Glenn Beck has "had it up to here" with us (Ron Paul Supporters)

[cajuncocoa]

Beck spews their talking points, git-pieces and co-opts our message. If that doesn't incite "perpetual hate" then it sure doesn't inspire cordial respect as he;s now flinging insults at as after they shit all over us.

Please just stop apologizing for that.

^^THIS.

 

[nobody's_hero]

So Beck lost his Fox show because he talked too much about the Federal Reserve, and yet he still thinks Ron Paul people are the bad guys.

 

[moostraks]

And if he's more of a lightning rod than the guy whose ears atrophied from lack of use, well, one reason could be that he hasn't gone off on Ron Paul and us lately. And/or the fact that he's not stroke, stroke, stab. Limburger is far simpler--stab, stab, stab. It's only human nature to get madder at the con man who tried to win your confidence before trying to rob you than at the rabid dog whose behavior, though reprehensible, is consistent.

^^^ This is so true. He takes a message and perverts it. He makes it harder to reach some people because his version allows those we are trying to reach to remain within the system and comfortably root for their red team and not have to step out of the box and risk being called a freak (or a target of the gov't as a homegrown extremist). He is the peer pressure wing of the red team that plays upon the infantile american voter's need for social acceptance. Even the language he uses is reminiscent of high school cliques and their techniques of ostracization.

 

[torchbearer]

^^^ This is so true. He takes a message and perverts it. He makes it harder to reach some people because his version allows those we are trying to reach to remain within the system and comfortably root for their red team and not have to step out of the box and risk being called a freak (or a target of the gov't as a homegrown extremist). He is the peer pressure wing of the red team that plays upon the infantile american voter's need for social acceptance. Even the language he uses is reminiscent of high school cliques and their techniques of ostracization.

are you a social scientist? sociology was my field of study in college and your post sounds like a perspective i'd hear from someone who studies society.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe Beck actually believes in what he is talking about? Why is there this seemingly automatic reaction within libertarian circles to paint someone who disagrees with us on some issues as a "fraud", a "piece of shit", a "sociopath", a "false prophet" and other labels? Are we so ground in our own ideological bubble that we cannot accept that maybe someone out there shares our views on economic policy, gun rights, states rights, taxes and other issues, but has a different view when it comes to some aspects of foreign policy and domestic liberty issues? Are we so fearful that if a major media personality is out there with an opposing view that we cannot overcome that viewpoint with persuasion?

I'm not saying I agree with Beck on all points, but I have seen this type of reaction in libertarians circles for many, many years. It is almost an elitist position, wherein everyone who disagrees with us on some points is therefore an enemy.

Even among libertarian minded people there are different camps: paleo-conservatives, paleo-libertarians, traditionalists, left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc. Would it be right for me (who aligns most closely with the paleo-cons) to deride someone who is a anarcho-capitalist as a fraud and a piece of shit, because we disagree on some points?

 

[torchbearer]

Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe Beck actually believes in what he is talking about? Why is there this seemingly automatic reaction within libertarian circles to paint someone who disagrees with us on some issues as a "fraud", a "piece of shit", a "sociopath", a "false prophet" and other labels?

he flips-flops more than romney. it isn't that i just disagree with him-
I've agreed with him, then after and election i don't agree with him(on the same point) because he is now schizo beck.
honey, honey, poison.
leading the rats.

 

[fr33]

Would it be right for me (who aligns most closely with the paleo-cons) to deride someone who is a anarcho-capitalist as a fraud and a piece of shit, because we disagree on some points?

What goes around comes around. This is exactly what he does to us. He calls us terrorists and delusional people.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

What goes around comes around. This is exactly what he does to us. He calls us terrorists and delusional people.

Terrorists was certainly wrong on his part. Delusional, well he does have a point, because let's face it, there is still a segment that loves to post on comments sections of news stories that think that Paul is going to still win the White House. Few they may be, but they are out there posting away everyday.

 

[July]

Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe Beck actually believes in what he is talking about? Why is there this seemingly automatic reaction within libertarian circles to paint someone who disagrees with us on some issues as a "fraud", a "piece of shit", a "sociopath", a "false prophet" and other labels?

I'm not saying I agree with Beck on all points, but I have seen this type of reaction in libertarians circles for many, many years. It is almost an elitist position, wherein everyone who disagrees with us on some points is therefore an enemy.

