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

What...the.....Oh hell no!
Yeah, that struck me as odd too. I can't think of anyone worse on social issues than Santorum. Maybe it was a comment meant in jest or maybe it has an ultra-specific context known only to the poster. Either way, I'm guessing that post was one of the reasons he got banned.
 
Last edited:
Not true. I think you need to have some more worldly experience and spend some more recreational time in a dictionary.

I went into my business last week and told them, "We've become irrelevant in this industry. If we want to survive, if we want to be the force we were 14 years ago, we have to re-evaluate. It's going to be hard, it's going to painful, and many of you may not be able to handle it; but it's what we need." And now I've set up a huge task force, a litany of internal & external evaluation systems, and am spending all my time reshaping the business and rediscovering the vision of our mission in action. Blunt honesty, even with those you like, can be painful, but it doesn't imply distancing.

Maybe you should take your own advice and use a dictionary. He has stated SEVERAL times now that he's a libertarian? He has stated the Tea Party is becoming close to irrelevant. So let me summarize again for you and read this slowly so you get it. He said the Tea Party is becoming irrelevant and he is now going to play with the libertarians. Get that?

That's like me telling my girlfriend I think she's irrelevant and I"m going to play with this other girl. How do you think she will take that? Will she say ooh thanks for the blunt honesty? Glenn Beck is about making money and he sees these kooky libertarians seem to be popular with the youth so he is going where the money is.
 
We weren't debating that, which is why we agree on that.

Doesn't feel so nice, does it?


Seriously, though, you and I obviously disagree on this.

It's great for folks like Glenn to preach the good news of small government principles to the masses. On that we agree.

I think it's horrible for him to then point to politicians that also talk about small government (sometimes), but enact big gov't policies. I think it has direct impact on public opinion, including for whom they vote.

You think who Glenn talks up is of minor impact to public opinion in the voting booth. I disagree.

Cool?
1) When did I put words in your mouth? If I did, I'll apologize. If I didn't, then I don't appreciate you accusing me of it and will expect an apology from you. I don't intend to win a debate by falsifying your argument or character; and I expect the same courtesy from you.

2) In a thread that's now 49 pages long, it's easy to get confused as to the purpose of the debate. Your post is something I agree with wholeheartedly; Beck's positive/negative effects on the libertarian movement are a matter of opinion, and no opinion is necessarily more correct than any other (I see merit in both sides of that argument). But that was not the purpose of our argument: we were arguing about whether Beck is a libertarian. Positive or negative effects toward libertarianism is largely irrelevant to that debate, so our agreeing to disagree on that topic is therefore also irrelevant (in the same way that debating whether Hitler had a positive/negative effect on the toothbrush mustache is irrelevant to a debate about whether Hitler had a toothbrush mustache).
 
Last edited:
Maybe you should take your own advice and use a dictionary. He has stated SEVERAL times now that he's a libertarian? He has stated the Tea Party is becoming close to irrelevant. So let me summarize again for you and read this slowly so you get it. He said the Tea Party is becoming irrelevant and he is now going to play with the libertarians. Get that?

That's like me telling my girlfriend I think she's irrelevant and I"m going to play with this other girl. How do you think she will take that? Will she say ooh thanks for the blunt honesty? Glenn Beck is about making money and he sees these kooky libertarians seem to be popular with the youth so he is going where the money is.
Dude, that's not what he said. Beck has always said he's a libertarian, before the Tea Party and especially while promoting the Tea Party in its prime. He says the Tea Party has now made themselves largely irrelevant which means there's less for him to be involved with because there's less that the Tea Party is involved with. That's not Beck distancing himself from the Tea Party, just as the closing of Hostess is not evidence of Beck distancing himself from Twinkies.

*For the record, even though I don't think he is, I wouldn't care if Beck did distance himself from the Tea Party; or, for that matter, if he legally changed his name to "Mr. Tea Party." But pretending that he's tossing the Tea Party under the bus and opportunistically switching to Constitutionalists is an inaccurate portrayal of Beck's words and actions. Though I don't agree with many of his policy views, hate his endorsements, and find him simplistically repugnant and hyperbolic quite often, Beck has been pretty consistent; and any policy changes have been in the direction of more libertarianism, which I applaud and encourage. There's hope for Beck.
 
Last edited:
I just wish we'd attack the policies rather than the man.

I think that would help us a LOT toward attracting more believers and persuading more to become believers.
 
Yeah, that struck me as odd too. I can't think of anyone worse on social issues than Santorum. Maybe it was a comment meant in jest or maybe it has an ultra-specific context known only to the poster. Either way, I'm guessing that post was one of the reasons he got banned.

I'm generally respectful of other opinions...but wtf?

