Glenn Beck discusses Rand Paul endorsement

[July]

Will you hold the Ron Paul supporters, who called Rand a traitor and worse, to the same measuring stick when they realize that he is not?

I wouldn't hold it against anyone for venting or having a genuine change of heart, no, of course not. I just feel like Beck has been very hot and cold for a long while now, and that makes it difficult for me to trust he believes in what he says.

 

[opinionatedfool]

glenn beck makes me sick

 

[ProIndividual]

Rand's rationale was that by amending it to say that it was in no way an authorization of force he was making a bill that was already certain to get passed less intrusive on the Iranians. I don't agree with it, but the intent is what matters and I will agree to disagree with him on it. One bad vote does not make someone anti liberty, and if that is the rationale this movement adopts we will become the Larouche democrats, a very small minority that cannot get anything done in any sense.

His Amendment is Orwellian. It's an act of war with no declaration, therefore unconstitutional. All the rationale in the world won't change that. He's putting "lipstick on a pig", as they say.

And it's one vote..on MURDER...you know, WAR. It's not privatizing roads, or weed, or abortion, it's MURDER. Vicarious murder. War w/o declaration is unconstitutional...that's all any non-sophist should need. Stop making excuses and face what this is.

 

[ProIndividual]

Rand has said that he views sanctions as a way to avoid a war with Iran. He thinks that if the sanctions actually work and prevent Iran from aquiring a nuclear weapon, the neo-cons will no longer have an excuse to invade Iran. I don't agree with that strategy, but I think it's clear that Rand opposes war with Iran and isn't voting for sanctions in order to kill innocent people.

And you think sanctions are a dtrategy to avoid war, even though they're an act of war and also increase the probability historically of war (they don't decrease the chances AT ALL).

For God's sake...some people will buy anything politicians say apparently.

Nuykes, according to game theory mathematics, prevent war. Iran can have a nuke if they want...that creates less of a chance war will occur since their main nemesis Israel alreay has 200+ nukes themselves. Otherwise, according to game theory, Iran is "exploitable" in strategy.

If we were Iran, we'd be STUPID not to pursue nukes.

You do not oppose war with Iran and vote for an act of war against them...unless you're ignorant. Ignorant or a sophist, it should make no difference; we can't support either and not be also ignorant or sophists.

 

[William R]

I didn't watch it, but I have the feeling that an alternative title could've been "Glenn Beck trashes Ron Paul supporters". Is this correct?

Well over at the Daily Caller David Kramer a regular blogger at Lew Rockwell had this to say a few minutes ago.

DavidKramer, Curroptocracy-D.C.-Department of Corruption

Only the Obama operatives and the Psycho Paultards are having a problem with the endorsement. One of the largest problems with the Ron Paul campaign were the Paultards. Sorry Paultards, being a Constitutional Libertarian, I have the right to call you Paultards. Don't like it? Well, too bad. I was a member of the Campaign for Liberty a long time before you freaks even heard of it. Now go to a 9/11 truther site and eat some stale fries from Michael Moore folds.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/13/r...g-on-strategy-not-on-principle/#ixzz1xijMTdqI


I'll say it again, some of Ron's supporters really hurt his campaign. Punk kids looking for attention. CPAC 2011 after Ron asks his supporters to be polite and well behaved towards others and what do they do?? Ignore Ron and start booing other speakers. Low class as the come.

 

[Brett85]

And you think sanctions are a dtrategy to avoid war, even though they're an act of war and also increase the probability historically of war (they don't decrease the chances AT ALL).

No, I said nothing of the sort. I was simply explaining Rand's position on the issue. I'm opposed to sanctions. -Rep for misrepresenting my position.

 

[Brett85]

I even said this: I don't agree with that strategy.

 

[Liberty74]

“I don’t understand it from libertarians. They are they’re in lockstep. Even if Ron Paul violates his own principles and the biggest one is the earmarks in the 14th district. More earmarks than you can possibly imagine, and he puts them in. If he was against earmarks, he wouldn’t put them in. But he puts them in all of the bills and then he votes against that bill. When he knows it’s going to pass, he puts the earmark in and then his district gets all of that earmark money. Where is the outrage?” Glenn Beck

Dear god when will this POS neocon Beck get off the earmark routine? Beck and his clan apparently don't understand earmarks. Beck bitches about 1% of the budget that is divided by 435 districts? He is a joke.

Hey Beck and his followers...educate you yourselves you dimwits.

 

[Liberty74]

I wouldn't hold it against anyone for venting or having a genuine change of heart, no, of course not. I just feel like Beck has been very hot and cold for a long while now, and that makes it difficult for me to trust he believes in what he says.