Well, I think it's like anything else, there's a grain of truth because many of us have watched so many politicians lie for so many years, and have witnessed propaganda in the media, etc. So there is a tendency to be very skeptical. But yeah, I think there is a point where it might go too far, where we can become paranoid about each other, and that not everything is a co-option attempt.

The thing with some of the popular pundits in the media, is that some of them have an odd tendency to contradict themselves mysteriously during election cycles. Which is curious to many. Not all of them, but some do.

But yeah, even Ron Paul has said he thinks Bernanke really believes in what he is saying and doing. It's not that he's just trying to make Obama or Romney look good-- it's more complex than that. He's spent his entire life and career studying and believing in his particular economic view, and he really wants to make it work.

 

[acptulsa]

Terrorists was certainly wrong on his part. Delusional, well he does have a point, because let's face it, there is still a segment that loves to post on comments sections of news stories that think that Paul is going to still win the White House. Few they may be, but they are out there posting away everyday.

And does this mean 'Ron Paul supporters are delusional' or 'some are delusional? He's using a broad enough brush to slander me, and I don't have to like it. And why are we delusional? Because we try to make the democratic process work despite the fact that we have no megaphone like him, and Fox, and etc, so we have not a prayer? Yet he will say that this is a republic anyway, won't he?

 

[Todd]

According to Glenn Beck...Romney is a Socialist too.

Let’s take a look at what Barack Obama has done since
taking office that would raise any suspicion [that he is a socialist].
Again, the mainstream media can’t come up with a single thing. What have
we uncovered?

When Harry Smith offered one potential thing that
Americans could possibly point out that might be construed as socialism,
Obama quickly squashed that nonsense by pointing out that a Republican
proposed a similar plan.

Here he is:

SMITH: They would say that mandating that people have to buy insurance is something like that.

OBAMA: The sort of plan proposed by current Republican nominee Mitt Romney? Yeah, so…it doesn’t make too much sense.

Which
is why is why I said when Mitt Romney was running for president I don’t
want anyone who even flirts with socialism…his defense for an obvious
socialist act is: ‘Well Mitt Romney, he’s a Republican and he did it
too.’

Did anybody else’s mom, I remember mine probably in 1969
saying, you know, things like: ‘If Mitt Romney would jump off a cliff,
would you jump off too?’ Which wouldn’t have made any sense in 1969
because I wouldn’t have known who Mitt Romney was, but you get the
point.

It seems to me that you can’t disprove your socialism with someone else’s socialism. Can you?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

And does this mean 'Ron Paul supporters are delusional' or 'some are delusional? He's using a broad enough brush to slander me, and I don't have to like it. And why are we delusional? Because we try to make the democratic process work despite the fact that we have no megaphone like him, and Fox, and etc, so we have not a prayer? Yet he will say that this is a republic anyway, won't he?

Seems to me the solution is then to get a megaphone. Find a media personality that is on our side and work with him/her to build an audience and a show that is entertaining enough to draw in a large audience.

I went back and looked at the quotes that are referenced in the article and it does appear he is using a broad brush, but at the same time he could be referring to the people who are still out there pushing Ron Paul. I was a supporter, I donated money to the campaign, and canvassed my precinct. But I long ago stopped because for one, our primary is long since passed, and two he is not on the ballot anywhere. I see no point in bringing up Ron Paul to people I socialize with, because the nomination is in the past. I don't support Romney, and will leave that line of the ballot blank, but I have gotten over the loss many months ago. I think some are still stuck in the past and have not yet come to terms with the fact that the campaign was better than in 08, but still failed to accomplish the goal of winning over a large number of voters. So maybe he is referring to the folks that are still pushing Paul like the ones on here that are trying to get electors on the ballot in California for a write in campaign. I'm not sure, but since it is hard to get the full context from the article posted on here. Personally, I didn't take offence to the comments, since even though I supported Paul in the primaries, I am not one who is still pushing him.

 

[acptulsa]

Seems to me the solution is then to get a megaphone. Find a media personality that is on our side and work with him/her to build an audience and a show that is entertaining enough to draw in a large audience.

