Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Glenn Beck Would Favor Ron Paul Over Newt Gingrich

Me: this is truly worrying, I agree a lot with Glenn Beck, but there is no way Wrong Paul is better than Newt Gingrich. Even Obama is better than Ron Paul. Obama acts as if half of his friends are working the the Global Islamic Movement. Paul acts as if he's directly part of it. Newt is the only one of the three who will openly fight for America and confront / defeat the GIM. Judge Napolitano and NPR are also nice to Ron Paul for some odd reason.

On the radio this morning, Beck is somehow equating Gingrich as just as toxic a progressive as Obama and has much as he's scared of Ron Paul "if it leads to freedom" he might consider Paul, but never support Gingrich. Even Rush was surprised by how much hate for Newt was coming from conservatives. Beck has spent zero time bashing Paul vs Obama's friends from SEIU to George Soros, even liberals like NPR have not attacked Paul's obscure views and white nationalist jihadist Nazi support base. Pretty much only obscure counter-jihad pro-Israel types have been sounding the alarm on Paul, as the press has done consecutive hatchet jobs on Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, and now just getting started on Newt. Why does Paul get a pass from Glenn Beck??

Liberals ripped into every GOP candidate EXCEPT Ron Paul. Why???? This is the worst they could come up with??? Why is he the favorite GOP candidate of the liberal press?

5 Things You May Not Know About Ron Paul

from right scoop:

 Glenn Beck: I’d consider Ron Paul as third party over Newt Gingrich

Glenn Beck said this morning on his radio show that if Newt Gingrich is the nominee and Ron Paul runs third party, he’d consider voting for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich, and he hates Ron Paul’s policies on the Middle East:

This is suicide and it doesn’t get any simpler this: voting third party on our side for whomever guarantees Obama a victory. That’s it. And if Newt’s the nominee and Beck wants to go that road, then I tell him what I tell others: enjoy the hell that will be a second Obama term.
I’ve made my position clear about Newt. He’s not my guy, but if he’s the nominee, I’ll run to the polls to vote for him and I’d encourage all of you to do the same.

  • Go read the Constitution.
  • My God! You are one funny fellow!
  • The fact that you believe that dude actually killed Bin Laden or that Bin Laden was actually responsible for 911 already lets me now there is no room for an intellectal discussion whatsoever this way...
  • Riiight. I won't buy into conspiracy theories without irrefutable evidence so I am not allowed to participate in your "intellectal discussion." I DO know for sure that the administration of George Dubya Bush didn't kill Bin Laden...oh never mind!
  • Just what is your definition of irrefutable? Only when Cheney confesses on ABC?
  • Okay...cool. Can you send me the YouTube link where Cheney says Bin Laden/Al Qaeda wasn't responsible for 9/11? Then I will submit to your superior intellect and knowledge of politics and history.
  • If you abolish the Fed and deny corporations "personhood" and legalize our Constitution those things will take care.....hey , HEY-WAKE UP!!!!... one too many dark beers I guess......
  • Ron Paul absolutely sucks on foreign policy. His economic views are great. But his foreign policy is an utter disaster. He's a 50%-er. He gets 100% of the equation right; and the other 50% (foreign policy) 100% wrong.

