Glenn Beck: I'm Done With Establishment Republicans, I Support Constitutonalists Like Rand

[CaptLouAlbano]

Way to miss the ENTIRE point of that post. Holy...

No I get your point. There are two schools of thought here at work.

One is folks like myself. We might not agree with everything that Beck or whomever states, but the good far outweighs the bad and we see the value in what they do. We can agree to disagree on some issues.

Then there is the other side, which I believe you are representative of that does not agree with everything that Beck says, are so incensed by those points of disagreement that you find little if any value in what they have to say. So rather than "agreeing to disagree", you prefer to shun him.

You know there were people out there who did the very same thing to Ron Paul. Instead of focusing on the areas where they agreed with him, they focused on the areas of disagreement and shunned him. Beck is guilty of that, and it was wrong.

 

[Carlybee]

I suspect Beck's ratings are in down spiral mode. The establishment probably told him to get bent and he is desperate to salvage his following. The man is so wishy washy he is on permanent spin cycle. The best way to neutralize him is to stop listening to him. He has made liberty an embarrassing term and as long as he keeps trying to define himself as part of the liberty movement, it's potential appeal to outsiders is dead in the water.

 

[Carlybee]

Aaaaand Beck almost certainly received emails about Rick Perry believing in chemtrails...but he never confronted him on that now did he?

Perry's campaign was in collusion with Beck to do whatever was necessary to neutralize Debra.

 

[amonasro]

Beck has been at work since 2008 trashing liberty candidates with a style that would make Elmer Gantry blush. If you can't see that you are either too new, too trusting, or have some vested interest to promote him.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No I get your point. There are two schools of thought here at work.

One is folks like myself. We might not agree with everything that Beck or whomever states, but the good far outweighs the bad and we see the value in what they do. We can agree to disagree on some issues.

Then there is the other side, which I believe you are representative of that does not agree with everything that Beck says, are so incensed by those points of disagreement that you find little if any value in what they have to say. So rather than "agreeing to disagree", you prefer to shun him.

You know there were people out there who did the very same thing to Ron Paul. Instead of focusing on the areas where they agreed with him, they focused on the areas of disagreement and shunned him. Beck is guilty of that, and it was wrong.

You are aware that I've made this exact argument almost word for word right here in RPF's before right?

Because Beck 'sees the light' like clockwork, a couple months after every single election.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

No I get your point. There are two schools of thought here at work.

One is folks like myself. We might not agree with everything that Beck or whomever states, but the good far outweighs the bad and we see the value in what they do. We can agree to disagree on some issues.

Then there is the other side, which I believe you are representative of that does not agree with everything that Beck says, are so incensed by those points of disagreement that you find little if any value in what they have to say. So rather than "agreeing to disagree", you prefer to shun him.

You know there were people out there who did the very same thing to Ron Paul. Instead of focusing on the areas where they agreed with him, they focused on the areas of disagreement and shunned him. Beck is guilty of that, and it was wrong.

It's not a point of disagreement. An interventionist foreign policy kills people, right now. It's fundamental to the non-aggression principle (and therefore libertarianism), Christian ethics, and just plain old human decency.

Beck in particular has a soapbox, and if he leads people AWAY from a non-interventionist foreign policy, there is NO WAY that even if he convinces some people that the Fed is bad, for instance, he can do more good than harm.

Besides, as has been shown in this thread, Beck's M.O. has been to derail the liberty movement.

 

[ctiger2]

Beck is self loathing then. Snake.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

He has made liberty an embarrassing term and as long as he keeps trying to define himself as part of the liberty movement, it's potential appeal to outsiders is dead in the water.

This is key, as well.

 

[Brett85]

IF I personally assess a situation such as you pose and believe it to be an offensive act in the offing, that does not mean that I have the right to force other people to come to the defense of someone else.

If someone wants to go fight for the liberty of another country, I would not stand in their way. They do not have the right to force other people to fight for their cause, however.

I'm not arguing in favor of helping out other countries overseas that have been attacked. I'm only arguing that it shouldn't be defined as being an "offensive action." The War in Iraq was an example of an offensive war, where we attacked a country that wasn't attacking anyone else and was simply minding their own business.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm not arguing in favor of helping out other countries overseas that have been attacked. I'm only arguing that it shouldn't be defined as being an "offensive action." The War in Iraq was an example of an offensive war, where we attacked a country that wasn't attacking anyone else and was simply minding their own business.

