll apologize.  If I didn't, then I don't appreciate you accusing me of it and will expect an apology from you.  I don't intend to win a debate by falsifying your argument or character; and I expect the same courtesy from you.

2) In a thread that's now 49 pages long, it's easy to get confused as to the purpose of the debate.  Your post is something I agree with wholeheartedly; Beck's positive/negative effects on the libertarian movement are a matter of opinion, and no opinion is necessarily more correct than any other (I see merit in both sides of that argument).  But that was not the purpose of our argument: we were arguing about whether Beck _is_ a libertarian.  Positive or negative effects toward libertarianism is largely irrelevant to that debate, so our agreeing to disagree on that topic is therefore also irrelevant (in the same way that debating whether Hitler had a positive/negative effect on the toothbrush mustache is irrelevant to a debate about whether Hitler _had_ a toothbrush mustache).

----------


## WarAnonymous

Listen guys...It's all about leadership

----------


## Article V

> Maybe you should take your own advice and use a dictionary. He has stated SEVERAL times now that he's a libertarian? He has stated the Tea Party is becoming close to irrelevant. So let me summarize again for you and read this slowly so you get it. He said the Tea Party is becoming irrelevant and he is now going to play with the libertarians. Get that? 
> 
> That's like me telling my girlfriend I think she's irrelevant and I"m going to play with this other girl. How do you think she will take that? Will she say ooh thanks for the blunt honesty? Glenn Beck is about making money and he sees these kooky libertarians seem to be popular with the youth so he is going where the money is.


Dude, that's not what he said.  Beck has always said he's a libertarian, before the Tea Party and especially while promoting the Tea Party in its prime.  He says the Tea Party has now made themselves largely irrelevant which means there's less for him to be involved with because there's less that the Tea Party is involved with.  That's not Beck distancing himself from the Tea Party, just as the closing of Hostess is not evidence of Beck distancing himself from Twinkies.

*For the record, even though I don't think he is, I wouldn't care if Beck _did_ distance himself from the Tea Party; or, for that matter, if he legally changed his name to "Mr. Tea Party."  But pretending that he's tossing the Tea Party under the bus and opportunistically switching to Constitutionalists is an inaccurate portrayal of Beck's words and actions.  Though I don't agree with many of his policy views, hate his endorsements, and find him simplistically repugnant and hyperbolic quite often, Beck has been pretty consistent; and any policy changes have been in the direction of more libertarianism, which I applaud and encourage.  There's hope for Beck.

----------


## Article V

I just wish we'd attack the policies rather than the man.  

I think that would help us a LOT toward attracting more believers and persuading more to become believers.

----------


## Article V

> I can't stand Beck but IMO this just proves the genius of Rand Paul.


Agree.  Rand is a lot more sensitive to the importance of messaging.

----------


## cajuncocoa



----------


## scottditzen

> Yeah, that struck me as odd too.  I can't think of anyone worse on social issues than Santorum.  Maybe it was a comment meant in jest or maybe it has an ultra-specific context known only to the poster.  Either way, I'm guessing that post was one of the reasons he got banned.


I'm generally respectful of other opinions...but wtf? 

Santorum is better than Ron on social issues??

I'll tolerate one of my elderly relatives making that kind of comment. But that WILL NOT not fly here on RON PAUL FORUMS. I mean, it's all about sharing ideas, but this forum should offer at least a little bit of refuge from stupidity.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Dude, that's not what he said.  Beck has always said he's a libertarian, before the Tea Party and especially while promoting the Tea Party in its prime.  He says the Tea Party has now made themselves largely irrelevant which means there's less for him to be involved with because there's less that the Tea Party is involved with.  That's not Beck distancing himself from the Tea Party, just as the closing of Hostess is not evidence of Beck distancing himself from Twinkies.
> 
> *For the record, even though I don't think he is, I wouldn't care if Beck _did_ distance himself from the Tea Party; or, for that matter, if he legally changed his name to "Mr. Tea Party."  But pretending that he's tossing the Tea Party under the bus and opportunistically switching to Constitutionalists is an inaccurate portrayal of Beck's words and actions.  Though I don't agree with many of his policy views, hate his endorsements, and find him simplistically repugnant and hyperbolic quite often, Beck has been pretty consistent; and any policy changes have been in the direction of more libertarianism, which I applaud and encourage.  There's hope for Beck.


