Glenn Beck discusses Rand Paul endorsement

It is sad how Glenn Beck literally changes his message based upon what sponsors he has.

Remember when he was sponsoring Valpak and his message was "Value and Values". Why the hell would someone preach on about "value" unless you are hocking your wares?

What is worse is I was at a CFL meeting made up of many Beck supporters and one lady literally said we just need to remember that it is all about "value and values". WTF!?!?


I would fully expect Glenn Beck to start preaching about "building Walls" if his sponsor was Walmart. Jefferson did not add into the Constitution "this Constitution is truly important, I would not write upon any less fine parchment than an Adam's hemp parchment. Do not trust your imporant documents to any other."
 
Traditional Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

But you support Rand. Go figure. And you say he opposes war with Iran because he (a politician) SAYS so, despite his actions being a vote for an unconstitutional act of war. Perhaps you missed my point...Rand is WRONG because of ignorance or he is a sophist and just SAYS he doesn't want war. Either way...why are you supporting him?

Whether innocent people die because he meant it or not is irrelevant...I'm pretty sure idiot neocons don't all WANT for innocent people to die, they're just mostly too dumb to realize that's what sanctions do.

BTW..I didn't misrepresent your beliefs...the sentence you quoted was meant to end in a "?". It was a question...the punctuation was my fault...but way to miss the entire point and still support this guy.
 
jmdrake said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is sophistry at its worst. This whole post was before he added the Amedment to the bill and then voted for it. Watch the video I posted, he says specifically he supports sanctions (and act of war) as a tactic to avoid war. Do you see the problem logically with that? This act of war was passed with no delcaration of war...so its unconstitutional. Get over it, sophist. You're making excuses for an unconstitutional act of war.
 
Last edited:
wizardwatson said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, you are equating a circumstance after being attacked with a circumstance where a people are no threat to us and it's purely interventionism with no logical self defense involved. Ron tried to get the terrorists labeled pirates via Marque and Reprisal and failed...he authorized to go after them via military action as a last resort...he never authorized nation building via COIN (counter insurgency). And BTW, Ron isn't right on every issue either...but at least he never would of supported these sanctions...so they are not equivalent acts, or Ron would have supported them.

It's simply not the same thing. Ron didn't use the reasoning "an act of war against someone who is no threat to us is a way to prevent war". Ron's reasoning was "we were attacked and we need to go after who did it even if we did provoke it, and since M&R was refused, I guess we'll go the route I'd prefer to avoid...but in no way am I preventing war with this act".

See the difference? If not, I don't know what to tell you. Rand's reasoning is purely nonsense that neocons buy into (not calling him a neocon, just saying)...that acts of war like sanction prevent war. I hate to tell him and you, but acts of war like sanctions increase the probability of war, not decrease it. Why? Because they kill innocent people like women and children, and thereby galvinize the domestic opinion against the interventionist aggressor.
 
Last edited:
ProIndividual said:
Again, you are equating a circumstance after being attacked with a circumstance where a people are no threat to us and it's purely interventionism with no logical self defense involved. Ron tried to get the terrorists labeled pirates via Marque and Reprisal and failed...he authorized to go after them via military action as a last resort...he never authorized national building via COIN (counter insurgency). And BTW, Ron isn't right on every issue either...but at least he never would of supported these sanctions...so they are not equivalent acts, or Ron would have supported them.

It's simply not the same thing. Ron didn't use the reasoning "an act of war against someone who is no threat to us is a way to prevent war". Ron's reasoning was "we were attacked and we need to go after who did it even if we did provoke it, and since M&R was refused, I guess we'll go the route I'd prefer to avoid...but in now way am I preventing war with this act".