    The only legitimate function of government is national defense. We need to eliminate all other government programs.
  • Defending Israel is not defending the United States.
  • When did Israel become the 51st state?
  • Ron Paul is another Neville Chamberlain with the same appeasement philosophy. Chamberlain thought appeasing the Nazis would keep a war from happening. The rest is history and Chamberlain gave the Nazis enough time and cooperation for them to build their war machine.
    How can Glenn Beck support Ron Paul when Glenn supports Israel? The Israelis have bent over backward with the Palestinians by returning land, giving monetary support, medical care, etc.. Yet, the Palestinians have said there is no peace until Israel and the Jews are gone! If Ron Paul were to become president, He would appease the terrorist like Chamberlain appeased the Nazis. We would be in a world war in no time.
    Glenn says he hates Ron Paul's foreign policy, yet he would risk the whole world for opposing Newt Gingrich. In 2008 Beck also supported the bail-outs. He now says if you oppose Obama and support Newt Gingrich, you must be a racist! Beck is the one that is starting to sound progressive with that statement.
  • for one thing, saying israel is great to palestinians is absurd. totally silly.......ben guirrion said, "we stole their land, i wouldn't trust negotiating with us. can you blame them." go google it. you are mixed up.....now run along little moron drone. run-a-long...and youtube this.....NYPD POLICE TRANSMISSION MURAL VAN MOSSAD. get a hold of your self, you're spewing insanity.....watch the youtube vid. my friend, a colonal in the military was said to have started a campaign over this. the first guy that tried disappeared.
  • Ah shut the hell up with this tired old Israel argument! What the hell have the Israelis EVER done for us? Alliances should be mutually beneficial not one sided like our alliance [which we don't even have a treaty for] with Israel. So tell me why my hard earned tax dollars should go to a nation that can support itself? Why do I have to pay? Or Bob? Or Bill? Or Fred? Or Joe? Should we pay them our money in foreign aid just because they exist? The Israeli's can feed themselves, protect themselves, [finest military in the whole region] and wipe their own asses without the United States standing next to them with a roll of toilet paper! Ron Paul got this one exactly right. He is not appeasing anybody he just doesn't fall for bullshit propaganda that a thinking man can easily see through.
  • Excuse me! If you are so adamant about supporting a libertarian, then why do you try and silence other's opinions by telling me to shut-up?
    If your any example of the typical Ron Paul supporter, your post just reinforces my belief that Ron Paul's philosophy on government does not attract people of character. If you ever develop some maturity, you will find out that no politician ever gets it exactly right.
  • Excuse me! Did you learn to read with the Look/See method. Mr. Wilson asked you to stop using a flawed argument and you assumed that he told you to shut up?

    Will you measure Paul's argument by what someone else said to you on a blog?

    If you ever devolop some maturity, you will find that noone has asked for perfection. Simply, they want to stop doing the same things that make matters worse.

    Don't take it so personal.
  • Mr. Wilson, if you are so adamant about supporting a liberatarian, then why do you try to silence other's opinions by telling me to shut-up? If you are any example of Ron Paul supporters, you did a good job of reinforcing my belief that Paul's philosophy on government does not attract people of character. When you develop some maturity, you will realize that no politician ever gets it exactly right.
  • Hmm, this is interesting. Looks like a list compiled by closet Islamists like Paul
    Newts record in office is clearly NOT conservative and definitely not Constitutional.
    04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti 1st Amendment legislation).
    10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.
    11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
    11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
    … 08/27/1995 – He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence.
    01/06/1996 – He himself conceived a secret CIA mission to topple the Iranian leadership.
    04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion).
    06/–/1995 – He wrote the foreword to a book about tearing down the U.S. Constitution and implementing a Fascist World Government.
    06/01/1996 – He helped a Democrat switch parties in an attempt to defeat constitutionalist Ron Paul in the 1996 election.  GOOD FOR HIM
    09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.
    01/22/1997 – Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.
    11/29/2006 – He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a “serious debate about the 1st Amendment.GOOD
    11/29/2006 – He called for a “Geneva Convention for terrorists” so it would be clear who the Constitution need not apply to.
    02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
    04/04/2007 – He says that there should be a clear distinction about what weapons should be reserved for only for the military.
    04/17/2008 – Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.
    09/28/2008 – Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.
    10/01/2008 – Says in an article that TARP was a “workout, not a bailout.”
    12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
    03/31/2009 – Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.
    07/30/2010 – Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the “Axis of Evil”.
    08/03/2010 – Advocates attacks on Iran & North Korea.