Looks more like Abraham and Sarai to me.  But then I've seen him do this time and time and time again.

----------


## moostraks

> Dude, that's not what he said.  *Beck has always said he's a libertarian*, before the Tea Party and especially while promoting the Tea Party in its prime.  He says the Tea Party has now made themselves largely irrelevant which means there's less for him to be involved with because there's less that the Tea Party is involved with.  That's not Beck distancing himself from the Tea Party, just as the closing of Hostess is not evidence of Beck distancing himself from Twinkies.
> 
> *For the record, even though I don't think he is, I wouldn't care if Beck _did_ distance himself from the Tea Party; or, for that matter, if he legally changed his name to "Mr. Tea Party."  But pretending that he's tossing the Tea Party under the bus and opportunistically switching to Constitutionalists is an inaccurate portrayal of Beck's words and actions.  Though I don't agree with many of his policy views, hate his endorsements, and find him simplistically repugnant and hyperbolic quite often, Beck has been pretty consistent; and any policy changes have been in the direction of more libertarianism, which I applaud and encourage.  There's hope for Beck.





> Back in 2000, when he first launched his syndicated radio show in Tampa, he described his politics by saying, “I don’t really consider myself a conservative. I know I don’t consider myself a liberal,” he said. “I have a brain and I like to use it sometimes.” It was a smart pitch, one he more or less continued during his brief Bush-era stint at HLN, when he was billed as an independent.
> 
> 
> But when he got his big payday and highest perch to date on Fox News, he made a strategic decision to go the full crazy. A talented broadcaster, he decided to use fear and hate to pump up his ratings. It worked for a while. But it’s a civic sin that can’t be undone. Forgiveness is for faith. In political debates there is always the videotape.
> 
> 
> In some ways, this new guise is clarifying because it definitively answers a lingering question about Beck: is he sincere in his beliefs, or was his right-wing rhetoric just showmanship, part of a business plan to appeal to an agitated audience?
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...bertarian.html

----------


## twomp

The post above me is an example of what I'm saying! Thanks for the sharing the link. +rep!

----------


## kathy88

Sums it up well.




> Real libertarians look at Beck’s latest attempted incarnation with a mixture of disgust and annoyance. They don’t want this rodeo clown anywhere near their bandwagon.

----------


## torchbearer

beck is a rodeo clown.

----------


## Article V

> http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...bertarian.html


Aside from the misleading headline and selective editing to cause you to believe otherwise, I believe all the actual facts in that article support my statement.

----------


## Article V

> I'm generally respectful of other opinions...but wtf? 
> 
> Santorum is better than Ron on social issues??
> 
> I'll tolerate one of my elderly relatives making that kind of comment. But that WILL NOT not fly here on RON PAUL FORUMS. I mean, it's all about sharing ideas, but this forum should offer at least a little bit of refuge from stupidity.


Ha.  Well, the guy did get banned.  No reason on why, but I am guessing it had to be the Santorum statement.  I mean, who here honestly could believe Santorum is better than Ron on social issues?

That said, even with his banning, I think stupidity can be readily found in any discussion forum, including RPF.

----------


## moostraks

> Aside from the misleading headline and selective editing to cause you to believe otherwise, I believe all the actual facts in that article support my statement.


Lol...selective editing??? If you are talking about on my part, gonna have to try harder to look like a wounded party. Addressed the point you made which is bull. Would love to know how this translates into selective editing which implies I somehow twisted the intent of the article or your post-which is included in its entirety. I took the pertinent portion addressing the point in question and gave a link to the original article. Not seeing anything that substantiates your postion he has always been anything when this addresses his numerous attempts to reinvent himself. 