But I specifically said, "non-defensive violence" the post you quoted. I said I couldn't sanction non-defensive violence. Are we just talking past each other? :o

 

[Brett85]

But I specifically said, "non-defensive violence" the post you quoted. I said I couldn't sanction non-defensive violence. Are we just talking past each other? :o

What exactly is the difference between a "non defensive war" and an "offensive war"?

 

[supermario21]

Wasn't Goldwater a big interventionist during his presidential campaign?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

But I specifically said, "non-defensive violence" the post you quoted. I said I couldn't sanction non-defensive violence. Are we just talking past each other? :o

To be fair, the legal definition of 'defense' is "self defense and defense of others."

By law (and as it happens, by the NAP) you are as authorized to use deadly force to defend your neighbor as you are yourself.

I'm not trying to imply whether or not this applies at the national level, but if what we are doing is taking the individual concept of "NAP" or "defense" then we have to account for the legitimacy of 'defense of others' in BOTH of those frameworks.

Also, from a strictly constitutional standpoint, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10 to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations" is one even we Paulers tend to overlook.

Point being not that defending another nation is necessarily right, but rather than EVEN in the NAP, the legal definition of 'defense,' and in the US Constitution the issue is not remotely as cut and dry as it's being made out to be.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm going to say neither are you then. I am going to solely label only the libertarian-conservative position as the true meaning of Libertarian, and any divergence from that point and you are no longer part of the camp - in fact you are an infiltrator, a we will not stand for your co-optation. How dare you call yourself a Libertarian and not fall exactly in line with the exact ideology of Barry Goldwater? Be gone, you enemy of the Constitution.

See how stupid that sounds? Now look in the mirror and listen to what you, yourself are saying.

Incidentally, there are some (voluntaryists, objectivists, anarcho-capitalists) who believe that Ron Paul people are co-opting the Libertarian movement. http://www.examiner.com/article/are-ron-paul-republicans-hijacking-the-libertarian-movement They don't want you around.

cajuncocoa, I like you based off your name alone. But I think you need to do more history on the word libertarian, because it's not a term that applies just to those who think like us. Many libertarians have beliefs we vehemently disagree with, but that disagreement doesn't make them not libertarian--just like there are many variations on skin pigmentation and, thus, Seal can't intelligently call Beyonce not black.

Here's what works for me....

this is my score

Ron Paul:

Rand Paul:

Marco Rubio:

Rick Santorum:

I wish we could find Glenn Beck's score (if he's taken that test)...I'll bet he would score between Rubio and Santorum rather than between the two Pauls.

 

[Article V]

Fundamental to the meaning of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle.

Actually, there are lots of libertarian philosophers and libertarian groups that promote aggression. The Non-Aggression Principle is fundamental to the Libertarian Party, but many other libertarians do not subscribe to the principle.

I, for one, believe in the non-aggression principle; but I can't in earnest pretend that those who don't aren't libertarians--they're just not my kind of libertarians.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Here's what works for me....

this is my score

Oh my, your dot doesn't fall on the exact same spot as Ron Paul's. Someone prepare the stake, we're going to have a witch burning today!!

 

[AuH20]

Wasn't Goldwater a big interventionist during his presidential campaign?

Not really a doctrinaire interventionist. He wanted to end the Vietnam War ASAP via asserted action. Note that many of our contemporary interventionists have no problem pledging an amorphous, undefinable 100 year campaign to the WoT (see John McCain).

 

[Petar]

 

[cajuncocoa]

You won't support him anyway.

That's not a certainty; a lot can happen in 3 years. But if Rand keeps moving closer to Beck's views and farther away from his father's, I probably won't.

 

[Article V]

I wish we could find Glenn Beck's score (if he's taken that test)...I'll bet he would score between Rubio and Santorum rather than between the two Pauls.

You think Beck--a guy who regularly promotes the legalization of drugs and the total abolishment of the Federal Reserve--is going to score between Rubio and Santorum? Haha.