    08/16/2010 – Opposes property rights of the mosque owner in NYC.
    08/16/2010 – Compares mosque supporters to Nazis.
    11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare; blamed liberals.
    12/02/2010 – He advocates a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.
    12/05/2010 – He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.
    01/30/2011 – He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.
    01/30/2011 – He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.
    02/10/2011 – He wants to replace the EPA instead of abolishing it.
    02/02/2011 – He says we are “losing the War on Terror”; the conflict will be as long as the Cold War.
    02/15/2011 – His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”
    03/09/2011 – He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.
    03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
    03/19/2011 – He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability).
    03/23/2011 – He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.
    03/25/2011 – He plans to sign as many as 200 executive orders on his first day as president.
    03/27/2011 – He says that America is under attack by atheist Islamists.04/25/2011 – He’s a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.
    05/11/2011 – His campaign video said that he wants to “find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those who do not want to change.”
    05/12/2011 – He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.
    05/15/2011 – Said GOP’s plan to cut back Medicare was “too big a jump.”
    05/15/2011 – He backed Obama’s individual mandate; “All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care.”
    05/16/2011 – He also endorsed individual mandates in 1993 when Clinton pushed Universal Health Care.
    05/17/2011 – He has an outstanding debt to Tiffany’s Jewelry of between $250K – $500K.
    06/09/2011 – His own campaign staff resigned en masse.
    07/15/2011 – His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.
    08/01/2011 – He hired a company to create fake Twitter to appear as if he had a following.
    08/11/2011 – His recent criticism of the United Nations is United Nations by a long, long history of supporting it.
    09/27/2011 – He says that he “helped develop the model for Homeland Security”.
    10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.

see http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-id-vote-for-a-ron-paul-third-party-candidacy-over-newt-gingrich/

Glenn Beck: I’d Vote For A Ron Paul Third Party Candidacy Over Newt Gingrich

» 116 commentsOver the past few years, there’s been much talk about some talk about a kind of “Republican Civil War” between the old dog GOP establishment and the newly energized Tea Party. This past weekend though, Glenn Beck did something impressive when he managed to piss them both off during an appearance on Fox Business Network. He annoyed the establishment by saying they were filled with progressives and that the only difference between Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama was that he was white and he annoyed the Tea Party by asking them if that was why they liked him. And if that weren’t enough to get Republicans angry at him, today Beck said that, were Gingrich to get the nomination, he’d consider voting for a Ron Paul third party run, something many assume would give the election to Obama.
RELATED: Andrew Breitbart Goes Off On ‘Coward’ Glenn Beck: ‘He Is Dead To Me’
Although he took pains to clarify that he doesn’t think the Tea Party is racist (he just wanted them to think about their choice), Beck has certainly chosen to turn directly into the skid when it comes to being the Right’s villain today. During his GBTV show this evening, he wondered aloud how much of his audience he was “hacking off.” Whatever the case, he shrugged and responded that he “calls them like [he] sees them.” And, while the establishment he has promised to hit back against may not have enjoyed his show dealing with the history of progressives in the Republican party, it was the Ron Paul comment, made on his radio show that could prove to be the most controversial.
The comment was made during a testy conversation with a caller who began the conversation saying to Beck “I love you and merry Christmas but you’re really ticking me off today.” The caller then tried to summarize Beck’s position, accusing the host of only thinking Michele Bachmann was a viable candidate. Beck instantly disagreed and clearly took umbrage at having his words misinterpreted.
“Not true. Not true. Excuse me. To be able to have a conversation with somebody, you have to be able to understand their side. When you can get my side right, then we can have a conversation. Your impression is wrong and I’m sorry if I’ve done anything to lead that. I’ve said on the air that, for me if I had to vote, it would be a tough choice between Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. However, I just said last week, gun to my head, I’ll vote for Mitt Romney. If it’s Newt Gingrich and a third party and it’s Ron Paul – and I don’t agree with his Middle East policy at all – I might consider a third party. So there’s where I stand.”
Already, some in conservative media are furious at the comment. But, as Beck made clear in his show, he doesn’t care what those on the networks or with their websites (possibly referring to this) have to say. Again, he calls them like he sees them.
For a guy with a fledgling network still in its infancy, you have to admit that’s a brave stance to take. Either that or a crazy one. But, if there’s anything the years have taught us, Glenn Beck has always rested somewhere between courageous and bat sh*t insane.
Listen to the clip from GBTV below:

(h/t The Right Scoop)Showing 80 of 116 comments
  • Publius219 17 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Glenn Beck is secretly part of the liberal media. He's done more to get Barack Obama re-elected than any of the supposed culprits that conservatrolls like to cite (basically any non-Fox, serious news org).
  • Sanjay Singh 13 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Indoctrinated Zombie, they all want to keep Ron Paul out and establishment prostitutes in.