Beck has not always been a libertarian. An independant is not equal to being a libertarian. Beck is known by people from all walks of the political spectrum for being inconsistent. Google the words Glenn Beck and inconsistency and read some. Not quite sure what your deal is but you have some sort of investment in nay saying those of us who don't buy his latest mid election change of heart. You can talk till your blue in the face but for now there remains enough freedom on the web to disprove this alternate universe you wish to be true....

----------


## osan

> Glenn Beck: I'm done with the Republican establishment, it's time to support small government constitutionalists like Rand Paul
> 
> 
> 
> http://youtu.be/JYDf8yGaSaE



the only thing this does for me is prompt me to wonder what, exactly, is he up to.

Beck is double-plus untrustworthy.  I have heard far too many rankly insane things issue from his alcoholic pie hole to trust him past the end of my nose.  He is either an imbecile, however well intending, or controlled opposition.  In either case he carries with him the imprimatur of the tin-foil hat and it would not surprise me a whit to learn that They do not want Rand advancing beyond a point in terms of national merit and popularity as a political figure.  That being the case, instructing Glenn to get a woodie for Rand might be what they feel is needed to put the stink on him.  Perhaps not, but I would at least keep the thought - the possibility - in the back of my mind just as a reference marker for possible future events.

----------


## Article V

> Lol...selective editing??? If you are talking about on my part, gonna have to try harder to look like a wounded party. Addressed the point you made which is bull. Would love to know how this translates into selective editing which implies I somehow twisted the intent of the article or your post-which is included in its entirety. I took the pertinent portion addressing the point in question and gave a link to the original article. Not seeing anything that substantiates your postion he has always been anything when this addresses his numerous attempts to reinvent himself.


 _YOU_ didn't selectively edit.  The author of that article you linked selectively edited and then the editor himself put up a controversial headline to go with it.  But if you take away the opinion in the article and look past the author's selective editing, you'll see that the actual facts support what I was saying, which is why I said so.  I was at no point accusing you of selectively editing, and I also understand why you might be mislead by that article you linked.  But linking to an opinion piece masquerading as fact doesn't make it fact even if it contains some facts in it (in the same way historical fiction isn't fact).  I get why you suspect Beck, and I think a very healthy suspicion of him is a good thing; but I don't like it when those suspicions turn into accusations.  Beck, though I often find him completely intolerable, obnoxious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, unhinged, self-important, grossly irresponsible, downright wrong, and overly-sentimental, appears to be a sincere straight-shooter.  I defend him on that.

----------


## erowe1

> Beck...appears to be a sincere straight-shooter.


I just don't see that at all.

He couldn't come up with any remotely sensible reasons not to support Ron Paul in 2012, and so he fell back on some ridiculous claim about him having been in a committee with other congressmen, some of whom had some connection to George Soros. That's not straight shooting. That's fishing for anything at all he can say to avoid whatever his real reasons are. Same thing with how he bent over backwards trying to paint Newt as so much worse than Romney, and how supportive he was of Santorum. None of these things fit with the positions he had been claiming to have been drawn toward over the previous years. They were just ways for him to help Romney while still maintaining the pretense of not supporting him.

----------


## Natural Citizen

If I were to make this a meme about Glenn Beck (the person)....which I'm _not_ going to (because far too many others are)... but _if_ I were to do that I'd say welcome his opion on the way the world works. Also...If I were a christian...which I'm not...but_ if_ I were, I'd say let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Of course, who cares what I think...

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Sums it up well.
> 
> _Real libertarians look at Beck’s latest attempted incarnation with a mixture of disgust and annoyance. They don’t want this rodeo clown anywhere near their bandwagon._


What Libertarian "bandwagon"?

----------


## Article V

> I just don't see that at all.
> 
> *He couldn't come up with any remotely sensible reasons not to support Ron Paul in 2012, and so he fell back on some ridiculous claim about him having been in a committee with other congressmen, some of whom had some connection to George Soros. That's not straight shooting. That's fishing for anything at all he can say to avoid whatever his real reasons are.* Same thing with how he bent over backwards trying to paint Newt as so much worse than Romney, and how supportive he was of Santorum. None of these things fit with the positions he had been claiming to have been drawn toward over the previous years. They were just ways for him to help Romney while still maintaining the pretense of not supporting him.