Santorum is better than Ron on social issues??

I'll tolerate one of my elderly relatives making that kind of comment. But that WILL NOT not fly here on RON PAUL FORUMS. I mean, it's all about sharing ideas, but this forum should offer at least a little bit of refuge from stupidity.
 
Last edited:
Dude, that's not what he said. Beck has always said he's a libertarian, before the Tea Party and especially while promoting the Tea Party in its prime. He says the Tea Party has now made themselves largely irrelevant which means there's less for him to be involved with because there's less that the Tea Party is involved with. That's not Beck distancing himself from the Tea Party, just as the closing of Hostess is not evidence of Beck distancing himself from Twinkies.

*For the record, even though I don't think he is, I wouldn't care if Beck did distance himself from the Tea Party; or, for that matter, if he legally changed his name to "Mr. Tea Party." But pretending that he's tossing the Tea Party under the bus and opportunistically switching to Constitutionalists is an inaccurate portrayal of Beck's words and actions. Though I don't agree with many of his policy views, hate his endorsements, and find him simplistically repugnant and hyperbolic quite often, Beck has been pretty consistent; and any policy changes have been in the direction of more libertarianism, which I applaud and encourage. There's hope for Beck.

Looks more like Abraham and Sarai to me. But then I've seen him do this time and time and time again.
 
Dude, that's not what he said. Beck has always said he's a libertarian, before the Tea Party and especially while promoting the Tea Party in its prime. He says the Tea Party has now made themselves largely irrelevant which means there's less for him to be involved with because there's less that the Tea Party is involved with. That's not Beck distancing himself from the Tea Party, just as the closing of Hostess is not evidence of Beck distancing himself from Twinkies.

*For the record, even though I don't think he is, I wouldn't care if Beck did distance himself from the Tea Party; or, for that matter, if he legally changed his name to "Mr. Tea Party." But pretending that he's tossing the Tea Party under the bus and opportunistically switching to Constitutionalists is an inaccurate portrayal of Beck's words and actions. Though I don't agree with many of his policy views, hate his endorsements, and find him simplistically repugnant and hyperbolic quite often, Beck has been pretty consistent; and any policy changes have been in the direction of more libertarianism, which I applaud and encourage. There's hope for Beck.

Back in 2000, when he first launched his syndicated radio show in Tampa, he described his politics by saying, “I don’t really consider myself a conservative. I know I don’t consider myself a liberal,” he said. “I have a brain and I like to use it sometimes.” It was a smart pitch, one he more or less continued during his brief Bush-era stint at HLN, when he was billed as an independent.


But when he got his big payday and highest perch to date on Fox News, he made a strategic decision to go the full crazy. A talented broadcaster, he decided to use fear and hate to pump up his ratings. It worked for a while. But it’s a civic sin that can’t be undone. Forgiveness is for faith. In political debates there is always the videotape.


In some ways, this new guise is clarifying because it definitively answers a lingering question about Beck: is he sincere in his beliefs, or was his right-wing rhetoric just showmanship, part of a business plan to appeal to an agitated audience?


It was all just an opportunistic con job. And the dupes are the folks who bought into the shtick, carrying signs at Tea Party rallies that read “Glenn Beck is my hero.”


Real libertarians look at Beck’s latest attempted incarnation with a mixture of disgust and annoyance. They don’t want this rodeo clown anywhere near their bandwagon.


“Beck correctly identifies a libertarian moment,” explains Owen Brennan, who is a partner at Madison McQueen LLC, an ad agency that works almost exclusively with free market and libertarian groups. “As the size and scope of government grows, it’s no coincidence the popularity of our lawmakers is below that of root canals, cockroaches, and lice.”


“But the Beck brand is incongruent with many libertarians. Strong brands don’t tell people who they are, they show them through action,” continues Brennan. “And plenty of freedom fighters who went to the Beck Restoring Honor event in Washington, D.C. expected tar and feathering but got a revival meeting instead.”


Beck’s revival meeting on the Washington Mall was one of many attempted reinventions we’ve seen from the onetime Top 40 radio shock jock, putting him on pace to compete with Madonna or Bowie for discarding different phases of his career. And while his entrepreneurial experiment with The Blaze has proven financially successful, thanks in part to talented players like Will Cain, at his core Beck is closer to Father Coughlin than Ron Paul, let alone his hero Orson Welles.


Demagogues always do well in economic downturns, and Beck’s us-against-them exhortations and apocalyptic intimations had their moment. But the man who predicts the end of the world loses credibility, especially among his followers, when the sun rises after the appointed day.