    Once in a while Beck slips out the truth. 

    Newt and Mitt are the most dishonest, deceitful and leftist scumbags in GOP history.

    They are more socialist than Obama.

    More federal reserve, more bailouts, more TARP, more govt medical care, more looting of middle class, more dept of education, more wars and bankrupting of America.

    There is NO difference between Newt, Mitt and Barack.
  • Publius219 12 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    I, too, want to keep Ron Paul out.

    There's not a single credible economist who thinks immediately cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget will be anything but catastrophic for the economy.

    You can even use it as a litmus test. If an economist says anything else, they are therefore not credible, much like Ron Paul, ultimately.
  • Humanæ Libertas 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    By "credible" you must mean the vapid talking heads who spoon feed you every day have "vetted" them for you; and by "economist" you must mean the Keynesian "philosophers" who's tea leave reading consumerist driven economic psychobabble and self-prescribed market interventionism have put us in this hand basket in the first place.

    I mean who can question leading "economists" like Paul Krugman who wishes space aliens and "economic equivalent to war" (without somehow being a war) would happen, for the economy.
  • htu 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    and of course, no further comment from publius219
  • bensanity 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Yea, those credible economists that brought us into this Depression.
  • Rocky 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    AHEM*. Anybody doesn't agree with me is a "insert ad hominem insult here".

    *Publius219 is Swahili for Indiana putz.
  • Burair Allawati 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Excuse me, when you say "Credible Economist".. You mean the same people who caused the house bubble and the bubble in the economy and the loss in the value of the dollar?? The same economists who couldn't see the bubble and the recession coming in 2008, when Ron Paul has been warning and talking about it for the last 15 years?? The same economists who think over-spending based on easy credits is the best way to grow an economy?? Come-on!! The same "credible economists" caused the 15 Trillion dollars in debt, and cannot even think of a way to solve this problem!
    Ron Paul won't take away anything from the economy... He will cut hundreds of billions of dollars that go to foreign military bases, and instead will bring the troops back, keep paying them their salaries so they can spend it in the US economy instead of wasting all these hundreds of billions policing the world!
    Also, he will cut down 5 federal departments... that has nothing to do with economy... instead, the money will be used to pay for the horrendous debt that the previous "credible economists" piled up, and to cut taxes on all Americans, not just the rich people (aka the 1%).
    Instead of relying on the government to boost the local economy, Ron Paul will allow for a real free market to develop, and only successful business will succeed... and losers like Freddie Mac, Fennie, Bank of America...etc will all be allowed to go bankrupt if they cannot play it fair! He will NOT allow the Federal Reserve to bailout these big corporates while American people like YOU are losing their jobs, homes and money!!
    If you don't like the sound of that, then you may as well vote for Obama, Romney or Gingrich... because judging from their support for TARP and bailing-out of failing corporates, they do listen to your so called "credible economists".... and will keep adding to the 15 Trillion dollars debt, policing the world, fighting unconstitutional wars, increasing the rate unemployment and home closures, and causing the value of the dollar to be worse every day by printing money out of thin-air and bailing out private banks and big corporates... Vote for that.
    If you do NOT want that, then vote for Ron Paul... He is the only one who can truly restore America, and bring back your freedom.
  • shitstormacumin 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    It's congress that has these powers not the potus,and congress doesn't control the federal reserve.You and many like you think your electing a king with a majic wand.
  • saywhaaaa 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    So, because the system is corrupt, we should elect corrupt politicians, because any politicians who are not corrupt will not be able to get anything done with all the corrupt politicians standing in their way.

    What a terrible reason to vote against someone.
  • theendbeganin1913 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Well there isn't a single "credible economist" as you refer to that had any idea that there was a housing bubble and that when it collapsed, there would be a bad recession.

