Did anyone just see Glen Beck's insulting attack about Ron Paul?

[LRitz]

I just got finished watching it...He was so rude and completely made fun of him! It was terrible!

I just got finished sending Glen Beck this email...

I just got finished listening to your insane rant about the Ron Paul. I have been a staunch republican voters my entire voting life but I can tell you that I am now realizing that the republican party does not any longer support true conservative/republican values. You making fun of Ron Paul and listening to your ridiculous break down of what causes terror made me angry. Ron Paul has a lot of supporters and he COULD win the presidency if the media would quit fighting him. He makes more sense than any of the other candidates and more closely represents regular American people. When I see people like you and Sean Hannity attacking him these past few days, I'm wondering why? Why are people so scared of listening to him talk? However, I do appreciate the fact that he was going to be a guest on your show. Ever since I learned of Ron Paul, I have been wishing for more media coverage to hear what he has to say....After listening to the rant on your show tonight, I am sure that you only had him on to attack him. Where are your facts for your break-down of what causes terror attacks? Have YOU read the 9/11 commission reports? I am saddened and very dissappointed in the Republican party right now. Republicans are imploding themselves in this race. Ron Paul is the only person in this race who will be able to pull support from republican, libertarian, AND the democratic parties to be able to beat the democrats...and that is a fact. If he doesn't win the primaries, the next president will be a Democrat.

Lisa in Texas

 

[jenindallas]

I saw it...

My husband and I are watching it as I type. We are so screaming at the television right now. I wish people would seriously open their eyes. Why are they maligning Dr. Paul? Wait, I know why.... They are scared to death that the American people might actually have enough brain cells to make their own decisions, and that our decision isn't what they want..

 

[Suzu]

...If he doesn't win the primaries, the next president will be a Democrat.

That's exactly what they want to happen. Satisfy the Dems with Hitlery and maintain the status quo.

 

[jimmyjamsslo]

Lisa, check out ron on wolf blitzer

he did great, and lots of my liberal/democrat friends watch 'the situation room'.



Ron with Wolf

 

[angelatc]

I'm probably going to be the odd man out here, but I think passing over Beck was a mistake.

The Blitzer crowd are Democrats. RP isn't going to get his word out, or gain primary voters, by appearing on CNN.

He's better off grabbing as much of the GOP audience as he can if he wants to get his word out to the core.

 

[jimmyjamsslo]

Think twice...

I was a registered democrat until recently. I've managed to persuade a couple die-hard liberal friends to re-register republican to vote for Dr. Paul in the closed primaries here, after sharing videos with them. I think Paul was excellent on the Blitzer show, and he may get more Democrats to switch over than you might think. We have until February! (October actually for registration)

Jimmy

 

[LRitz]

That's great news Jimmy...I get dis-heartened at this at times. I truly believe that Ron Paul is a president that can represent ALL Americans...conservative and liberals alike.

 

[jimmyjamsslo]

It's remarkable...

...it's remarkable how dynamic this forum is! I'm not used to getting responses so quicky in forums. Also quite useful!

Jimmy

 

[jae1227]

I watched Glen Beck today. I thought he was a nut but so are lot of other people (especially on FOX). I really wonder if he is a right wing nut or a sane person. Some people do stuff for attention.

 

[amonasro]

Glen Beck is a CNN sellout. He used to have a radio show that was pretty funny and consistently supported Bush and Republicans. As Beck is a Mormon, I'm sure he supports Romney. There's the underlying issue.

 

[4Horsemen]

Beck is a jackass, and if people take what he says as fact, then ignorance is bliss. The guy is a tool, don't bother sending him an email, he's not worth it.

 

[thePhilosopher]

Ode to LRitz

I can probably defend Beck's views the best, since I probably have watched/listened to him more than all of you combined. You can't get a feel for a person by watching 10 minutes of a program in which he disagrees with your favored presidential candidate. I'll try to bridge the gap here, and you all can listen or you can continue fancying Ron Paul as a "victim of circumstances" (a la Curly Howard).

First of all, it shows that you know next to nothing on Beck's views if you cannot spell his name ("Glenn Beck") correctly. Also, don't lump him with Hannity, because besides being targets for people who want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, they have much less in common than what you'd think. Second, Beck invited him onto the show and he flaked. If you know Beck's style, you know that he is about "Entertainment and Enlightenment," and that his poking fun at Paul (showing an empty chair with the footer "Ron Paul, Not Here") was just that: poking fun. Third, he said that he AGREED with a lot of Paul's platform: cutting bureaucracy and federal spending (something Hannity didn't even come close to doing, let alone anyone else). And because Beck disagreed strongly with one premise (that the US foreign policy went a long way towards the events of 9/11), you all consider that to be an "attack." I hope Paul has thicker skin than his base, because playing the victim gets you nowhere in a primary.