A personality does not a megaphone make. And I don't see the likes of Clear Channel and Knight-Ridder et al hiring and retaining someone who tells the unvarnished and non-cherrypicked truth. So, if we want a megaphone like that we have to build it ourselves, hope we get broadcast permits and licenses, and figure out how to make it pay.

And we should--if it's possible to. Otherwise, well, we've done pretty well with the 'net so far...

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

A personality does not a megaphone make. And I don't see the likes of Clear Channel and Knight-Ridder et al hiring and retaining someone who tells the unvarnished and non-cherrypicked truth. So, if we want a megaphone like that we have to build it ourselves, hope we get broadcast permits and licenses, and figure out how to make it pay.

And we should--if it's possible to. Otherwise, well, we've done pretty well with the 'net so far...

Yeah but honestly the internet reaches a very small segment of voters. I'm 74, and before my surgery which laid me up for many months, I spent very little time online for news and such. I have been online a lot more lately simply because I can't do much else. But after I recover, I will go back to normal life where I am active and involved in a lot of things. I don't stream videos and audio online, I don't check news sites multiple times per day, etc. My friends are all the same, and I live in a community with 13,000 retirees. We still read the local newspaper here.

I think the 24-hour connectivity is more so found with those maybe 40 or under. I have kids in their 40's and while they do have smart phones and are online a lot more than folks my age, they are not addicted to it like the younger generation is. And while the do use Facebook and Twitter and those sites, their interest in those is more for sports or hobbies rather than politics.

Keep in mind that more than half of the adults living in this country grew up with 6 TV channels and you had to get off the couch to change the channel. I think we are probably 10 to 15 years away from seeing the majority of the people in this country use the internet as the 20-30 age group does.

 

[georgiaboy]

Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe Beck actually believes in what he is talking about?

Of course. That's why this thread is so long. It's not us that's pushing Glenn away because of his decision to vote Romney - we want to like Glenn. Glenn is pushing us out of his tent.


Here's a guy who appears to 'get it' with regard to many small gov't positions. A guy who opposed Romney greatly during the primaries, considering him equal with Obama. This is great stuff, and of course we all side with him when he gives such a wide audience exposure to issues near and dear to us.

At the same time, he thinks poorly of all us Ron Paul supporters, specifically calls us out on air, and thinks anyone who will be logging a protest vote this November is "deranged".

He is now supporting the GOP candidate for the presidency.


He did the same thing in 2008.


I'm willing to let Glenn vote his conscience. I think it defies all logic to support small gov't but vote for big gov't, but I'm not gonna call him deranged. As I said, he speaks to my issues.

Why won't he afford the same courtesy to me? Why am I "deranged"? Because I'm standing by my principles by not voting for big government?

If Glenn and I both support the same small gov't positions, yet vote differently, why does he feel the need to marginalize me and millions of others like me?


BTW, full disclaimer - I turned him as well as the rest of talk radio and FoxNews off back in 2008. Won't be going back anytime soon until I see the kind of consistency I'm looking for.

 

[erowe1]

I'm 74

Wait a second here. Are you the real Captain Lou Albano?

Edit: Never mind. Looks like the real Capt. Lou didn't make it through his last health scare.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

georgiaboy,

I think the answer is because Beck sees Obama as so incredibly bad for this country that even the worst possible GOP nominee is better than Obama. He may have a point, because given Obama's background and true beliefs a second term could very well be disastrous. It won't change my vote (or lack thereof), but it is inconsequential here in SC as Romney will win the state by 10 points or more. If I was in a swing state, I might be thinking differently, because although I do not like Romney, I really detest Obama.

 

[acptulsa]

Wait a second here. Are you the real Captain Lou Albano?

Edit: Never mind. Looks like the real Capt. Lou didn't make it through his last health scare.

I was about to say. Are we holding a virtual seance here?

Where's Shirley MacLaine when you need her?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Wait a second here. Are you the real Captain Lou Albano?

Edit: Never mind. Looks like the real Capt. Lou didn't make it through his last health scare.

No, my name is Lou. I am Italian and that nickname stuck with me many years ago. They used to call me Capt Lou. When my niece set up this account for me and showed me how to use the site, she chose that screen name.

 

[acptulsa]

No, my name is Lou. I am Italian and that nickname stuck with me many years ago. They used to call me Capt Lou. When my niece set up this account for me and showed me how to use the site, she chose that screen name.

Damn. I was hoping the site was haunted.