    But who was it back in 2001, 2002, and 2003 that warned that the FED along with Fannie & Freddie were creating a housing bubble and that when it burst, the collapse would be catastrophic???  Who also said that the Euro was going to collapse and that the EU was about to face a huge debt crisis back in 2001?

    Answer: Ron Paul

    So, please don't go around preaching this credible economist junk, b/c the people you refer to, don't have a mustard seed of credibility!

    If you don't believe me, just watch this video.  I dare you!

  • Pablo 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    That's textbook circular logic, Pub. But at least it isn't a death wish. Good on ya!
  • IrelandJnr 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    "There's not a single credible economist who thinks immediately cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget will be anything but catastrophic for the economy. "

    LIAR: http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p...
  • Publius219 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    I missed the part where they advocate cutting $1 trillion from fiscal year 2012.

    You Paulbots sure are rich (figuratively speaking). Just ideologues of different stripes. No better than the Dems or Repubs you rail against.

    Pragmatism needs to trump all at this point, and instead we just get more ideologues.
  • Jeremy Ryan 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Look at Newt and Romney`s record. They are both progressives. Records don`t lie. While in congress Newt was for gun control and pro choice (That`s what his voting record reflects). While running for governor Mitt was In favor of gun control and pro life. That alone makes them progressives. The fact they both supported TARP, proves they do not hold the same values as the tea party. The Tea Party was created because of bailouts. Bachmann and Santorum are conservatives, With the records to back it up. Ron Paul is a Reagan conservative with the record to back it up. Look at Newt record, It looks like Hilliary Clinton`s.

  • Diane 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    With Glenn Beck's  influence, he is practically GUARANTEEING Obama getting re-elected because he is going to convince people to vote 3rd party which will split the vote in Obama's favor. I have listened closely to all the debates. I didn't like Newt in the beginning but he has answered his past mistakes and I do feel he has changed his outlook on life over the past 10-15 years. He works closely with the Heritage Foundation for years which is a very conservative group.
  • Pablo 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    The New Newt says he’s 68 years old and therefore has mellowed and matured. He was 65 years and a few months old when he opposed TARP and then supported it. He was still just 67 years old when he criticized President Obama for not instituting a no-fly zone over Libya and then criticized him for doing it. He was on the cusp of 68 when he denounced Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering,” before contorting himself to explain it away.

    We should all envy Newt Gingrich’s vitality that he has been capable of such youthful indiscretions in his mid to late 60s.

  • Henry Wood 5 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    I wonder how many death threats Glenn got when he correctly pointed out that the Tea Klan is racist.
  • super 4 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    how is the tea party racist??  Wheres the proof?  However there is a ton regarding the occupiers....but they aren't racist ;)
  • Pablo 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Right. They just hate the Jews.
  • Jon Burrows 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Actually that would be the anti-Israel leftists.
  • Pablo 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    You mean like the folks at Adbusters, who started the Occupy movement?

    Anti-Semitism at ‘Occupy Wall Street’?
  • TeaPartyAmerican 5 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Glenn Beck: I’d Vote For A Ron Paul Third Party Candidacy Over Newt Gingrich

    ...poor beck - he's very upset that the gold-bubble he's been supporting is losing air (and price), and so he's lashing out at everything that makes sense.
  • Buck_Down 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    TeaBaggers aren't allowed to criticize Glenn Beck.  You made him relevant (and he made amplified your nonsense).  He's yours to keep.

  • Pablo 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Oh, yeah. Gold is right in the tank. Genius.

    Are you telling me that Newt Gingrich makes sense to you?
  • Rocky 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    For the most part, there's no such thing as a gold bubble. Everything else goes up and down around it, including Euros, Dollars, Francs, taxes, pork bellies, real estate, platinum, or a ciggie from a crackhead on a street corner.

    P.S. Beck is the worst flip flopper ever hatched.
  • Pablo 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Flip flop? How so?
  • KoreanTrevor 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    It looks like Beck is going the way of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (and David Koresh).
  • Brad Hudgens 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    i'll take Ron Paul's name in print anytime. The fact they can finally bring themselves to type "R" "O" "N", in that order, gives me hope.