Glenn Beck is a fraud. He endorsed one of the most anti-liberty and pro-WWIII candidates running, Ricky "The Satan" Santorum. I stopped listening to him last summer.

 

[Weston White]

Just an FYI, they were reading all of that directly from this forum.

The first couple of minutes could be subtitled "Glenn Beck's assistant reads from RPF".

No doubt they will be reading this thread.

And here's a question for you Glenn: you couldn't help but throw in your criticism and negative commentary about Ron and earmarks? What exactly does that have to do with Rand's announcement? Do you know bias when you are engaging in it?

Or do you throw in a little negative commentary every time you talk about a politician? The topic was Rand's endorsement of Romney. No time for a little criticism of Romney? Hey, you brought up Rubio and Scott Brown, no time to quickly bring up a negative about them? You must be in lock-step with them, as you obviously have no ready criticisms.

What else would you expect from a media hack that is getting vastly overpaid by $25-million a year? They are not paying him such a vast sum of money for his looks or talent, they are paying him such a sum because is a sellout POS. Congratulations, Mr. Beck, may you both earn and enjoy what fruits you have coming to you; vae victis, vince malum bono.

 

[Liberty74]

Well congratulations to all of you who gave Hannity, Levin, and Beck all the ammunition to use against us they could ever want. Beck and Levin especially love to dump on libertarians because they harbor so much contempt for us and this will give them every excuse to do so now.

All of those 3 above have zero convictions and couldn't vote on principles if their life depended on it. Beck supported debt loving and anti-liberty Santorum who wants to start WWIII and cause mass murder. Hannity supported the draft dodging, share my wife Gingrich. Levin supported Cain who supported adding a sales tax on top of everything else while being in charge of one of the unconstitutional FED banks destroying the dollar and creating poverty and more government debt. HELLO!!!

Many RPF members still don't get it. Politics is about one thing and one thing only - HERDING. That's what is being done here with Rand and us. The Republicans are using Rand to herd us. He will be the gateway to the Republicans co-opting our message of freedom. People who believe in living your life the way you want and letting others live their life the way they want as long as no physical harm or stealing occurs is despised by both parties, hence the hatred toward libertarians and the silly, meaningless name calling.

Someone please ask me why you want to be part of the two party criminal system when the masses are leaving both parties in droves and where 40% of the voters are now Independents? Remember, much of Ron's voters came from - wait for it - Independents. It's why he got slaughtered in closed primaries. The Republican's hate freedom. They hate liberty. They hate the Constitution. They love the IRS. They love debt. They love war. They love welfare. They love the police state. Look at who they nominated for god's sake - a flip flipping, self admitted "progressive" when Romney ran for governor. Yes, Beck now loves progressives.

But But But "Rand is going to save us from those Republicans." LOL Silly Rabbits. Tricks are for kids. You are being had.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Pretty sure Rand learned long ago that it's blatantly impossible to herd Paulers. If it were possible, Paul might well be on his way to the nomination right now but it's simply not possible, and everybody knows it.

Although ill-informed, it seems apparent to me that Rand's failed attempt was to herd establishmentarians over to us rather than to herd us into the establishment.

Anybody who doesn't know by now that you can't herd Paulers is dumber than a turnip.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Still havent heard those two votes.....

Sanctions, trade deals, being okay with the Libya bill pre-no-fly-zone

 

[Brett85]

Sanctions, trade deals, being okay with the Libya bill pre-no-fly-zone

Support for free trade is a libertarian position, and he never supported a no fly zone in Libya.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Support for free trade is a libertarian position, and he never supported a no fly zone in Libya.

Didn't say he did about Libya (there was a bill pre-no-fly-zone that Rand was okay with, it had language calling for Gaddhafi's removal and support for rebels in the region), and those trade deals weren't lowercase free trade.

 

[Brett85]

Didn't say he did about Libya (there was a bill pre-no-fly-zone that Rand was okay with, it had language calling for Gaddhafi's removal and support for rebels in the region), and those trade deals weren't lowercase free trade.

You must not understand how the unanimous consent bills are passed. According to Demint, sometimes those bills are passed without the Senators even having any knowledge that they've been passed. If the Senator is away from his office he can't object, and the bill gets passed without any consent from the Senator.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

You must not understand how the unanimous consent bills are passed. According to Demint, sometimes those bills are passed without the Senators even having any knowledge that they've been passed. If the Senator is away from his office he can't object, and the bill gets passed without any consent from the Senator.

