Glenn Beck evolving?

[FrankRep]

I fucking hope not. Perhaps the RPF collective memory is not what I perceive it to be...someone oughta start a thread entitled "A Touching Retrospective on a Great American, Glenn Beck" and fill it with video and audio links, then ask the mods to kindly sticky that motherfucker

Glenn Beck has been long time friends with Judge Napolitano. That's a cause for concern.

 

[DGambler]

Are members here really starting to trust Beck? That's disgusting.

The membership of this forum continues to degrade further away from Liberty every time I turn around...

I'm on mobile, so I can't check... those "supporting" Beck in this thread, what are their join dates?

 

[notsure]

Glenn Beck has been long time friends with Judge Napolitano. That's a cause for concern.

Long time friend? Like, what do you mean?

 

[notsure]

I'm on mobile, so I can't check... those "supporting" Beck in this thread, what are their join dates?

2000 late.

 

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Long time friend? Like, what do you mean?

Like, Nap is pulling Beck into a dark corner, grabbing him by the lapels, and grunting through his teeth, saying "Listen to me, you little SHIT..." as spittle bounces off Beck's dumbass glasses

 

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Glenn Beck @ 12 min mark

"You libertarians are nazis..."

Dear everyone thinking that Beck is evolving:

. We don't want this guy in the same hemisphere of the liberty movement. He's too far gone to be saved. He doesn't want "in" anyway; he'd rather make certain that you know you are wrong and that he is right.

The last 20 seconds or so were absolutely pathetic. This man fails to understand that none of us really give a fuck about what the other guy thinks, or feels - that's up to him. It's about the right to be left the hell alone, to have sound money, and a government that isn't hell bent on ruling the goddamn world.

Listening to him apologizing to the people he spent all of 2011 and 2012 maligning...it reminded me of when my mom fucks up, knows she fucked up, then apologizes in that same bleary eyed fake ass way. Yup, my original hypothesis is confirmed: no, Beck is not evolving, and remains an utter waste of time.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

What Beck doesn't understand is that hell hath no fury like a libertarian scorned. It all stems from him and David Horowitz saying the liberty movement was in bed with the islamo-facists and implying we were domestic terrorists. A lot of people never forgot that.

 

[Intoxiklown]

We cry foul and demand blood when we get misleading or bad press. We cry conspiracy when no one wants to espouse the message that keeps this motley group together. And when someone in the media does these things we want? We cry foul and conspiracy.

Who cares if he has some super secret satanic motive to make money? If it brings 5 more people who stay with the liberty group, it's a good thing. And who cares what he did or said in the past? I was a die hard neo-con until I actually started reading and researching Ron Paul and Libertarianism. Am I a super secret infiltrator? When you're in the fight of your life, and the stakes are dangerously high, you take any help you can get. The REAL "battered spouse" syndrome is the spouse that WON'T take any help.

I'm sorry, but he's right about one thing. A few people have their head so far up their ass, they've lost sight of anything but their own shit. If the goal is liberty, than anyone willing to help with that....even one iota....has a place. If we don't have a place for that, then we're not about liberty. We're about crying on the internet about how much smarter we are than everyone else, because we're smug fucks who enjoy having things taken from us.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Agreed. Historically speaking it's akin to have the Mongol hordes appear on the horizon and grind you into dust. Roving despotic bands would rule the day in any true anarchy scenario. Anyone that disputes that disputes thousands of years of human history.

You do realize that neither the Mongols nor the peoples they conquered were anarchists, don't you? But even setting that aside ...

History is contingent upon a vast, vast, VAST arrays of inter-related variables.

Change any one of those variable even slightly and "history" could have been extremely different from what it actually was.

And many of those variables (such as geographical availability of resources or miltary tactics & technology, to name only two of thousands upon thousands) have nothing whatsoever to do with abstract political and philosophical principles.

It's fun to discuss theoretically. 300 million isn't that shocking given the exponential population growth within the last century coupled with technological advances in the art of killing. Some estimate the Mongols wrecked death upon 40 million during their reign. History is on my side, someone will wear the reigns whether by government decree or will to power.

So (by your assessment) we are screwed no matter what. "History proves it." So why even bother?

History is not on your side - nor is it on anyone else's side. History "proves" absolutely nothing about what is or is not possible.

At best, history merely reveals what did or did not happen "once upon a time" (under the particular conditions and circumstances of that time).

History is composed of a posteriori contingencies, not a priori necessities.

There was once a point in time at which you could have used history to "prove" that constitutional republics are not possible - because none had ever existed before.

In fact, you could even use modern history and current events to "prove" that right now, today, constitutional republicanism is a complete failure.

And anyone who did so would be just as full of crap as those who claim that history "proves" that anarchism is doomed to fail.

(The only "argument" against anarchism that is even lamer than the "historical" argument is the "people are bad (so we need some people to be in charge of everyone else)" argument.)

 

[CPUd]

I fucking hope not. Perhaps the RPF collective memory is not what I perceive it to be...someone oughta start a thread entitled "A Touching Retrospective on a Great American, Glenn Beck" and fill it with video and audio links, then ask the mods to kindly sticky that motherfucker

For good source material:

glenn beck site:ronpaulforums.com

 

[TheTyke]

I don't believe in evolution.

 

[itshappening]

Beck's little minions are even bigger d*cks than him, if that's possible.

 

[Article V]

Wow. It seemed unlikely it could ever happen but I think I now respect Glenn Beck even less. What was someone saying about him appearing sincere?

Limberger turned off his ears until they atrophied and now Beck's trying to make himself blind.

The Ultimate Prostitute.

Do you not realize that video with the Vic's vapo rub was for a photo shoot where Beck needed to mock the fact that he regularly gets overly teary and emotional. It's a spoof of himself; it's parody. It's purposefully not genuine. He's pointing out that there's some truth to the SNL mockery of him and so he needed vapo rub for the photo shoot. He isn't using vapo rub in his live television show where the camera never leaves him and he talks for 20 minutes straight without interruption before eventually crying.

Do you regularly misread videos like you've done with Beck's crying photo shoot? If so, you're no better than the MSM who selectively edit Ron Paul to fit their narrative.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

There have been ten Libertarian Party members elected to State lower houses,but none for the last dozen years or so.Also the odd city council member,school board,dogcatcher...

Actually, the last LP member to win a state legislature seat solely on the LP ballot line was Andre Marrou (AK) in 1984. Every state legislature victory that the LP has claimed since then came by way of "fusion candidates", i.e. candidates that are on both the Republican line and the Libertarian line of the ballot.

As far as their local electoral success, the large majority of those wins are in non-partisan offices. For example, of the nine newly elected LP members from 2012, only three were in partisan races (http://www.lp.org/2012-elected-libertarians). And of those three, none of them were opposed in their bid for office.

So as dismal as the LP's electoral success appears to be on paper, it is even worse when you look a little deeper at the results. If every member of the LP took a critical and honest look at the party's record, logic would prevail and the party would be abandoned instantaneously. The problem is LP members do not operate by logic and reason, but delusion.

 

[Article V]

When he apologizes to RP publicly and preaches the NAP correctly for a year with no slip ups, I will then consider him to have begun his evolution... Until then, he's a shill.

Beck apologies in the video, "Some of us are coming a little late to the game, and we apologize that we are not as smart as you are." Beck regularly preaches the NAP and, to my knowledge, always has even before the '08 election. He doesn't need to apologize to Ron Paul specifically because Beck genuinely and openly didn't agree with Ron Paul's interpretation of the NAP with regards to Iran's nuclear program; and, while I disagree with Beck, I cannot claim he's not a believer in the NAP simply because he (wrongly, in my view) sees Iran's unique and violent rhetoric paired with its unrelenting quest to obtain nuclear arms to carry out that violence as reason to consider taking action to prevent that scenario should it get that far and provided it's done with an official, constitutional declaration of war by Congress. In fact, that view is exactly Rand's official view.

 

[Article V]

Note the sarcasm

The Santorum endorsement is the number one thing that kind of discredits Beck's claim to be a libertarian. I like Beck, but I don't see how anyone who endorses Rick Santorum can possibly claim to be a libertarian. I don't even claim to be a libertarian, but I supported Ron in both 2008 and 2012 and would never consider voting for someone like Santorum.

Yeah, and likewise Rand's endorsement of Mitt Romney--while Ron Paul was still in the race even--is the number one thing that discredits Rand's claim to be a libertarian. Endorsing the lesser evil who you think has a possibility of winning completely invalidates one's libertarianism. Political strategy to slow the growth of government should never be permitted; any libertarian who does this isn't a libertarian. It's all or nothing always; to hell with helping the country survive to fight another day, it's liberty or death every moment. Pragmatism over philosophy isn't allowed.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Why does everyone care so much about Boo-Hoo Beck? 18 pages on this thread currently, fifty pages here, people bringing him up all the time...he's really not that relevant. He's really not worth all the debate, or the hate.

 

[Article V]

Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck are good friends and the Judge used to guest host his Beck's show. What does this say about Judge Napolitano?

And Glenn Beck is the reason Judge Napolitano got his own "Freedom Watch" show on Fox Business. Too bad Judge Nap wasn't able to keep the show after Beck left Fox.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Why does everyone care so much about Boo-Hoo Beck? 18 pages on this thread currently, fifty pages here, people bringing him up all the time...he's really not that relevant. He's really not worth all the debate, or the hate.

8.25 million weekly listeners (which makes him the third most popular show in the "Conservative Talk" format), and the fact that guys we like (particularly Rand) are featured and talked about on his show frequently. As far as relevance, there are only two talk show hosts, in that format, that command a bigger audience, Rush & Hannity.

 

[Article V]

Why does he want to exclude anarchists from his camp? That IMO is one indication he's not sincere. Anarchists want the same thing, maximum amount of freedom, so why the hate?

He still thinks of anarchists as people who support complete chaos, which is how anarchists are viewed by the majority of people on earth. This isn't exactly Beck's fault. Because of the way the word "anarchy" has evolved in the English language, Beck hasn't quite learned the more conservative, legitimate, pragmatic political philosophy of anarchism that classical anarchists support. At some point, if they ever want to be heard and understood by Beck or society-at-large, classical anarchists will likely have to change the word that identifies them (in the same way classical liberals in America eventually had to call themselves libertarians) if they ever want to break through the noise progressive chaos-creators have formed around the term "anarchy."