Um... none of what you just said is true.  

Beck loves Ron Paul on most everything EXCEPT the Middle East, and Beck (not me) considers Ron Paul's Middle East understanding to be so misguided as to be in effect suicidal for America.  Beck (not me) always said that it was Ron Paul's willingness to allow self-described jihadists to arm themselves even with nukes if they want (in the case of Iran) which made Beck (not me) think Ron Paul was being so naive that it was opening America and its allies up for attack.  

Beck sees jihadists who call for our destruction and then take willful action to acquire weaponry to carry out that destruction analogous to madmen at the door loading pistols.  Beck believes that the non-aggression principle and an official, constitutional declaration of war allows him as a libertarian to fire at madmen at the door who load pistols since they, in his view, pose an imminent threat.  Beck does not believe jihadists who call for our destruction are merely seeking nukes to defend themselves against outsiders (he instead says he takes the jihadists at their word: "their complete words"), which is why he said he could never support Ron Paul since Ron Paul said it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for them to have nuclear weapons and "it's only natural for them to want nuclear weapons."  

In fact, here's the very moment Beck (not me) officially ruled out voting for Ron Paul ever: http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/...nt_id=19155493 (watch the entire video, but be aware it's easy to misunderstand Beck since there's a more conservative dude next to him and since they're also referencing other things they've talked about elsewhere in that show, i.e. "Marxists").  Later on (not shown in that video clip), Beck (not me) goes on to explain that Ron Paul's misunderstanding of Bin Laden is partially understandable due to the fact that Ron Paul is looking at Osama from a Western view and also looking only at the statements of Osama Bin Laden written for his Western audience; Beck (not me) then explains that the statements of Bin Laden written for Muslims (different from his Western statements) include quite a bit more information which make it clear that Bin Laden would have attacked on 9/11 and elsewhere regardless of American occupation or intervention.

For Beck, who agrees with Ron Paul on most everything else, the Middle East issue is such a big deal that Beck said time and again he could never vote for Ron Paul because of that alone.   Nothing about George Soros, no fishing expedition, just an honest disagreement about the motivations of OBL and what a prudent American response should be to those foreign threats like OBL who actively seek to kill Americans.

I obviously voted Ron Paul; but Beck was a straight-shooter on why he couldn't in good faith support Ron Paul despite their agreement on most every issue.  We Ron Paul supporters didn't like it, but Beck was being honest; and it's certainly not remote or insensible reasoning by Beck.

*Note: The video in the link above is important, so I urge people to watch it if they are confused why Beck didn't endorse Ron Paul.

----------


## erowe1

> Um... none of what you just said is true.


Everything I said was true.

Everything you said about Beck agreeing with Paul about everything else should say he pretends to agree with him. When the moment comes for him to back that up, he'll look for any out he can find no matter how much of a stretch it is.

You can't let him tell you, "This is when I ruled out voting for Ron Paul." He had ruled it out from the get go. The rest was just looking for a way to work it into his show like some kind of epiphany.

----------


## Article V

> Everything I said was true.


I just provided direct evidence refuting your false allegations.  Unless you can prove that the video is a Beck-impersonator, then you're wrong.

Also, I find it highly offensive that your response (7 minutes) is so quick as to prove that you didn't even look at the full evidence I provided (the 10 minute video plus the lengthy written post).  Since you're clearly unwilling to engage in honest debate where we each hear the other side before responding, I will not engage you further.  You've lost all credibility in the search for truth.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I'm not confused about Beck at all; Beck is an idiot.  That's why he didn't support Ron.

----------


## Article V

> I'm not confused about Beck at all; Beck is an idiot.  That's why he didn't support Ron.


Ha. Now that's more accurate.

----------


## erowe1

> I just provided direct evidence refuting your false allegations.


No you didn't.

Everything I said was true.




> Also, I find it highly offensive that your response (7 minutes) is so quick as to prove that you didn't even look at the full evidence I provided (the 10 minute video plus the lengthy written post).