See the difference? If not, I don't know what to tell you. Rand's reasoning is purely nonsense that neocons buy into (not calling him a neocon, just saying)...that acts of war like sanction prevent war. I hate to tell him and you, but acts of war like sanctions increase the probability of war, not decrease it. Why? Because they kill innocent people like women and children, and thereby galvinize the domestic opinion against the interventionist aggressor.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the sanctions either. I get it. But I don't have all the info that Rand is looking at either. I just think that it can be argued both ways. That what Rand and Ron did was along the same lines "Constitutionally" in that the were both objectively wrong while still having to do with defending the nation. Obviously the circumstances were very different.

I don't WANT to split hairs, my point is (and what I pointed out on the other thread abscess referenced) that if someone wanted to split hairs it can be argued that while Rand and Ron's unconstitutional votes were for very different circumstances they were substantively similar.
 
ProIndividual said:
But it is worse...way worse. Explained in above post.
Click to expand...

See Afghanistan didn't attack us either. Rand didn't vote to kill people, Ron did. It's hard to see how Rand can justify his act of war, but for me it's also hard to see how Ron justified his act of war even more so because Ron knew bombs would fall. It's murky.

See this is the splitting hairs thing I said I didn't want to do.
 
LOL! Glenn is upset because he has copyrighten the "BECK-STAB"© and absolutely hates it when someone "BECK-STABS"© someone else in his opinion without his permission!
 
Last edited:
helmuth_hubener said:
Nothing Glen Beck says is ever worth thinking about. Nor hearing.
Click to expand...

I really don't know what is wrong with some of you people, you make me think that you are the same bunch that chats in msnbc channels on Justintv. If anyone, even Ron Paul own son does ONE DAMN THING that you don't approve of, he/she is now of the devil. Glenn Beck, along with Judge Napalitano, Jon Stossel, and many others, have done MUCH in supporting causes that should be of importance to RON PAUL SUPPORTERS. Should any of them not agree in 100% lock step, GOD forbid the wrath they will suffer here.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-explains-why-the-federal-reserve-is-a-complete-scam/
Beck Explains Why the Federal Reserve Is a Complete ‘Scam’
 
Last edited:
Southerner said:
I really don't know what is wrong with some of you people, you make me think that you are the same bunch that chats in msnbc channels on Justintv. If anyone, even Ron Paul own son does ONE DAMN THING that you don't approve of, he/she is now of the devil. Glenn Beck, along with Judge Napalitano, Jon Stossel, and many others, have done MUCH in supporting causes that should be of importance to RON PAUL SUPPORTERS. Should any of them not agree in 100% lock step, GOD forbid the wrath they will suffer here.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-explains-why-the-federal-reserve-is-a-complete-scam/
Beck Explains Why the Federal Reserve Is a Complete ‘Scam’
Click to expand...

It's not about 100% agreement. It's about core principles...principles Rand doesn't share. You can be for or against abortion, for or against privatizing roads, etc., but you cannot be for Iran sanctions (an unconstitutional act of war, precisely because sanctions are an act of war and the war is not declared congressionally), and you cannot be for endorsing those who stand for almost everything we're against to further your political career or to expand our support by becoming more neocon. We're not here to become more neocon and win freaking elections...we're here to educate the neocons to our way of thinking. This is a slow and multigenerational approach that works, and we knew that going in. It's the exact successful strategy the Enlightenment used. That's the only way principled people are willing to win. Otherwise we incrimentally move more and more toward the center to get more and more votes until we're exactly what we started out fighting against.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Dr. Rand Paul Joins Kudlow to Discuss the Border
Replies
0
Views
1K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Occam's Banana
Rand Paul interview w/Glenn Greenwald @ SYSTEM UPDATE
Replies
2
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Brian4Liberty
Rand Paul on Russell Brand Podcast
Replies
1
Views
1K
jmdrake
jmdrake
jct74
Inside RFK Jr.'s Political Bromance With Rand Paul
Replies
0
Views
1K
jct74
jct74
Brian4Liberty
America is making a HUGE mistake! (ft. Senator Rand Paul)
Replies
3
Views
2K
oyarde
O
Back
Top