Glenn Beck evolving?

[Origanalist]

 

[A Son of Liberty]

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

You missed the rest of my post... Rand has already - at least rhetorically - compromised on the libertarian position regarding foreign policy. What else do we have to compromise to get the GOP faithful to like us? Like, should I quit band? Should I drop out of AP classes? Should I act all dumb and stuff?

 

[FrankRep]

You missed the rest of my post... Rand has already - at least rhetorically - compromised on the libertarian position regarding foreign policy. What else do we have to compromise to get the GOP faithful to like us? Like, should I quit band? Should I drop out of AP classes? Should I act all dumb and stuff?

Please list Rand Paul's bad Senate votes.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Please list Rand Paul's bad Senate votes.

You missed the rest of my post... Rand has already - at least rhetorically - compromised on the libertarian position regarding foreign policy. What else do we have to compromise to get the GOP faithful to like us? Like, should I quit band? Should I drop out of AP classes? Should I act all dumb and stuff?

\\

 

[FrankRep]

\\

So you're mad that Rand Paul talks like a Conservative and votes like a Libertarian.

 

[Brett85]

Please list Rand Paul's bad Senate votes.

Sanctions on Iran. That's about it.

 

[FrankRep]

Sanctions on Iran. That's about it.

That's true. This could be his only real bad vote. I'm okay with a 99% constitutional voting record.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

So you're mad that Rand Paul talks like a Conservative and votes like a Libertarian.

So I'm supposed to just trust that every time Rand says something I disagree with, I can count on him to vote appropriately?

Conversely, your average conservative-cum-neocon voter is never going to get wise to this deception?

YET AGAIN - how many ways should I have to change my behavior, language, and principles in order to get the average GOP voter to love me??

 

[FrankRep]

So I'm supposed to just trust that every time Rand says something I disagree with, I can count on him to vote appropriately?

I'm saying you should judge Rand Paul by his votes. Rand Paul is speaking the language of the Conservatives, it's a language you don't understand.

 

[vita3]

Not having the courage to try & engage w/ Iran is a BIG failure in my book.

Rand is supposed to be independent in this arena

 

[FrankRep]

Not having the courage to try & engage w/ Iran is a BIG failure in my book.

Rand is supposed to be independent in this arena

Well, get more Rand Paul-like politicians in office and they'll have more control over shifting the government to be more Constitutional.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm saying you should judge Rand Paul by his votes. Rand Paul is speaking the language of the Conservatives, it's a language you don't understand.

And I'm asking why I should trust him based upon his rhetoric. But that has remained the unanswerable question from the beginning. At least Occam's Banana has had the courage to admit that his rhetoric reveals his beliefs; and as such, as a principled libertarian who cannot countenance advocacy of foreign interventionism, I cannot support him. At least this is a more honest approach, with integrity, than what you are suggesting. I also question why the conservative-cum-neocon voter should support him, if as you suggest his rhetoric does not matter his actions in Congress.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Having been at OWS and having been a moderator of many Ron Paul Facebook groups, I can assure you that early on in OWS many Ron Paul supporters were not there to educate; they honestly joined OWS thinking it was a movement against Wall Street cronyism.

I had to write several letters to the owners of the Facebook groups I moderated to implore them not to support OWS so quickly because, being so close to it and having watched it develop through the progressive political machine long before any feet were actually on the ground, I knew that the OWS movement was actually nothing more than a violent tool of the left. Once that reality became clear, THEN many early Ron Paul supporters left OWS while some others chose to stay to educate because of the unlikely friendships they made. But in the early phases of OWS, many gullible Ron Paul supporters were sucked in and helped inadvertently tarnish some aspects of the R3volution. Heck, the V for Vendetta imagery of OWS came from those early Ron Paul supporters, and because of them that imagery is now permanently associated with violence, chaos, and stuck-up leftist progressives who hate capitalism.

Sad but true.

Yep. That's spot on. I dealt with it myself except actually on the ground. Was an interesting phenomenon, for sure. One that must also remain on the radar.

I'm curious about some of our peers here sometimes as topics like these begin to get spun six ways from Tuesday and the terms of controversy are redirected into a ditch. It's almost as if the same phenomenon you brought up is still squirming around. In fact I think that there is an underlying effort to resurrect the conflict of interest. BTL chose an interesting video to post here. Not for the subject matter, per se, but along the lines of hijacking the terms of controversy. Needs to be stepped on and squashed. Soon.

There is also an underlying phenomenon with this whole Beck thing which really isn't about Beck, per se. Although it is quickly becoming that. This is dangerous. This creates what we see happening in this particular thread and some others for what it's worth. This is a cultural phenomenon.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Well, get more Rand Paul-like politicians in office and they'll have more control over shifting the government to be more Constitutional.

Fool's errand.

 

[Rocco]

Name one thing Rand Paul has SAID that isn't consistent with the liberty message. If you notice, he's not changing his points in rhetoric, he's changing the way issues are framed and ultimately that leading to liberty solutions.

And I'm asking why I should trust him based upon his rhetoric. But that has remained the unanswerable question from the beginning. At least Occam's Banana has had the courage to admit that his rhetoric reveals his beliefs; and as such, as a principled libertarian who cannot countenance advocacy of foreign interventionism, I cannot support him. At least this is a more honest approach, with integrity, than what you are suggesting. I also question why the conservative-cum-neocon voter should support him, if as you suggest his rhetoric does not matter his actions in Congress.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

He's advocated an interventionist foreign policy.

 

[FrankRep]

And I'm asking why I should trust him based upon his rhetoric. But that has remained the unanswerable question from the beginning. At least Occam's Banana has had the courage to admit that his rhetoric reveals his beliefs; and as such, as a principled libertarian who cannot countenance advocacy of foreign interventionism, I cannot support him. At least this is a more honest approach, with integrity, than what you are suggesting. I also question why the conservative-cum-neocon voter should support him, if as you suggest his rhetoric does not matter his actions in Congress.

I didn't say anything about "trusting" politicians. I said judge Rand Paul by his Senate votes. Plus, we have already established you don't understand the Conservative language.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I didn't say anything about "trusting" politicians. I said judge Rand Paul by his Senate votes. Plus, we have already established you don't understand the Conservative language.

Rhetoric comes before votes. I would vote based upon rhetoric.

 

[MisfitToy]

I think the important question is how do we use this to our advantage?

 

[FrankRep]

Rhetoric comes before votes. I would vote based upon rhetoric.

You have that backwards. Votes are more important than talk. As they say: "Talk is cheap."