What did Glenn Beck say about Ron Paul Toady?

[rp08orbust]

I was just listening to the replay online. Glen Beck, Stu and Pat all said they could not think of anything Ron Paul said that they didn't agree with.

 

[Tyr]

cause she wears the magic pin on her lapel.

You mean the magic bling bling dangling off of her neck constantly or flying on flags adorning her office.

 

[TIMB0B]

Do you know WHY he said that?

This happened before I started supporting Ron Paul, so I missed it. Why did he call supporters terrorists?

 

[kahless]

I could care less, the modern incarnation of the Tea Party has nothing to do with the original and they can attack it all they like.

They do not distinguish between old and new, we are all Tea baggers according to the Progressive MSM.

I'm unfortunately not a masochist and Faux News doesn't align with my Conservative views, so why would I further waste time watching it? I gave Faux as well as Beck a fair shot, they quickly proved to be business as usual. No, I don't patronize them with my viewership anymore.

You will not criticize the Progressive MSM hosts and rather spend your time here bashing Beck who may not agree with you on everything but is closer to Ron Paul's beliefs over the Progressive news hosts.

You'll excuse me but I fail to see how starting more wars, an unhealthy obsession with Israel, revisionist American history, promoting of more Government protrusion in American lives as well as business, the promotion of America as intended as a theocracy or any of the other bullshit Glen Beck spouts out of his uneducated mouth has anything at all to Ron Paul or Ron Pauls views.

It doesn't, and a token softball attack of the Federal Reserve doesn't change that. The fruit fruit poison method of TV acting(let's be real here, he's a fucking actor) doesn't mean he is on our side nor giving us a hand. His job is to rally the Ron Paul supporters and WOULD BE supporters back under the tent. Judging by the amount of supporters defending him on this forum, and yes you ARE defending him a bit hard, he's doing his job well.

I agree in what you underlined could be a possible motive. However he tells he audience to do their own research and lists various books that you would probably recognize. If you awaken people with such knowledge they will not be so easily led. If that is his tactic it may fail for many and still bring far more people to this movement than any other MSM hosts.

With that said I never defended Beck and rather pointed out your hypocrisy of singling out Beck when the Progressive media has complete an utter disdain for ALL of Ron Paul's beliefs including foreign policy these days.

 

[juleswin]

Well, with his new online subscription required business venture he'd be wise to promote and back RP. As RP supporters have demonstrated a willingness to spend money on online stuff.

I say a little too gullible for online stuff. Bitcoins anyone?

 

[low preference guy]

I say a little too gullible for online stuff. Bitcoins anyone?

one bitcoin is trading at $19 right now. some RP supporters started buying bitcoins a year ago. is making an investment with a return of 2000% being gullible?

 

[Tyr]

They do not distinguish between old and new, we are all Tea baggers according to the Progressive MSM.

Where is "our" Tea Party at, again? The last time I was still involved it was largely a bunch of people standing by complaining as the Palinites and Beck supporters were taking over and eventually did take it over.

You will not criticize the Progressive MSM hosts and rather spend your time here bashing Beck who may not agree with you on everything but is closer to Ron Paul's beliefs over the Progressive news hosts.

See that's what you keep missing, by criticizing Beck I AM going after MSM Progressives. By going after Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Maddow and on and on and on I AM criticizing the MSM and the leftists employed by the MSM. Sorry, just because Beck signed a new contract to play a Conservative doesn't mean he actually is. He isn't. He is MSM and as "Progressive" as any of the others.

Just because you wish to delude yourself into believing otherwise doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

I agree in what you underlined could be a possible motive. However he tells he audience to do their own research and lists various books that you would probably recognize. If you awaken people with such knowledge they will not be so easily led. If that is his tactic it may fail for many and still bring far more people to this movement than any other MSM hosts.

It has already succeeded, he took over as a voice of the Tea Party alongside the "if it feels good do it" feminist Sarah Palin. He has already assisted in squelching the masses who wanted Paulian Economics instituted in America and delivered... RINO Progressives back into office.

There isn't going to be some mad dash to the Ron Paul camp via Glenn Beck but then, you already know that.

With that said I never defended Beck and rather pointed out your hypocrisy of singling out Beck when the Progressive media has complete an utter disdain for ALL of Ron Paul's beliefs including foreign policy these days.

You have and you continue to do so. How exactly am I a hypocrite? Because you don't believe Beck is MSM and leftist? Or is it you're paid to claim that he isn't? If it isn't, what exactly are you looking for, some sort of affirmative action wherein for everytime I dare say something negative about Beck I need to either find or create a thread to bash the MSDNC hosts?

Yeah, i'm not going to do that. If you want to bash them and continue this left/right MSM false paradigm feel free to create your own threads. If I disagree with them I will bash them just as I do their brother in arms Glenn Beck. As for right now however this thread isn't about them, it is about Glenn Beck thus I will continue to give my opinion on... Glenn Beck. That isn't hypocrisy, that is staying on topic.

I realize you either are one of those types that love to deflect, or are paid to deflect but i'm not much for games, sorry. Go start your Keith Olbermann is a big ole meaniehead PROGRESSIVE(Unlike Beck...?) and I promise, i'll make a post or two. Maddow or Blitzer or whatever. Pick one, pick them all. But keep it out of this thread, thanks.

 

[specsaregood]

I was just listening to the replay online. Glen Beck, Stu and Pat all said they could not think of anything Ron Paul said that they didn't agree with.

