Jack Hunter: "On Glenn Beck and the Liberty Movement"

Jack Hunter is neither a principled conservative, nor a libertarian.



I lost all respect for him when he went all in as an apologist for Rand after the ill-timed Romney endorsement.

Anyone notice how in the Beck roundtable with him, Hornberger, and the YAL dude, not one of them mentioned the NAP while describing libertarianism?

I at least figured Hornberger would. Then again, he didn't have much of an opportunity to speak, and the conversation was mainly about drugs, but still...
 
Anyone notice how in the Beck roundtable with him, Hornberger, and the YAL dude, not one of them mentioned the NAP while describing libertarianism?

I at least figured Hornberger would. Then again, he didn't have much of an opportunity to speak, and the conversation was mainly about drugs, but still...
Yes, I noticed it. Didn't surprise me though...that would have been a deal-killer for Beck as libertarian.
 
Jack Hunter is neither a principled conservative, nor a libertarian.



I lost all respect for him when he went all in as an apologist for Rand after the ill-timed Romney endorsement.

Anyone notice how in the Beck roundtable with him, Hornberger, and the YAL dude, not one of them mentioned the NAP while describing libertarianism?

I at least figured Hornberger would. Then again, he didn't have much of an opportunity to speak, and the conversation was mainly about drugs, but still...


Of course he's going to defend Rand on that, because anyone with common sense realizes that was something Rand had to do to have any future at all within the GOP.
 
Of course he's going to defend Rand on that, because anyone with common sense realizes that was something Rand had to do to have any future at all within the GOP.

Rand said as much on Peter Schiff's show right after the endorsement. They had warned him since 2010 the price he would pay of being painted as a "fake republican" like his dad if he didn't endorse the party's nominee. He's picking and choosing battles he can win, while avoiding landmines like that.

 
Of course he's going to defend Rand on that, because anyone with common sense realizes that was something Rand had to do to have any future at all within the GOP.
It's troubling that even now some people can't come to grips with that and are still holding around his neck like an albatross.
 
Yes, I noticed it. Didn't surprise me though...that would have been a deal-killer for Beck as libertarian.

The way I see it, If we want to bring the message of liberty/libertarianism to the masses, shouldn't we at least define our terms at the get go?

An articulate, succinct, and thought provoking description of the NAP has to be included in any discussion about libertarianism. It makes so much sense, nobody I've ever met can discredit it without resorting to logical fallacies.

To me, it's a winning strategy. Define our terms and don't allow the discussion to become mired in minutia. (like drugs)

The NAP can be applied to everything.
 
GLENN BECK

A Dr. Jeckyl in Odd Numbered Years, and a Mr. Hyde in Even Numbered Years for Nearly a Decade!

Tune in now, before he Stops Making Sense!!

Right about what? Most of the people cricizing Beck are being very civil....can't say the same for him.

Thank you and +rep!! We've been exhibiting the patience of Job so we can call those who call us uncivil liars, not so we can believe their lies about us when we obviously know better.

They are the uncivil ones--especially Beck and Hannity. Not us. And no matter how much they say otherwise, even the most easily brainwashed dullard will notice sooner or later.
 
Last edited:
Hunter's essay is spot on. Those who continue the practice of shunning folks who do not meet their standards of purity are going to find themselves in a very lonely place as the liberty movement continues to grow and bring in new people.
 
Most people already have a distrust of the media? Are you sure about that? Maybe in our movement, but there are millions of others that rely solely on CNN, MSNBC and the other BS for their news.

A recent Rasmussen poll said only like 7% trust MSM completely, though.
 
Hunter's essay is spot on. Those who continue the practice of shunning folks who do not meet their standards of purity are going to find themselves in a very lonely place as the liberty movement continues to grow and bring in new people.

Who the hell are you talking about?

My God, man! We hold politicians and pundits to a standard! People are attracted to us because of it--they find it refreshing! We do not refuse to help people see the light because they don't see the light yet! What on Earth makes you think otherwise?

Beck flips like a metronome. This isn't happenstance, and it isn't coincidence. It's enemy action. If he has decided to stop being an enemy to liberty, we'll see the proof next year. But just because we hold politicians and pundits to a standard means nothing when it comes to rank and file Americans and helping them see the light.