No need to waste my time. Everything I said was true. There's no possible way anything you said was evidence that I didn't hear what I heard.

----------


## FrankRep

> No you didn't.
> 
> Everything I said was true.


Do you deny the existence of this post below?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4892091

----------


## erowe1

> Do you deny the existence of this post below?
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4892091


No. I deny that anybody who thinks that post contains any evidence at all that anything I said was false isn't a moron. Are you a moron Frank?

----------


## Article V

> No need to waste my time. Everything I said was true. There's no possible way anything you said was *evidence that I didn't hear what I heard*.


But what you said was you _didn't_ hear Beck provide any reason for not supporting Ron Paul 2012.  So the very purpose of my post was to provide you with the information you acknowledged you were missing.

Now you're saying my evidence was meant to disprove something you _did_ hear when your entire argument was founded on what you _didn't_ hear?

Hahahaha.



> Are you a moron Frank?


I think you've made it abundantly clear who the moron is.  Thank you.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

I would love if we got a Glenn Beck subforum. Just so it would be easy enough to know where not to go.

Daily updates on Glenn Beck's positions are really not necessary. Idgaf what kind of epiphany he might have had.

----------


## erowe1

> Now you're saying my evidence was meant to disprove something you _did_ hear when your entire argument was founded on what you _didn't_ hear?


I never said anything about anything I didn't hear, only what I did hear.

----------


## TheTexan

Glenn Beck 2016

----------


## Brett85

What exactly is the obsession with Beck?  515 responses to this thread?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

516

----------


## moostraks

> _YOU_ didn't selectively edit.  The author of that article you linked selectively edited and then the editor himself put up a controversial headline to go with it.  But if you take away the opinion in the article and look past the author's selective editing, you'll see that the actual facts support what I was saying, which is why I said so.  I was at no point accusing you of selectively editing, and I also understand why you might be mislead by that article you linked.  But linking to an opinion piece masquerading as fact doesn't make it fact even if it contains some facts in it (in the same way historical fiction isn't fact).  I get why you suspect Beck, and I think a very healthy suspicion of him is a good thing; but I don't like it when those suspicions turn into accusations.  Beck, though I often find him completely intolerable, obnoxious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, unhinged, self-important, grossly irresponsible, downright wrong, and overly-sentimental, appears to be a sincere straight-shooter.  I defend him on that.


Thanks for clearing the editing issue up. That said, I think you must be reading some other article because I'm not seeing anything to substantiate your position. When Beck,himself, claims to be becoming more libertarian it seems clear he doesn't think he has always been one. An independent is not the same as being a libertarian. He has some very statist views and some positions that agree with libertarians. He has done this dance in the past and screwed up when it mattered most by getting behind those who are horrible on the issues. He is inconsistent and acts the part of a raging idiot. The fact that he thinks you can call people nasty, disparaging names and expect them to not be defensive is imo very deliberate.

----------


## acptulsa

> The fact that he thinks you can call people nasty, disparaging names and expect them to not be defensive is imo very deliberate.


What could be more ridiculous than expecting people who see the problem to have the patience of Job with the people who are fiddling while Rome burns?  Yet this is the media's ploy across the board.  Libertarians as fascists?  Seriously?

----------


## Original_Intent

Beck talks a good talk between election cycles, but if there is a knife stuck in the back of good libertarian candidates come election time, I'll give good odds that Beck's fingerprints are near the scene of the crime.

In my opinion he is welcome in the small 'l' libertarian fold, but I sure would never let him define it. I suspect this is co-opt the Tea Party 2.0

----------


## acptulsa

> Beck talks a good talk between election cycles, but if there is a knife stuck in the back of good libertarian candidates come election time, I'll give good odds that Beck's fingerprints are near the scene of the crime.
> 
> In my opinion he is welcome in the small 'l' libertarian fold, but I sure would never let him define it. I suspect this is co-opt the Tea Party 2.0


It does seem to be a case of, be as libertarian as you want, and I'll even join you--but don't you ever try to put someone in a position to actually do something about libertarianism.  That's going too far.