    Thanks Glenn!
  • SSDeez 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    It's really hard to tell the difference between conservatism and a parody of it.
  • Buck_Down 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    In person, you can usually tell by the abundance of spittle.  More difficult detecting the parodies online.
  • lblake 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    "there’s been much talk about some talk about a kind of" Try at least scanning it once before posting?
  • B_F_D 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Savage and Beck think you teabaggers are idiots for overwhelmingly supporting Newt.

    I have to say....I agree with them.
  • skyfet 9 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Anyone with sense among them should vote for Ron Paul anyway.
  • Pablo 8 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    I love 90% of what Ron Paul has to say. It's the 10% of batshit crazy that vexes me. I have high hopes for Rand.
  • skyfet 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    I bet the 10% involves not wanting to fight a war for Israel. The Israeli citizens don't war it, but you'd rather see America blood wasted over there.Right?
  • B_F_D 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    lol...You also had high hopes for Cain.
  • Dave Garry 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    You agree with a candidate 90% of the time and you're not voting for, much less actively supporting the person?
  • Pablo 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    If Ron's on the ballot, there's a good chance I'll vote for him. I'd take him over Obama in a heartbeat. And there are a couple of R's I simply will not give my vote to. He's not one of them. 

    As for your question, it depends on what the other 10% is.
  • Burair Allawati 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    I bet the 10% is about not wanting to spend money on the military industrial complex and fighting unconstitutional undeclared wars, right?
  • Pablo 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    No, it's the isolationism.
  • Lene Danielsen 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    @Pablo...My dear Pablo, Go look up "isolationism" and then go look up "non-interventionalism", They mean 2 totally different things. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist which means that he would rather trade with other countries and have a strong national defense instead of going around the world fighting "corporate wars" that are not only illegal but immoral. While we spend trillions overseas (blood money for corporations) our own borders are at risk, wide open and vulnerable. Our national defense is a joke that involves pat downs at airports and the Patriot act which is totally unconstitutional and now they want to pass S.1867 which will give the government the ability to have the military indefinately detain Americans. You know what some of the criteria is to be suspected of being a terrorist? Having fingers missing or more than 7 days of food stocked for starters. Now they want to censor the internet. Do you see where this is going? Our Constitution is on life support, your vote could mean the difference between life and death for America!
  • Mo Fokker 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Damn. Glenn Beck has actually been making sense of late.
  • catfishjuggling 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Let me be the first to call this GBTV podcast a RINO.
  • Pablo 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Maybe TVINO would work better.
  • catfishjuggling 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    That is a truly fantastic line.
  • hekime 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Oh Glenn Beck, I love your comedy.
  • TitzyFritzensimmons 5 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Sorry, Glen, you've lost me now- and I was a subscriber. I understood your not criticizing Huntsman, due to your close relationship with his father, though I disagreed with you, but advocating for a third party will only give Obama a second term, so you're misguided. Perhaps you need to go through the steps on this.
  • Dave Garry 4 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Anyone but Ron Paul as the nominee means 4 more years of Obama. Ron Paul is the only one who can draw indys and truly anti-war dems, plus libertarians and one-lever GOP voters.