Blaming the United States' foreign policy for 9/11 is completely out of line, because it is a search for justification of a cowardly terrorist attack carried out on our soil. Paul suggests that we need to "listen" to the terrorists, hear their grievences, and understand why they are attacking us. Do any of you really believe that Islamic extremists NEED a reason to attack us, "the great Satan," the "Zionist Crusaders"? Do we think that we can understand their motives in purely rational foreign policy terms? As soon as you begin to think that there is a purely rational reason behind the questions "why do they hate us?" or "why did they attack us on 9/11?," you begin to make a rational justification for such an act. You cannot find reason in fervent Islamic extremism. You cannot find reason in specifically targeting civilians. You cannot find reason in their message or their motives. This is an inherently IRRATIONAL movement we are facing, and the sooner you folks realize this, the sooner you will understand why Representative Paul is wrong here.

The worst part is that, before this last debate, I thought Mr. Paul would best represent my views. I still don't have a horse in this race, but as of now, I could not bring myself to support him after his latest bout of irrationality. Foreign relations are clearly the most important topic for our nation for this election, and I could not vote for someone who does not understand the threat we are facing. Now, you all can either label me a neo-con goon or what have you, or you can actually consider the fact that your candidate might just be wrong on this one.

 

[thePhilosopher]

Glen Beck is a CNN sellout. He used to have a radio show that was pretty funny and consistently supported Bush and Republicans. As Beck is a Mormon, I'm sure he supports Romney. There's the underlying issue.

MORMON CONSPIRACY!!!!!! Beck has not supported anyone in the Republican field so far, and he has criticized Romney.

 

[winston_blade]

Blaming the United States' foreign policy for 9/11 is completely out of line, because it is a search for justification of a cowardly terrorist attack carried out on our soil.

LOL. Paul articulated the 9/11 commission report that points out that past foreign policy played a huge role in the terrorist attack on 9/11. Don't believe a bi-partisan panel with support from the FBI and CIA? Fine, hear the words directly from the horses mouth:

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403

He says it himself, and read the whole thing....knowing someone like you, you probably won't and will try to spin what you did read of it.

You have to treat the disease not the symptoms. All the other 9 guys just want to fight terrorism, Ron Paul wants to get at the root cause.

 

[tnvoter]

I was a registered democrat until recently. I've managed to persuade a couple die-hard liberal friends to re-register republican to vote for Dr. Paul in the closed primaries here, after sharing videos with them. I think Paul was excellent on the Blitzer show, and he may get more Democrats to switch over than you might think. We have until February! (October actually for registration)

Jimmy

I have some friends doing this also. It's amazing how people from across the board can work in unison when we support the constitution.

 

[tnvoter]

MORMON CONSPIRACY!!!!!! Beck has not supported anyone in the Republican field so far, and he has criticized Romney.

i lol'd

 

[tnvoter]

I can probably defend Beck's views the best, since I probably have watched/listened to him more than all of you combined. You can't get a feel for a person by watching 10 minutes of a program in which he disagrees with your favored presidential candidate. I'll try to bridge the gap here, and you all can listen or you can continue fancying Ron Paul as a "victim of circumstances" (a la Curly Howard).

First of all, it shows that you know next to nothing on Beck's views if you cannot spell his name ("Glenn Beck") correctly. Also, don't lump him with Hannity, because besides being targets for people who want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, they have much less in common than what you'd think. Second, Beck invited him onto the show and he flaked. If you know Beck's style, you know that he is about "Entertainment and Enlightenment," and that his poking fun at Paul (showing an empty chair with the footer "Ron Paul, Not Here") was just that: poking fun. Third, he said that he AGREED with a lot of Paul's platform: cutting bureaucracy and federal spending (something Hannity didn't even come close to doing, let alone anyone else). And because Beck disagreed strongly with one premise (that the US foreign policy went a long way towards the events of 9/11), you all consider that to be an "attack." I hope Paul has thicker skin than his base, because playing the victim gets you nowhere in a primary.

Blaming the United States' foreign policy for 9/11 is completely out of line, because it is a search for justification of a cowardly terrorist attack carried out on our soil. Paul suggests that we need to "listen" to the terrorists, hear their grievences, and understand why they are attacking us. Do any of you really believe that Islamic extremists NEED a reason to attack us, "the great Satan," the "Zionist Crusaders"? Do we think that we can understand their motives in purely rational foreign policy terms? As soon as you begin to think that there is a purely rational reason behind the questions "why do they hate us?" or "why did they attack us on 9/11?," you begin to make a rational justification for such an act. You cannot find reason in fervent Islamic extremism. You cannot find reason in specifically targeting civilians. You cannot find reason in their message or their motives. This is an inherently IRRATIONAL movement we are facing, and the sooner you folks realize this, the sooner you will understand why Representative Paul is wrong here.