----------


## Article V

> Thanks for clearing the editing issue up. That said, I think you must be reading some other article because I'm not seeing anything to substantiate your position. When Beck,himself, claims to be becoming more libertarian it seems clear he doesn't think he has always been one. An independent is not the same as being a libertarian.


You're welcome.  I respect and understand your view; I just don't see it that way.  For me, a libertarian can still say "I'm becoming more libertarian" as they journey from, for example, support of gay marriage to abolishing government marriage altogether.  So, in my view, the "becoming more libertarian" doesn't imply Beck was ever non-libertarian, just as becoming "more fat" doesn't imply someone isn't already fat (which Beck is).    Furthermore--besides the fact that Beck didn't actually say in that article that he was an independent--being an independent is not actually anathema to being libertarian either.  Many prominent libertarians consider themselves independent.  Heck, look what libertarian Ayn Rand said about libertarianism: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...ertarianism_qa.  Or, if you don't have time to read all her criticisms of libertarians on that page and elsewhere, here are some Cliff's Notes: 


> Q: Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?
> 
> AR: Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program. [FHF 81]
> 
> 
> Q: Libertarians provide intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them?
> 
> AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others. Further, it should be clear that I reject the filthy slogan “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by the Communists and the Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism. [FHF 81]


Is there any doubt that Ayn Rand would have called herself an independent?

----------


## Okie RP fan

> What exactly is the obsession with Beck?  515 responses to this thread?


Not sure what's going on here... Seems a lot of people are jumping on his bandwagon. There is plenty of reasons to not like the guy. I say let him advertise what he will, but, don't jump on his wagon for it. Beck isn't to be trusted, and it seems I had a couple comments deleted from this thread (?) or it may have been another one in which I was warning about Glenn Beck. I sure hope that isn't the case.

----------


## cajuncocoa

This is the problem with labels.  Textbook definitions of "libertarian" or "neoconservative" (or even "Objectivism") help to set parameters, but that's as far as it goes.  Purists may embrace 100% of a certain philosophy, while others adhere to only 70% or 80%.  Thus, the purists reject the 70%-ers as not worthy of the label.   

I don't think that's what's going on with Glenn Beck, however.  I don't think purists are rejecting him because he's only  30% away from *totally* embracing libertarianism.  I think he's being rejected because he's not _consistent_ in his beliefs over the course of an entire election cycle.  He starts out embracing libertarianism as soon as one election is over, only to endorse more neoconservative candidates when the next election approaches.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Not sure what's going on here... Seems a lot of people are jumping on his bandwagon.


Probably some are giving him a very generous dose of the benefit of the doubt assuming he's someone who can see the light w/o being a staged plant to flip the script come the next prez election. I lean toward not trusting him yet his daily praise of Rand only makes my man more prominent in conservative circles, thus making it easier for me to convert and spread the issues on a regular republican peer-peer basis. As long as there's not this negative impression one has for some politician, it makes it a lot smoother of a transition from identifying conservative-libertarianism to the target of Rand. The positive impressions are currently being offered by most of the right wing hosts and Rand is allowed to make his case there and also on many Fox and CNN shows. Pretty sure Rand is on guard to make sure he stays out of the weeds and only sticks to common sense meat and potatoes issues that sound legit to the average regular guy and gal. This approach may appeal to Beck and/or make his audience endeared to him more because on virtually all key conservative issues, he can point to one major politician to prove his point. If he can see the writing on the republican/conservative wall, he'll keep going in his transition as our ideology is the future. $$$$$$$$

----------


## Article V

> This is the problem with labels.  Textbook definitions of "libertarian" or "neoconservative" (or even "Objectivism") help to set parameters, but that's as far as it goes.  Purists may embrace 100% of a certain philosophy, while others adhere to only 70% or 80%.  Thus, the purists reject the 70%-ers as not worthy of the label.   
> 
> I don't think that's what's going on with Glenn Beck, however.  I don't think purists are rejecting him because he's only  30% away from *totally* embracing libertarianism.  I think he's being rejected because he's not _consistent_ in his beliefs over the course of an entire election cycle.  He starts out embracing libertarianism as soon as one election is over, only to endorse more neoconservative candidates when the next election approaches.


