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

Wow. Where the fuck did you get that from?

Oh like a typical liberal, your misconstruing what Schlafly said.
I am hardly a liberal or anything close to it unless you mean classical liberalism. I'm just assuming like you have been. I can read you idiot.
 
he seems to be the one who wants to shut out anyone who has a different definition of Libertarianism.
 
Whatever religion Schafly is. I assume some variety of Christianity.

I could care less what her religious affiliation is and I certainly never mentioned it so I could hardly hate her for it when I don't even know what it is. I do have a hearty dislike of shoving religious doctrine down anyones throat.
 
I'll welcome any influential person who advocates our policies and educates people about them, even if they always end up endorsing the wrong candidate. In the end, I think voters make up their own minds rather than rely on celebrity endorsements; so if Beck tells people the right policies, I trust that people will apply them correctly once they adapt them. And, for that reason, I think a person who educates and advocates our policies is more helpful to our cause then hurtful, even when they endorse the wrong candidate.

Are there specific policies (not endorsements) you're upset at Glenn Beck for being once libertarian then authoritarian on?*

*Note: I'm looking for you to show where he's been untrustworthy in the actual libertarian policies he preaches.

I don't listen to Glenn enough to have a specific policy beef. He and the other conservative pundits agree with me many times on issues related to shrinking the size of gov't. Candidate support is the critical piece of the puzzle. If we talk about shrinking gov't and then support, nominate, vote for, and elect, candidates who won't work to implement what we favor, then we get exactly nowhere or worse.
 
I could care less what her religious affiliation is and I certainly never mentioned it so I could hardly hate her for it when I don't even know what it is. I do have a hearty dislike of shoving religious doctrine down anyones throat.

Yeah that pesky 1st Amendment should be re-written so that it doesn't protect religious speech. I mean non-violent advocacy is so damaging to your liberty, right?
 
I could care less what her religious affiliation is and I certainly never mentioned it so I could hardly hate her for it when I don't even know what it is. I do have a hearty dislike of shoving religious doctrine down anyones throat.

But like you already admitted, she doesn't shove it down anyone's throat, at least not using state force. Not one of your complaints against her have involved her shoving anything down anyone's throat. The entirety of your opposition to her in this thread has revolved around what her personal religious convictions are.

The "no such thing as marital rape" line is another one. So what if she thinks that (and I'm not familiar with the debate, or whether or not she does)? Do you think the states should treat what husbands do to their wives the same way they treat rape between unmarried people? If not, then your position is probably the same as Schafly's. And once again, your whole problem with her is that she takes the same policy position as you, but bases it on the wrong personal religious views.
 
Last edited:
Keep the neg reps coming Confederate. I'm out of this thread. I choose not to converse with whiny little pussy men who can't handle any criticism of their idols.
 
Keep the neg reps coming Confederate. I'm out of this thread. I choose not to converse with whiny little pussy men who can't handle any criticism of their idols.

Of course I'm going to neg rep you when you claim I'm in favor of rape.
 
There are people out there who have this sexist idea that men base their judgments on rational thought and women base them on inarticulate emotional hunches.

By all appearances Cajun and Carly have been trying their hardest to convince more people of that.
 
Santorum is quite a bit better than Ron on social issues.

Thanks for explaining to those who didn't understand. Santorum is closer to YOUR POSITION than Ron on social issues. Frankly I'm closer to Ron Paul on most social issues. I understand where you are coming from because most folks surrounding me are like you. Unfortunately for them, social issues that parallel those of the "moral majority" will NEVER bring a majority of votes nationally, ever again. Obviously I am WAAAAYYYY in the minority when it comes to immigration, thats one of my hot button issues, but... in order to get REAL FISCAL CONSERVATISM (which is what I think we need MOST) I can overlook the fact that NO CANDIDATE is going to mirror me on every issue... and I know of NO potential GOP candidate for 2016, that would be as bad as obama, or hillary.
 
I don't want to go through all 42 pages to see what you guys are talking about but I just wanted to contribute to the FUCK YOU GLENN BECK theme. Whew that felt good.
 
Why do I feel like I am on a msnbc forum here? :cool:

FUCK ALL OF YOU who say FUCK GLENN BECK.

I'm no fan of Glenn Beck and some of the things he says, but he's definitely not the enemy. I somewhat agree with your statement.
 
Because the liberaltarians have pretty much taken over the forum.

shortsighted libertarians. No one has to like Glenn Beck or subscribe to his channel but the extreme hate, given the many other pressing matters, is pretty baffling. Glenn Beck isn't the problem. It's the psychopaths entrenched in the two-party duopoly that will be undoing of us.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top