Where did this goofy assed conversation come from? Beck himself? Well--add that to the list of stuff about which he ought to know better!

And you should know better too.

We don't turn our back on the guy who has stabbed us before and is holding a knife right this minute. So, obviously we have no patience with people who weren't born agreeing with us. Wanna buy a bridge? It's real nice, you can charge tolls, and it doesn't even have any trolls living under it! I promise!
 
Last edited:
Hunter's essay is spot on. Those who continue the practice of shunning folks who do not meet their standards of purity are going to find themselves in a very lonely place as the liberty movement continues to grow and bring in new people.

You've always been in the compromise further camp, though, so it would move us in your direction. Obviously you would like it. Those who want what we are moving TOWARDS to be clear, regardless of the size of the steps we can take in that direction at any one time have different feelings about Beck. And 'shunning those who don't meet standards of purity' is not what is happening; blasting those who have demonstrated lack of integrity, and have turned on us in the past, is.

I trust De Mint -- to be De Mint. I'll know when he is the best choice out of a group. If you can't trust someone, that is different than just not working with someone when you have differences.
 
Last edited:
You've always been in the compromise further camp, though, so it would move us in your direction. Obviously you would like it. Those who want what we are moving TOWARDS to be clear, regardless of the size of the steps we can take in that direction at any one time have different feelings about Beck. And 'shunning those who don't meat standards of purity' is not what is happening; blasting those who have demonstrated lack of integrity is.

Mmmmmmmmm pure meat....

HomerMmmm.jpg
 

Attachments

  • HomerMmmm.jpg
    HomerMmmm.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 0
-This just in-

Jack Hunter to co-author Glenn Beck's new book entitled, "The Conscience of a Libertarian"

Oh boy, I can't wait!
 
Trust is must be EARNED, not given.

Once trust is broken, it is doubly hard to EARN.
 
Last edited:
My one and only comment on the Beck stuff and only because I like Jack and think he's a good guy.

Beck recognizes the direction the party is starting to move toward. He knows we're slowly but surely gaining ground within the party's infrastructure and making progress with the rank-and-file. Rand is setting himself up to be a huge player in 2016. Beck just wants to be in front of the curve so he can reap the rewards in the meantime. When he's told to jump by his owners at the appropriate time, he will ask them how high? Beck is a smart guy. Whether his rhetoric now is genuine doesnt really matter since he's helping us. He will be ready to poison the well whenever it's deemed politically expedient. That's my 2 cents. Use him but don't become a "Beck follower" and never let your guard down. He's proven why over and over.
 
You've always been in the compromise further camp, though, so it would move us in your direction. Obviously you would like it. Those who want what we are moving TOWARDS to be clear, regardless of the size of the steps we can take in that direction at any one time have different feelings about Beck. And 'shunning those who don't meet standards of purity' is not what is happening; blasting those who have demonstrated lack of integrity, and have turned on us in the past, is.

I trust De Mint -- to be De Mint. I'll know when he is the best choice out of a group. If you can't trust someone, that is different than just not working with someone when you have differences.

There have always been two groups on the libertarian side of things, dating all the way back to its modern roots in the Goldwater era: one group is more tolerant of differences of opinion and seeks a bigger tent, the other is less tolerant and wants a smaller tent. Both groups just happened to cross paths via the Ron Paul campaign since most people from both groups supported Ron in his bids for the nomination. But where we go from there, is most likely on to divergent paths.

It is not an issue of compromising, because that would require me to change the principles I hold to for the sake of "getting along". It is more an aspect of accepting that there are people in this world that I might agree with on 90% of the issues that are of value and worthy of respect. Essentially, the big tent group looks at someone like Beck and focuses primarily on the areas of agreement, where the small tent group focuses almost exclusively on the areas of disagreement.
 
Jack Hunter: My impression of Beck from Wednesday, was that he is genuinely interested in libertarianism, but does have questions about certain aspects–as do probably most Americans. During the breaks, the banter between Beck, and us as guests, was him just generally reaching out to us, wanting to know if most libertarians would be accepting of him if he joined them in promoting these ideas, or if most libertarians were such purists that there could be no daylight between him and them.