Maybe Glenn Beck has belatedly discovered that his own brand of bile is the problem in our political discourse—or maybe he’s just realized that unhinged hate doesn’t sell as well as it used to. Either way, his aspiration to be an independent, sane, and substantive voice doesn’t even begin to pass the laugh test. Instead it’s just the latest reminder of what Eric Hoffer once said: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...s-a-laughable-make-over-as-a-libertarian.html
 
The post above me is an example of what I'm saying! Thanks for the sharing the link. +rep!
 
Sums it up well.

Real libertarians look at Beck’s latest attempted incarnation with a mixture of disgust and annoyance. They don’t want this rodeo clown anywhere near their bandwagon.
 
I'm generally respectful of other opinions...but wtf?

Santorum is better than Ron on social issues??

I'll tolerate one of my elderly relatives making that kind of comment. But that WILL NOT not fly here on RON PAUL FORUMS. I mean, it's all about sharing ideas, but this forum should offer at least a little bit of refuge from stupidity.
Ha. Well, the guy did get banned. No reason on why, but I am guessing it had to be the Santorum statement. I mean, who here honestly could believe Santorum is better than Ron on social issues?

That said, even with his banning, I think stupidity can be readily found in any discussion forum, including RPF.
 
Aside from the misleading headline and selective editing to cause you to believe otherwise, I believe all the actual facts in that article support my statement.

Lol...selective editing??? If you are talking about on my part, gonna have to try harder to look like a wounded party. Addressed the point you made which is bull. Would love to know how this translates into selective editing which implies I somehow twisted the intent of the article or your post-which is included in its entirety. I took the pertinent portion addressing the point in question and gave a link to the original article. Not seeing anything that substantiates your postion he has always been anything when this addresses his numerous attempts to reinvent himself.

Beck has not always been a libertarian. An independant is not equal to being a libertarian. Beck is known by people from all walks of the political spectrum for being inconsistent. Google the words Glenn Beck and inconsistency and read some. Not quite sure what your deal is but you have some sort of investment in nay saying those of us who don't buy his latest mid election change of heart. You can talk till your blue in the face but for now there remains enough freedom on the web to disprove this alternate universe you wish to be true....
 
Last edited:
Glenn Beck: I'm done with the Republican establishment, it's time to support small government constitutionalists like Rand Paul


http://youtu.be/JYDf8yGaSaE



the only thing this does for me is prompt me to wonder what, exactly, is he up to.

Beck is double-plus untrustworthy. I have heard far too many rankly insane things issue from his alcoholic pie hole to trust him past the end of my nose. He is either an imbecile, however well intending, or controlled opposition. In either case he carries with him the imprimatur of the tin-foil hat and it would not surprise me a whit to learn that They do not want Rand advancing beyond a point in terms of national merit and popularity as a political figure. That being the case, instructing Glenn to get a woodie for Rand might be what they feel is needed to put the stink on him. Perhaps not, but I would at least keep the thought - the possibility - in the back of my mind just as a reference marker for possible future events.
 
Lol...selective editing??? If you are talking about on my part, gonna have to try harder to look like a wounded party. Addressed the point you made which is bull. Would love to know how this translates into selective editing which implies I somehow twisted the intent of the article or your post-which is included in its entirety. I took the pertinent portion addressing the point in question and gave a link to the original article. Not seeing anything that substantiates your postion he has always been anything when this addresses his numerous attempts to reinvent himself.
YOU didn't selectively edit. The author of that article you linked selectively edited and then the editor himself put up a controversial headline to go with it. But if you take away the opinion in the article and look past the author's selective editing, you'll see that the actual facts support what I was saying, which is why I said so. I was at no point accusing you of selectively editing, and I also understand why you might be mislead by that article you linked. But linking to an opinion piece masquerading as fact doesn't make it fact even if it contains some facts in it (in the same way historical fiction isn't fact). I get why you suspect Beck, and I think a very healthy suspicion of him is a good thing; but I don't like it when those suspicions turn into accusations. Beck, though I often find him completely intolerable, obnoxious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, unhinged, self-important, grossly irresponsible, downright wrong, and overly-sentimental, appears to be a sincere straight-shooter. I defend him on that.
 
Last edited:
Beck...appears to be a sincere straight-shooter.

I just don't see that at all.

He couldn't come up with any remotely sensible reasons not to support Ron Paul in 2012, and so he fell back on some ridiculous claim about him having been in a committee with other congressmen, some of whom had some connection to George Soros. That's not straight shooting. That's fishing for anything at all he can say to avoid whatever his real reasons are. Same thing with how he bent over backwards trying to paint Newt as so much worse than Romney, and how supportive he was of Santorum. None of these things fit with the positions he had been claiming to have been drawn toward over the previous years. They were just ways for him to help Romney while still maintaining the pretense of not supporting him.
 
Back
Top