Great for DeMint, but that's not how the Libya bill went down. Both Lee and Rand's offices said they thought the bill was something they'd previously approved.

 

[jmdrake]

Sanctions against Iran (an act of war without declaration of war, therefore unConstitutional). I'd name a second...but if you need a 2nd after the first, you need to reconsider your ethics. There are a few times he could stopped unanimous consent...but the sanctions is all any liberty loving person should require.

Now do me a favor, and explain why an unconstitutional act of war is okay with you, and how the innocent people (many women and children) that may die because of these sanctions (plus the war that may be caused by them) is not a deal-breaker issue with who you support.

Murder is murder. Unconstitutional acts of war are unconstitutional acts of war...even when a Paul does it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/03/rand-paul-blocks-iran-sanctions-bill-118887.html
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blocked an effort Tuesday to quickly pass a bipartisan bill imposing tough sanctions on Iran, demanding that Congress make clear that the United States is not rushing into another war.

"Our young men and women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate," Paul, the tea party freshman with libertarian leanings, said on the floor. "Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of war, over the advisability of war and over the objectives of war."

Paul wants Senate Democrats to allow a vote on his amendment that says that nothing in the measure "shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of use of force against Iran or Syria."

The bill at issue sailed through the Senate Banking Committee last month and the House has already passed its version of Iran sanctions legislation. It would give the administration new authority to pressure Iran over its nuclear program, including by requiring firms traded on the U.S. stock exchanges to disclose any Iran-related activities and penalize U.S. parent companies whose subsidiaries have ties to the country.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who tried to quickly pass the measure on Tuesday, protested Paul's decision to stand in the way.

"I really am terribly disappointed," Reid said on the floor. "There's nothing in the resolution that talks about war. In fact, it's quite to the contrary. ... I read the Constitution a few times. My friend says he wants to restate the Constitution. That's a strange version he just stated."

Reid now can decide to file cloture to overcome the senator's objection with 60 votes, or he can cut a deal and allow the Paul amendment to be considered by the body.

And yeah, it ultimately passed on a unanimous voice vote. Rand stalled the new sanctions raised consciousness that we should be going to war with Iran all while not giving his enemies ammo against him.

 

[wizardwatson]

His Amendment is Orwellian. It's an act of war with no declaration, therefore unconstitutional. All the rationale in the world won't change that. He's putting "lipstick on a pig", as they say.

And it's one vote..on MURDER...you know, WAR. It's not privatizing roads, or weed, or abortion, it's MURDER. Vicarious murder. War w/o declaration is unconstitutional...that's all any non-sophist should need. Stop making excuses and face what this is.

You keep saying this and you are right. In essence it is an act of war without declaration but at least it's not willy nilly war actions, at least it originated from the legislature instead of being carried about on the whim of some President.

But guess what, you have to drop your support from the evil Ron Paul as well. HE DID THE SAME THING.

I've said this before, maybe even in response to you don't remember. The authorization to use force in Afghanistan was also not a declared war and RON VOTED FOR IT. He used the same reasoning Rand claims he used saying "that it's better than doing nothing".

Yes all those innocent Iranians are going to suffer from economic sanctions but those Afghan's got blowed up thanks to what Ron voted yes on. Did Afghanistan attack us or their military? Did they deserve to take the fall for 9/11?

No one seems to want to comment on this. If we're going to fault and drop our support of Rand for the Iran sanctions then we must also fault and drop our support of Ron for doing the same thing.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

You keep saying this and you are right. In essence it is an act of war without declaration but at least it's not willy nilly war actions, at least it originated from the legislature instead of being carried about on the whim of some President.

But guess what, you have to drop your support from the evil Ron Paul as well. HE DID THE SAME THING.

I've said this before, maybe even in response to you don't remember. The authorization to use force in Afghanistan was also not a declared war and RON VOTED FOR IT. He used the same reasoning Rand claims he used saying "that it's better than doing nothing".

Yes all those innocent Iranians are going to suffer from economic sanctions but those Afghan's got blowed up thanks to what Ron voted yes on. Did Afghanistan attack us or their military? Did they deserve to take the fall for 9/11?

No one seems to want to comment on this. If we're going to fault and drop our support of Rand for the Iran sanctions then we must also fault and drop our support of Ron for doing the same thing.

So Ron makes a mistake in his voting record, on a bill he was telling his staff would be used to justify all sorts of empire bullshit, and later says he wishes he could have the vote over again, and now people are using that to justify Rand's sanctions vote.

Awesome. I guess Obama isn't that bad, then, because he's just continuing what Bush did.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?380584-Redeeming-Rand&p=4491767&viewfull=1#post4491767