    Neither The Newt nor Mittens can do that.
  • Caroline M. Corman 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Ron Paul has diverse support. He has anti war people as well as fiscally responsible
    people form different parties. I support the man, even if I don't agree with everything he supports. But at least he is consistent.  If he would stop these crazy wars, he would get enough votes to get elected.  Obama is in trouble with many of the groups
    who put him in last election. Newt or Mitt cannot beat him, Ron Paul may be able to.
  • Vespergirl 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    You are certainly entitled to your opinion even if others find it to be delusional. :) Most folks are at the point that anyone but Obama will do, including independents. If they didn't fully understand what Obama meant by "Hope and Change" during the last election, they get it now and don't want it. I think that plays out in poll after poll where a generic Republican beats Obama every time.
    I think you are putting way too much emphasis on the Executive Branch of government. Though I and many others find Paul's views of smaller government and his understanding of the Tenth Amendment commendable, we find him to be a total nut job when it comes to foreign policy as does the vast majority in Congress whom he would have to work with closely.. Ron Paul even with a Republican majority in Congress, would not find the support for much of his agenda making him a lame duck president from day one.
    One thing I think you and I can agree on is we truly need reforms that will shrink the size of government, address the debt and get government  the heck out of the way through overturning countless regulations and laws that are killing the private sector. Either a Gingrich or a Romney could help achieve that. The real muscle for such reforms is needed in the Senate. Right now it looks like the House will stay in the hands of the Republicans where this past year they have passed several bills that would do much to accomplish needed reforms only to have them ignored in Harry Reid's Senate. Right now the polling shows a possibility of the Senate to change hands giving the Republicans 62 seats reaching the threshold for cloture. A Mitt or a Gingrich would do just fine in seeing to these needed reforms got signed into law.
  • joeschmoew 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    And you're calling someone who supports Paul delusional?
  • Charles Singley 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    I don't think we would have gun runners in office and our troops dumped in a trash dump if it was Ron Paul's watch.
  • Vespergirl 11 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Trump and Ron Paul both have suggested they may run on a third party. To me that is probably the worst thing a so called Republican could do this election because it would split the vote and insure another 4 years of Obama. For Beck to make the comments that he did about even entertaining the thought of voting third party was reckless. Vote your conscience in the primary, Mr. Beck but if Gingrich wins the nomination, you best get with the ABO plan (anyone but Obama) and support the Republican nominee because this country will not survive 4 more years of what we currently have.
  • NadePaulKuciGravMcKi, nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney 4 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Dr Ron never 'suggested' he may run on a third party.
  • Vespergirl 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    When cornered Paul refused to rule out completely  the possiblity of running as an Independent.
  • Dave Garry 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    He does that to keep the GOP leadership guessing. They can't form a strategy if they know for sure what he's going to do.


    And DELEGATES DELEGATES DELEGATES! Make sure you vote for the right delegates. In many states the popular vote means NOTHING in a primary. NOTHING. The delegates decide everything! NO DELEGATES, NO RON PAUL.....look into the delegate process in your state and even consider
    becoming one....but don't tell the party leaders who you support...find a local meetup or start one.. we don't talk about this topic enough.
  • Pablo 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Which is not the same as suggesting he will.
  • libertypatriot76 4 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Just know (third party or not) Ron Paul's supporters are very loyal and non-transferable.  Ron Paul has a very large support base (the media is doing all they can to hide this fact) and without his supporters, the Republicans will not take back the White House.  The worst thing the GOP can do is to undermine Ron Paul and steal the primary elections through voter fraud.  If it means real change (the good kind of change, not the Obama brand) the GOP would rather re-elect Obama than win the presidency with Ron Paul.  They have too much to lose by breaking the status quo and even with Obama in office they will continue to fleece the American people with their crony capitalism and profiteering from endless war.  You had better do more than vote your conscious in this primary, check the background on those running for office, and know that the Democrat and Republican establishment are counting on you to let the mainstream media to choose your candidate.
  • Pablo 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Elections are doing a great job of hiding that large support base as well.
  • Vespergirl 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Yes Ron Paul has his groupie following and most of them wear rose colored glasses while propping up their man at the same time ripping to shreds all other candidates as unworthy.. Whenever Paul finds himself in a sticky spot on issues he claims the Tenth Amendment and passes on the issue.
    I believe voting my conscience in this primary is quite adequate thank you, as it is based on reality.
    .It isn't just the main stream media trying to choose the Republican nominee , it's the  Republican establishment, the Washington insiders who are gunning for Romney. That is why we are seeing a surge for Gingrich. People are tired of the establishment picking their candidate and they would rather take Newt warts and all than be saddled with the one chosen of the elites, by the elites for the elites.
    This all ties into Beck's comments as he is frustrated with the new found support coming from the Tea Party for Gingrich.
  • saywhaaaa 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Newt is not establisment? Lol gtfo you 2 bit troll.
  • 2012RonPaul 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    To me, the worse thing we could do would be to nominate Newt Romney. They would be as bad as Obama, with an (R) behind their names. Not only that, but the latest poll shows only Ron Paul tied with Obama. Obama beats Romney and Gingrich by about 10%, so a vote for one of them is a vote for Obama.
  • Caroline M. Corman 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    I believe the Donald is bluffing. Ron Paul may run with Jesse Ventura.
  • giarretti 5 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Quote from a Ron Paul newsletter from early 1990's :

    "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther
    King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman.
    What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our
    annual Hate Whitey Day."