The worst part is that, before this last debate, I thought Mr. Paul would best represent my views. I still don't have a horse in this race, but as of now, I could not bring myself to support him after his latest bout of irrationality. Foreign relations are clearly the most important topic for our nation for this election, and I could not vote for someone who does not understand the threat we are facing. Now, you all can either label me a neo-con goon or what have you, or you can actually consider the fact that your candidate might just be wrong on this one.

I'm looking for a vid of this... thanks for the other side view though I look forward to seeing it

 

[Gee]

Blaming the United States' foreign policy for 9/11 is completely out of line, because it is a search for justification of a cowardly terrorist attack carried out on our soil. Paul suggests that we need to "listen" to the terrorists, hear their grievences, and understand why they are attacking us. Do any of you really believe that Islamic extremists NEED a reason to attack us, "the great Satan," the "Zionist Crusaders"? Do we think that we can understand their motives in purely rational foreign policy terms? As soon as you begin to think that there is a purely rational reason behind the questions "why do they hate us?" or "why did they attack us on 9/11?," you begin to make a rational justification for such an act. You cannot find reason in fervent Islamic extremism. You cannot find reason in specifically targeting civilians. You cannot find reason in their message or their motives. This is an inherently IRRATIONAL movement we are facing, and the sooner you folks realize this, the sooner you will understand why Representative Paul is wrong here.

So far, Osama bin Laden has done what he's said, and said what he's done. He's said the attack on 9/11 was largely due to three things: Our forces in Saudi Arabia, our sanctions against and attacks against Iraq, and our support of Israel. Osama tells his people that these events, and others, are evidence that the United States is an enemy of Islam as a whole. In his last video in 2004, Osama said he planned to bleed us economically in Iraq and Afganistan, just as he did the Soviets in Afganistan. He literally said his goal is to bankrupt the USA, and so far I think he's doing a decent job of it.

Whether or not Osama is correct or not isn't relevent to figuring out how to prevent more 9/11-esque attacks. Every American knows he is not - America obviously has no broad policies to eliminate Islam, nor would we ever. But the problem isn't his correctness and sincerity, its his ability to convince others that we are an enemy of Islam. He needs to do this for a good reason: Its needed to establish a jihad under the Muslim law Osama follows (or at least claims to follow). His call for America to convert and his warning us of more attacks were not made as a claim that he truely believes America could be replaced by an Islamic nation, but rather as one of the requirements of his law before he may justifiably attack us again. (see Michael Scheuer's book)

Our continueing military involvement in the Middle East only convinces more and more muslims of bin Laden's message, hence the escalating violence in Iraq. If most of the GOP is correct, and the extreme terrorists do hate us for who we are, not what we do, we need to recognize that our actions will only bring more of the saner Muslims into their fold. Even if we accept the assumption that we were attacked because of our values and freedoms (and I haven't seen any evidence of this myself), we must acknowledge our presence in the Middle East and foreign policy in general does not help us defend against terrorism, unless you think we can somehow occupy the whole region.

 

[thePhilosopher]

LOL. Paul articulated the 9/11 commission report that points out that past foreign policy played a huge role in the terrorist attack on 9/11. Don't believe a bi-partisan panel with support from the FBI and CIA? Fine, hear the words directly from the horses mouth:

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403

He says it himself, and read the whole thing....knowing someone like you, you probably won't and will try to spin what you did read of it.

You have to treat the disease not the symptoms. All the other 9 guys just want to fight terrorism, Ron Paul wants to get at the root cause.

Yeah, here's a gem from that link, right out of the horse's mouth:

"And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages."

Yep, Desert Storm was the worst mass slaughter known to man and we intentionally kill women and children and call it "foreign policy." And we're pilfering oil from Iraq and still paying almost $4 a gallon for it. Give me a break!!!! You can't take anything bin Laden says as truth or even remotely close to reality. Terrorists don't need reasons to blow up people! Terrorism is inherently irrational. It is as irrational as saying that we need to listen to the grievances of cowards who hide in caves and saw prone people's heads off in front of a camera and consider themselves to be freedom fighters for it. What we need to know is this: they will kill us if we do not stop them. I am sick of the pity parties for the terrorists, who suffer from our unjust foreign policy. Terrorists are only empowered by comments like Mr. Paul's, and if you think differently, you've got another guess coming.

 

[thePhilosopher]

i lol'd

haha, thanks, its an inside joke but glad you enjoyed it