Comments on: Glenn Beck and Ron Paul

By: NewsReal Vs. David Frum « NewsReal Blog

NewsReal Vs. David Frum « NewsReal Blog — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:57:40 +0000

[...] at New Majority, Glenn Beck and Ron Paul by David [...]

By: PunditFight.com

PunditFight.com — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:43:33 +0000

I’ve written wondering aloud why Ron Paul wasn’t credited as the spiritual leader of the ‘Tea Party’ movement. It was essentially an extension of the passionate and well organised community Paul amassed during this campaign , championing the same “Left and Right are both bad”, “fiscal responsibility” platform Paul ran on.

Glenn Beck has been widely considered the spiritual leader of the 9/12 and Tea Party movement. Does all of this mean that the pundits are starting to distance themselves from the Tea Party movement?

By: Glenn Beck Rocks! - Page 12 - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum

Glenn Beck Rocks! - Page 12 - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:02:34 +0000

[...] more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American

By: » Commentary on Glenn Beck Liberal Values

» Commentary on Glenn Beck Liberal Values — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:55:56 +0000

[...] more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.” (He is now talking about pulling troops [...]

By: paladinofpeace

paladinofpeace — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:59:13 +0000

Beck has never been a major supporter of Ron Paul, but he has provided him a forum. That is more than the Republican Party has done, for good or ill. The Republican party has become far too Progressive and most Americans are simply tired of it.

Just because we are not happy with the far left Progressivism does not mean we embrace the inside-the-beltway Republicanism. That age is over.

Glenn Beck represents the New New Conservative Populism that combines an ‘everyman’ spirit with conservative principles and the tactics of leftist radicalism. The problem is that too many Neocons and second- and third-generation Buckley-ites believe that they deserve complete control of the Conservative movement and they seem to believe with such aplomb that the useful idiots, the right-leaning Wal-Mart shopping unwashed masses, will crawl back to the Conservative cognizant elite once we see with Beck that he, the Emperor, has no clothes. They believe they will regain their former power.

Forget it. You really just don’t get it. There is a frame-breaking movement afoot, the old schemas do not work anymore, but, sadly, Mr. Frum and many others of the old guard are too entrenched to understand it. Proof of your misunderstanding is self-evident in these Beck-related postings.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:12:22 +0000

cpanza:

If Paul would support a federal law that defines life beginning at conception, then he’s for a federal law outlawing abortions. Which would make him not particularly libertarian on the issue, since how to define “life” is a clear moral issue that it open to interpretation, and should be left up to local communities, or perhaps even individuals.

I concur.

The issue isn’t life, but personhood. Is a fetus a person? Is an embryo a person? There is no scientific definition of “person,” and hence no real scientific answer to that. It remains a matter of personal philosophy.

If Ron Paul wants to legislate that personhood begins at conception (meaning that a newly fertilized egg gets Fourteenth Amendment rights), then he’s not being libertarian on this issue at least.

By: cpanza

cpanza — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:47:15 +0000

fzz:

If Paul would support a federal law that defines life beginning at conception, then he’s for a federal law outlawing abortions. Which would make him not particularly libertarian on the issue, since how to define “life” is a clear moral issue that it open to interpretation, and should be left up to local communities, or perhaps even individuals.

By: Chamois

Chamois — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:18:46 +0000

Got an idea. Agree with Beck when he’s right; disagree with him when he’s wrong. But remember that David Frum is the same man who wrote the most disappointing NR cover story ever — claiming that Bob Novak was unpatriotic. It’s rich for such a man to disagree with another’s tactics, no?

By: BoolaBoola

BoolaBoola — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:54:14 +0000

WillyP, there is no such thing as “Natural Law”. The only natural law is the law which nature imposes: things must be what they are and must suffer what they suffer.

Also, the phrase you quoted (“right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”) comes from the Declaration of Independence, which was written by the Founding Fathers, who didn’t give a single, solitary damn about abortion or about unborn babies. If they had cared about abortion, they would have written something–anything–on the subject, which they didn’t, none of them, never. What you are making is not an argument about abortion, but a pun on two DIFFERENT meanings of the word “life”.

Oh, and thank you for the compliment (coming from you, “You sound like an idiot” is a compliment).

By: mlindroo

mlindroo — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:12:18 +0000

Nice rant, Fuzzywzhe.
I was a bit surprised by the amount of sarcasm and scorn heaped on Ron Paul by the GOP media elite last year… After all, Dr.Paul was pretty much the only presidential candidate who had an enthusiastic following and a libertarian-leaning conservative agenda clearly different from the discredited policies of the Bush Administration.
Now, I can understand why some of his controversial views make mainstream Republicans nervous, but maybe Paul will seem less “extreme” if both Bush *and* Obama end up as political failures… People also scoffed at Howard Dean in 2004, but his opposition to the Iraq war + unapologetic liberalism were no longer regarded as liabilities in the 2008 elections.

MARCU$