An undesirable endorsement is not a change in beliefs!  Rand Paul did not become more authoritarian when he endorsed Mitt Romney!  Could people please understand that political strategy and alliances have nothing to do with beliefs.  Beck was never the kind of libertarian that would go as far over as Ron Paul (and Beck admitted as much), so he compromised his endorsement then ramped it up with rhetoric to defeat Obama; that's not a change in libertarian policy or philosophy, that's just crap political strategy.  Somehow because Santorum is so repulsive to us, we imagine that Beck had to go further into libertarianism than he was comfortable to endorse Ron Paul rather than go with the more authoritarian politician that is Santorum.  While that's what we would have preferred, Beck is under no obligation to do that.  Moreover, he shouldn't do it if he isn't comfortable with it.  If Beck honestly believed Ron Paul's Middle East policy (not his foreign policy at large) would potentially destroy America (as stupid as that is), then Beck does not become a flip-flopper by endorsing Santorum in an effort to block Obama until a better libertarian (in Beck's view) shows up.  Seriously, Santorum/Romney endorsements were just bad political strategy decisions that we perpetually crucify Beck for as if we're the eagle eating Prometheus's liver each day.  We also crucify him for his negative comments about Ron Paul and his intolerance of 9/11-truth-sympathizers.  I understand all that, but Beck has always been consistent on those points.  He never flip-flopped.  He was openly never on Ron Paul's side even though he also openly agrees with almost all of Ron Paul's foreign, social, and economic policies.  It's just that the Middle East is a non-negotiable for Beck.  Lots of libertarians have non-negotiables: look how many libertarians here said they'd never vote for Gary Johnson because of his foreign policy.

----------


## compromise

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics



> Real Clear Politics:
> 
> Glenn Beck opines on the potential GOP field in 2016 and the relevancy of the Republican party. Beck said he is done with the "big, government, establishment Republicans."

----------


## A Son of Liberty

MOAR BECK THREDZ PL0X

----------


## compromise

> An undesirable endorsement is not a change in beliefs!  Rand Paul did not become more authoritarian when he endorsed Mitt Romney!  Could people please understand that political strategy and alliances have nothing to do with beliefs.  Beck was never the kind of libertarian that would go as far over as Ron Paul (and Beck admitted as much), so he compromised his endorsement then ramped it up with rhetoric to defeat Obama; that's not a change in libertarian policy or philosophy, that's just crap political strategy.  Somehow because Santorum is so repulsive to us, we imagine that Beck had to go further into libertarianism than he was comfortable to endorse Ron Paul rather than go with the more authoritarian politician that is Santorum.  While that's what we would have preferred, Beck is under no obligation to do that.  Moreover, he shouldn't do it if he isn't comfortable with it.  If Beck honestly believed Ron Paul's Middle East policy (not his foreign policy at large) would potentially destroy America (as stupid as that is), then Beck does not become a flip-flopper by endorsing Santorum in an effort to block Obama until a better libertarian (in Beck's view) shows up.  Seriously, Santorum/Romney endorsements were just bad political strategy decisions that we perpetually crucify Beck for as if we're the eagle eating Prometheus's liver each day.  We also crucify him for his negative comments about Ron Paul and his intolerance of 9/11-truth-sympathizers.  I understand all that, but Beck has always been consistent on those points.  He never flip-flopped.  He was openly never on Ron Paul's side even though he also openly agrees with almost all of Ron Paul's foreign, social, and economic policies.  It's just that the Middle East is a non-negotiable for Beck.  Lots of libertarians have non-negotiables: look how many libertarians here said they'd never vote for Gary Johnson because of his foreign policy.


+Rep

Rand Paul endorsed Romney to get a convention speech that boosted his political career and brought him to national prominence.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Levin says the same thing and I don't doubt either of them. But, will they go with Rand because they trust and agree with him way more times than not or will they nitpick him to death like some do around here.

----------


## S.Shorland

I like his new 'Libertarian' glasses.Makes him look like a geeky,always thinking freedom through,harmless guy

----------