Ok, so that was the sum total? That's for listening so I didn't have to.

 

[juleswin]

one bitcoin is trading at $19 right now. some RP supporters started buying bitcoins a year ago. is making an investment with a return of 2000% being gullible?

Those are the smart guys, believe me, I am kicking myself right now for not buying loads when it was selling for 60ish cents and selling it when it hit $29. But what you said about Ron Paul supporters and anything online (or even anti govt and anti federal reserve) is still true. Its a reflex that would cause a lot of good people to lose their shirts

 

[rp08orbust]

Ok, so that was the sum total? That's for listening so I didn't have to.

Hour 1, 24:25 to 25:00: Everyone sounded like a politician except Ron Paul.
Hour 1, 30:30 to 31:30: Hosts agree with everything Ron Paul said.
Hour 2, 01:30 to 02:30: Trashing Herman Cain for equivocating on foreign policy, praising Ron Paul for being clear about troop withdrawal.
Hour 2, 14:45 to 15:30: More on Ron Paul sounding unlike a politician and giving clear answers.
Hour 2, 18:45 to 22:45: Ron Paul supporter calls in. Hosts get defensive about the other candidates, but mostly a positive segment.
Hour 2, 23:00 to 24:00: Bashing Ron Paul for earmarks.
Hour 2, 24:00 to 29:00: Discussion of Ron Paul and foreign policy, wanders into an advertisement for _Original Argument_.

I'll email the mp3 files to anyone who wants to compile it into a YouTube video.

 

[specsaregood]

Hour 1, 24:25 to 25:00: Everyone sounded like a politician except Ron Paul.
Hour 1, 30:30 to 31:30: Hosts agree with everything Ron Paul said.
Hour 2, 01:30 to 02:30: Trashing Herman Cain for equivocating on foreign policy, praising Ron Paul for being clear about troop withdrawal.
Hour 2, 14:45 to 15:30: More on Ron Paul sounding unlike a politician and giving clear answers.
Hour 2, 18:45 to 22:45: Ron Paul supporter calls in. Hosts get defensive about the other candidates, but mostly a positive segment.
Hour 2, 23:00 to 24:00: Bashing Ron Paul for earmarks.
Hour 2, 24:00 to 29:00: Discussion of Ron Paul and foreign policy, wanders into an advertisement for _Original Argument_.

I'll email the mp3 files to anyone who wants to compile it into a YouTube video.

+rep after I get one in the chamber.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You're right. He's all bad!

Ha! ftw.

 

[LibXist]

Man, I really wish someone could post the audio or tube.

 

[Chieppa1]

He has been around a lot longer than since 2008.

And was he talking about auditing the Fed and Austrian economics? Was he the cult god is his now?

 

[Chieppa1]

You do realize there is some middle ground between fraud/coward and patriot, don't you?

Yes, but there isn't anything logical and honest about how Beck makes his decisions. That's why I don't trust him and hate him. How hard is it to be not be a flip-flopping fraud? Just explain to me how someone who talks about the subjects he talks about NOT endorse Ron Paul UNLESS he was dishonest?

 

[sparebulb]

I get attacked for pointing that out. lol.

Don't take it so badly Frank. Just think of it as being aggressively hugged.

 

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Man, I really wish someone could post the audio or tube.

I'm sure someone will do that soon... I hope...

 

[Romulus]

Medina screwed up and painted herself as a 9/11 Truther, I'm sorry.

The whole thing was a trap set by Beck - sadly she stepped into it. Beck's fault still. His loyalty doe NOT lie with liberty.

 

[kahless]

I get attacked for pointing that out. lol.

Don't take it so badly Frank. Just think of it as being aggressively hugged.

I can one up Frankrep. I get attacked and accused of being paid by Beck to post here. LOL.

 

[Valli6]

Sarah Palin supports a new investigation and that's not the same as being a "9/11 was an Inside Job" 9/11 Truther.

There! That's just the problem! Medina was never 'a "9/11 was an Inside Job" 9/11 Truther'! 9/11 was not an issue for her. It was not something that ever came up in any of her speechs. You will not find any video of her talking about 9/11. She did not attend any "truther" rallies. She was not part of any "truther" group.

During that campaign, Medina had been doing unexpectedly well in the debates and Perry had little to say, and came off as a dunce! Medina's poll numbers were rising. She was absolutely the "tea party" candidate - exactly the candidate Sara Palin pretends to be, but can't quite pull off. Then there was a thread on this forum about a writer for some local paper who stated that a Perry supporter was the same person who had been posting crazy sounding comments ranting about 9/11, while pretending to be a Medina supporter. FACT: Some Perry supporter(s) was/were trying to smear Medina with the "truther" label even though she had never said anything about the issue one way or the other.

Beck was LYING when he said he'd heard she was a truther and thus started the rumor himself! Medina answered something like, "Well that's the first time I've ever been accused of that." She didn't perform the neo-con reaction of flying into a rage and damning to hell anyone who might question any detail of the official story. He intermittently cut the sound to her so she didn't hear everything he said throughout the interview and yes, it sounded awkward. She said that there were some questions - that is all! But the media ran with Becks rumor and discredited Medina, and stopped taking her seriously.

If Perry had lost that election, no one would be considering him as a primary candidate right now! Enjoy Beck's show if you like. He's has some good guests. But don't be so naive as to think he might support Ron Paul. He will support the establishment candidate, probably Perry.