    There's your candidate Glenn. Good Luck when he runs against a black President. I was a fan, but you have become as crazy(almost) as Michael Savage.
  • Dave Garry 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Everyone knows Ron Paul didn't write those newsletters and was busy with his medical practice at the time. However, he has felt some moral responsibility and has apologized. The newsletter thing has been rehashed every election since 1996. MLK is one of Ron Paul's biggest heroes.
  • hj871 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    And this the worst dirt anyone seems to have on Ron Paul, which isn't much at all. This is why they have to attack him by ignoring him, refusing to debate his ideas, and calling him fringe or unelectable, because there really isn't much else they can use as ammunition against him. His record is pretty squeaky clean, and he doesn't flip flop or take money from special interest.

    If he does win the nomination, I fully expect the Obama campaign to attempt to paint him as racist. And they will likely try to distort his positions on Israel too, and paint him as an anti-semite. There is nothing in Ron Paul's record to support such claims, but they will try. In fact they will probably still pull out the race card no matter which
    candidate is nominated. The only candidate who could possibly have
    neutralized that particular attack was Cain, had he not self destructed.

    The problem for the Obama campaign if Paul wins, is that Obama will not be able to run against Bush, like he did last time, since Paul is a traditional Republican and not a Neoconservative like Bush or McCain were. They won't be able to pull out the anti-war card again either, seeing how Obama has completely stayed on course with the Bush foreign policy. Likewise there will be very little for any of the other GOP hopefuls to attack Obama on foreign policy either. But Paul would turn the tables on both fronts and would be able to attack Obama on both foreign policy and the economy. He could beat Obama.
  • driereyes 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    I just saw on the news that the Obama campaign staff has started informing him that he needs to bring some troops home like he said in 2007 to parrot Ron Paul, and the MSM is definitely hyping the end of the war in Iraq!

    The smoke screens are coming!

    Ron Paul 2012
  • Leedog, Republicans = Hillbillies 4 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Glenn Beck is trying to destroy the establishment Republicans... probably in payback for them wanting him to be fired from Fox News and the embarrassment they caused him!!
  • Pablo 3 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Beck has been bashing Republicans when he disagrees with them for years.
  • Leedog, Republicans = Hillbillies 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    I would have to agree, especially when Beck called Bush a "Progressive", but now the Republicans are going to bash Beck for bashing them!!
  • Pablo 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    You agree that Beck has been doing this for years which must be why you just said he's doing it because of something to do with Fox where he started working less than 2 years ago. Right.
  • carkrueger 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    I remember douche bag Beck telling folks in 08 he wasn't voting for McCain because he would not be able to face his children.
  • NadePaulKuciGravMcKi, nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney 4 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Neocons demand anyone, including Obama, over Dr Ron.
  • Critic2029 2 comments collapsed CollapseExpand
    Define Neocon...
  • zeci 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Scum of the earth.
  • Jonathan Peterson 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    Voting for 'Your Party' is not voting for what would be right for the country.  That's where you "One Lever Pullers" lose my support and really irritate me.  It's downright pathetic that you simple minds have lowered your intellect to that level.  Why don't we just do like 'Let's Make A Deal' and put a few candidates behind numbered doors with 'R's on them and let everyone pick a door?  Doesn't really matter, right? It'll still be an R, so WTF.
  • satta 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
    What is crazy and extreme is believing that there is any meaningful difference between Obama, Gingrich, or Romney.  They are all shills for the status quo: corporate cronyism, fiat money, military industrial complex, surveillance state, deficit spending, expansive/intrusive government, and gunboat diplomacy.

Add New Comment


No comments: