Glenn Beck evolving?

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm still trying to figure out how exactly we're supposed to make ourselves marketable to the GOP while still maintaining the principles we supposedly believe in. I guess I'm just not sure how all of this is supposed to work...

 

[acptulsa]

That is an awful arrogant statement. Arrogance often leads to dramatic defeats throughout history. I'm not entirely sure Ron could've defeated the Obama machine. So many dominoes would have to fall perfectly to make that happen and we couldn't even get the first domino of Iowa to fall our way let alone domino #998. Ron's own district in Texas and the people that arguably know him the best weren't overwhelming in favor of his Presidency. Stuff like that scares me to the point where I can see scenarios where Obama's campaign rolls us up like a carpet.

All of those polls demonstrate that he had a real shot at knocking Obama out in the general election. Yeah, Diebold still could have won it for der fuhr--er, I mean our beloved president, but I don't think an honest count would have shown him reelected in November.

Regarding Iowa, and the Texas primary, and all the rest, I stand by what I said. Republicans decided they'd rather listen to a liberal by the name of Rupert Murdoch than win the damned election.

Republicans have the principles that can save this nation and make it great again, but they stand by those principles with all the fortitude of a boiled egg noodle. It will not be said we did nothing; history will dump on them.

I'm not sure what would cause Rubio to be "done". The sip of water? Romney managed to win the nomination even though he was the architect of Obamacare. If the rank and file forgave Romney for that, they will forgive Rubio for his sip of water.

Who got forgiven? Republicans tackled the job of getting Romney elected with all the enthusiasm of a six year old attacking a plate of asparagus. The question is, will they again be fooled into thinking that the fact they don't like him means crossover voters will love him? The question is, will they again be fooled into thinking that the fact that he refuses to stand by Republican principles means he'll have a broader appeal, rather than understanding that all voters are disgusted by the mealy-mouthed more than they're frightened by convictions they don't agree with.

 

[torchbearer]

Its not what you are saying, it is how you are saying it.

 

[acptulsa]

(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.)

Anarchism tends to go by the wayside because people understand they're stronger as part of a gang than they are alone. And groups or organizations or gangs get more done if they are all on the same page than if everyone does what they want, which kind of defeats the purpose of joining the gang.

As for the 'people are bad' argument, that's a liberal thing at least as much as it's a conservative thing, and it invariably leads to the most repugnant psychopaths in all of society being the very ones who are put in charge. It's insane, but it's true...

 

[hard@work]

Want to get past that criticism? Want to get that 50% to forgive you (even though you say you don't care)?

1. Stop calling us fanatics for Ron Paul, guilt by association for an association we're proud of just pisses us off.
2. Apologize (atone) for what you did on the 9/11 interview ambush -- you were wrong, even if some "crazies" who believe in 9/11 CT love Paul. They're our crazies and those of us who do not agree with them on the CT agree the US gov botched and lied in the investigation. You can disagree with them and think they're insane, call them stupid, but respect that they're right about that last point.
3. Disavow neoconservative policies and politicians.
4. Review and restate your video documented positions on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Then and only then will the libertarian "fascists" forgive you. This is the sticking point with that 50% who don't like you.

 

[FrankRep]

I'm still trying to figure out how exactly we're supposed to make ourselves marketable to the GOP while still maintaining the principles we supposedly believe in. I guess I'm just not sure how all of this is supposed to work...

How did Rand Paul and Ron Paul do it? The GOP has Rand Paul ranked at the top.

 

[LibertyInJeopardy]

I don't understand what Glenn Beck wants. So people don't trust him...what does he expect? Maybe he doesn't realize his well earned reputation for being consistently inconsistent. If he wants liberty minded folks to warm up to him he can best make progress by evolving through consistent public efforts toward his espoused desire for education in liberty ideas. Bring Penn on his show. Bring Rand on. Bring on prominent libertarians. Discuss, learn. Pursue the defense of the bill of rights. That's all good. Words are not enough...it would take consistent words and actions over time toward what he says he wants anyway (libertarian education, defense of the constitution/bill of rights).

 

[acptulsa]

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.

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.

Rand Paul endorsed Romney while his father was still in the race?

Who's no better than the Mainstream Mafia?

The fact that Beck was willing to put that crap on his face at all--the very fact that Beck knew that trick--speaks volumes. And it was pragmatism that got us into this mess. How is it supposed to get us out? Understanding what our principles are, understanding why they used to work so well for us, and standing by them like bedrock will get us out of this mess, or we'll go down with the ship. There's no third way.

We don't have a bunch of Limbaugh and Hannity threads.

Neither is trying via subterfuge to gain our trust. Neither is pretending to be one of us. Neither is someone we'd be likely to make the fatal mistake of recommending to people curious about our principles and their effectiveness.

All three are wolves, but only one dons sheep's clothing.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'm still trying to figure out how exactly we're supposed to make ourselves marketable to the GOP while still maintaining the principles we supposedly believe in. I guess I'm just not sure how all of this is supposed to work...

It is quite simple actually. You start with areas of agreement, which there are many. When you address broad issues where there are disagreements (FP for example), you again start with the areas of agreement (for example, that America should have a strong defense) and build from there. You then proceed to present your case for your position knowing that you will face objections on certain points, you then isolate the objection and overcome it with a well reasoned and logical response.

The main keys are: having respect for others and their beliefs, being confident in your position without coming off as dismissive, and presenting your principles and ideas in a way that doesn't scare the shit out of the average person.

On that final point, I can give an example. You can have a person that is pro-drug war and have two people present him with an opposing view. One person can present a reasoned logical response focusing on the economics, personal liberty and state's rights. The second person can say things like "If I want to shoot heroin, then why is it the fucking gov'ts business to stop me?". Two people, same position on the issue, but much different ways of delivering the message.

 

[acptulsa]

The main keys are: having respect for others and their beliefs, and being confident in your position without coming off as dismissive.

And no Vick's Vapo-Rub. We aren't crybabies. That's a media fabrication designed to discredit us.

 

[Seraphim]

I think GB is actually evolving.

http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25608425&topic_id=23419450

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It is quite simple actually. You start with areas of agreement, which there are many. When you address broad issues where there are disagreements (FP for example), you again start with the areas of agreement (for example, that America should have a strong defense) and build from there. You then proceed to present your case for your position knowing that you will face objections on certain points, you then isolate the objection and overcome it with a well reasoned and logical response.

The main keys are: having respect for others and their beliefs, being confident in your position without coming off as dismissive, and presenting your principles and ideas in a way that doesn't scare the shit out of the average person.

I have no objection with that, on its face. But why is the GOP establishment not held to this same standard? That's exactly why Ron and all of us were treated the way we have been treated in the GOP.

Also, without compromising upon such a basic, foundational principle, how does one win - and carry forward - the votes of those people, exactly?

I mean, I can give you the formula for winning in the GOP. I know we can "win" the GOP nomination. But I have to question what value that has if we must subvert foundational principles to do so. It seems, as I've always said in these discussions, that we have two choices - we can go the way of Reagan, or Ron Paul. And some of you may reflexively say that Reagan would be better than anyone we've had since him (I wouldn't disagree), but the Reagan of 1980 is not possible today. The Reagan of 2016 is going to be the George W. Bush of 2000.

That isn't a path toward restoring liberty.

 

[FrankRep]

I have no objection with that, on its face. But why is the GOP establishment not held to this same standard? That's exactly why Ron and all of us were treated the way we have been treated in the GOP.

Question: How is the GOP treating Rand Paul right now?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Hey, how about Glenn shows his....come out in support of nullification of NDAA, Gun Control, all unconstitutional overreach...help primary Lindsey Graham (and others) with support for liberty candidates (start now)...ALL of this from now and right through 2016 and beyond.

There's lots to do to show you are for real, Glenn, but just talking between elections isn't one of them.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

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

Great idea. Now we need a volunteer to make the thread.

 

[FrankRep]

Hey, how about Glenn shows his....come out in support of nullification of NDAA, Gun Control, all unconstitutional overreach...help primary Lindsey Graham (and others) with support for liberty candidates (start now)...ALL of this from now and right through 2016 and beyond.

Like this?

Glenn Beck on NDAA: Nullify!
- Tenth Amendment Center, November 16th, 2012

 

[ClydeCoulter]

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

A video showing Becks antics in chronological order with an overlay showing the timeline of elections, etc...

 

[acptulsa]

I have no objection with that, on its face. But why is the GOP establishment not held to this same standard? That's exactly why Ron and all of us were treated the way we have been treated in the GOP.

No one said it would be fair. I'll let Will Rogers answer your question:

"You can't beat an administration by attacking it. You have to show some plan of improving on it."--Will Rogers 1924

Once you're in power, merely attacking is just fine. It's the status quo that must be proven inadequate.

Also, without compromising upon such a basic, foundational principle, how does one win - and carry forward - the votes of those people, exactly?

I mean, I can give you the formula for winning in the GOP. I know we can "win" the GOP nomination. But I have to question what value that has if we must subvert foundational principles to do so. It seems, as I've always said in these discussions, that we have two choices - we can go the way of Reagan, or Ron Paul. And some of you may reflexively say that Reagan would be better than anyone we've had since him (I wouldn't disagree), but the Reagan of 1980 is not possible today. The Reagan of 2016 is going to be the George W. Bush of 2000.

That isn't a path toward restoring liberty.

Reagan talked a good talk, but I don't think he ever intended to walk the walk. If he did, his record as governor of California would have been quite different from what it was.

Ron Paul spoke the truth bluntly. He figured he had nothing to lose by doing that, and he was right.

Rand Paul has something no other presidential candidate in memory has had--his father. Since he wears the same last name as his father, he should be able to speak in a way that doesn't scare off those who have trouble getting their heads outside the box, and we should have enough sense to give him some benefit of the doubt while he does it. I think it looks like a promising strategy. And I think neither we nor our fellow Americans have anything left to us to lose.

Question: How is the GOP treating Rand Paul right now?

In a way that's coldly calculated to make independent voters and disaffected Democrats mistrust him, imo. It was the complete success of our Blue Republican efforts--not to get them voting in the GOP primaries, in that we failed, but the polls that showed he had an outstanding chance to defeat Obama in November--that scared the hell out of the corporatist Powers that Be. They don't mind an anti-corporatist winning the nomination so much, so long as their divide and conquer efforts of the last few decades ensures that anyone who can win the nomination can't win the general.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

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

Yes, if true, it is a cause for concern.

How do you, Frank, juggle promoting UN Agenda 21 awareness with supporting Glenn Beck?

 

[FrankRep]

Yes, if true, it is a cause for concern.

How do you, Frank, juggle promoting UN Agenda 21 awareness with supporting Glenn Beck?

Glenn Beck is also anti-Agenda 21


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esJY2SK_4tE


Glenn Beck and Harriet Parke wrote a book called "Agenda 21" exposing what the future will look like if Agenda 21 is fully implemented.


Book Review: Agenda 21