Beck's real questions about "libertarianism" most likely boil down to s single concern: Israel. Building alliances is great, but never forget what his true agenda is. This means that he will stab a "liberty minded" candidate in the back every time if they are coming close to winning, and if he has a perception (real or imagined) that they are not 1000% willing to do whatever the neo-conservative collective decides is in the best interest of Israel.

We should also remember that this is a business for Beck. He found that doing a Pastor Hagee imitation didn't gain him any audience. He is most likely sincere when he wants to know what he can do or say to make libertarians "accepting of him".

Calling it like it is:

Lets go ahead and call exactly it like it is. Beck, Levin, Savage, etc. agree with Ron Paul on the majority of issues. The only difference is that Ron Paul is neutral on Israel, and they are pro-Israel to the point where they don't consider Israel a separate nation. In some respects or situations, they may even consider it more important than the USA.

This split has always existed in the general libertarian movement and even in the Ron Paul movement and on this forum. It always will. There are those who don't like Israel's policies, there are those who fully support everything that is perceived to be in Israel's interest, and there is everything in between.
 
I trust De Mint -- to be De Mint. I'll know when he is the best choice out of a group. If you can't trust someone, that is different than just not working with someone when you have differences.

This is such an important distinction! You can compromise and work with someone you don't agree with on everything. But you can't do the same with someone you don't trust.

Most of us didn't bother voting for Romney because we didn't trust that he would be as conservative as he promised to be. Instead we looked at his past actions.

Most of us who are criticizing Beck aren't holding him to some kind of purity standard, we are saying that we don't trust him at all. If we could trust him, but only agreed with him 75% of the time, then we could work with that.
 
Last edited:
Listen Up... Glenn Beck is just an employee and prostitute and I hate these media hacks that always only show 1 or 2 cards of the hand they're holding.

When Beck was with CNN and FOX he did what his masters and the real owners of this country dictated. He was an employee, a very expensive employee to basically the 4th branch of the Fascist Federal Government (Dept of Propaganda). Beck knows this, but refuses to reveal those cards. Can you blame him, yes. He hasn't admitted anything about how the corporate media controls the masses, censors critical events, and pushes the policies dictated by US government branches/agencies and obviously, their corporate advertisers. Again, when you are an employee, you do what your bosses say or you're out the door. Beck is well past his final obligations of the Code of Silence contracts/severance pay with NEWSCORP & CNN.

We know the Media giants would lose advertising bucks with PEACE. We know media would layoff at least half of their organizations if their were peace. No news is bad news. Sensationalism and fabrication is the name of the name today, especially when big media is basically the public relations firms of the government.

Beck worked for this Fascist partnership between; .gov, defense contractors, big pharma, energy companies, the security/intelligence industrial complexes, etc... It's just business, but for Beck, now on his independence, still hasn't revealed the inside mechanisms of America's Fascism between the same; media/wealth/government, is plain disingenuous. He knows and refuses to tell this truth, he just carries on sideways down the road.

I still hate referring the half witted Bill Maher, but he's correct, they're CON MEN... doesn't matter whether it's corporate media or a special interest group pushing their sucka agendas, you find them everywhere these days. Ahhhh, most are basically money laundering propaganda fronts of TPTB anyway.(remember how the Tea Party turned into a NEOCON/ZIONUT activism co-opted movement)


I want clairvoyance... I want Glenn Beck to show me all his money trails, his contacts, business deals, revealing those in media that control America's Eyes & Ears, and all those wizards behind the electronic curtain that create this rabbit hole called "media/news/reality America/Planet Hell".

I want an outsider on his show to set the agenda, set the dialog, set the challengers that interrogate every second of squeezing the truth out of Beck with no time limits. I'd like to see secret insiders that know what Beck is truly about.

I'll leave Glenn Beck, his entertainment company, and Libertarian membership episode shows to those that need some sort of unity.

PS:

“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”
Joseph Goebbels
 
Last edited:
Back
Top