Okay,
I don't believe most of what GB has to say. But could someone please explain to me what type of Anarchist he is referring to when he groups Anarchists with Fascists and Nazis in this video?
He didn't call Palin anarchist. He was talking about the Medici (spelling?) lady that is running against Perry for governor Texas.
I think Glenn and the person making the video are trying to manipulate things.
This vid looks like Glenn trying to work his way back into respectability by asserting that he's not a lunatic. And of course he has to point the finger at real and imagined bad guys to do so.
I love how he likes to play up that he and most Democrats, who are centrists, are both dependable and responsible warmongers. "And so can you!" The only thing bad in his opinion with the Republican party is not war, the destruction of liberty, the police state, etc... but that some are on the fringe believing in birther crap or 9/11 conspiracy theorizing.
wilderness: He didn't call Palin anarchist. He was talking about the Medici (spelling?) lady that is running against Perry for governor Texas.
Thanks. I just copied the video title into the post title. I realized your correction after watching the video. I since changed the post title.
your welcome.
From what little I've heard, that Medici lady is supposedly more constitutionalists than Perry, but I know very little of either one. Yet I do know Perry a bit more as he has increasingly pandered a lot to constitutionalists over the past year as elections were coming up. He did a 180. The usual D.C. politician type. Talk it up big near election time, but for most of the term and in voting do nothing that has to actually do with liberty. I've heard Medici would like the gun laws of Vermont, which are apparently the best out of any state when it comes to terms of liberty, and she would like to implement them in Texas. Beyond that I don't know. But Perry is a D.C. dude and I find Beck to be D.C. with an new hair do, you know to keep up with the times/ratings. But that's a personal opinion obviously. But aside from that, from what I know therefore (obviously little but definitely more when it comes to Perry), I wonder why Beck paints Medici as an anarchist, fascist. That definitely seemed way out there from what I assumed. I guess Beck likes Perry. That's an easy deduction.
bearing01: Okay, I don't believe most of what GB has to say. But could someone please explain to me what type of Anarchist he is referring to when he groups Anarchists with Fascists and Nazis in this video?
Glenn Beck is a blithering idiot.The man has no idea what he saying or doing 90% of the time. I thought he was headed in the right direction, but I got turned off when he unintentionally was in favor of Keynesian economics. I stopped watching him in late November.
Glenn Beck needs to fill up an entire hour of dead air by talking every day.
Not everything he says is going to make sense.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
This ia very clear representation of who he is. He hasn't changed at all. He's just looking for the 1-2 punch on Obama all the time, without accomplishing anything even slightly relevant. He's a moron ( I know I'm a bit harsh here) and a closet statist.
I think people are a little too harsh on Beck most of the time. He's basically a minarchist with some knee-jerk neocon tendencies left over perhaps (he was a pretty strong neocon before, maybe still), but he's slowly working towards 'constitutionalist' which is at least in the right direction. Saying someone is/isn't (whatever, libertarian in this case) isn't always fully accurate. He has both libertarian and authoritarian views on different issues. He's better than most on tv with economics, somewhere in the middle socially, but still neocon on foreign policy and defense unless he's changed in the last year or so (haven't been following him for a while, but I used to a lot).
So yeah he's inconsistent in his support of freedom, but he does a better job at calling out criminals like the Fed than most news/entertainment shows do (most don't do it at all). I do wish he wouldn't be so knee-jerk in making accusations. 9-11 truther = anarchist? That's a pretty big jump to a conclusion (they aren't related ideas), especially when he admits he doesn't fully understand the topic.
Like 99% of everyone else, anarchist is a word he has a major knee jerk reaction to. And I'll be honest - most self-proclaimed popular crowd "anarchists" seem to be complete morons, especially the violent ones, and I think they are the only 'anarchists' he's even aware of.
I still have hope that some day he'll see the inconsistency in freedom that both 'liberal/conservative' groups support, and finally make the jump to being consistently libertarian. Perhaps we could give him a nudge in that direction with some organized mass-emailings or mass-mailings? We could even team up with the whole Ron Paul/Campaign for Liberty crowd for a little email-bomb or something. :) Who's gonna draft it, and what book should be recommended? Would be nice to have a solid, consistent libertarian on the air for 4 hours a day.
LvMIenthusiast: This ia very clear representation of who he is. He hasn't changed at all. He's just looking for the 1-2 punch on Obama all the time, without accomplishing anything even slightly relevant. He's a moron ( I know I'm a bit harsh here) and a closet statist.
I think it's outdated, Sept 2008 he hadn't started getting into the whole Ron Paul/founders thing yet, it's too early. The video isn't being fair IMO. He needs info on foreign policy and terrorism still mainly. What's a good book supporting non-intervention that doesn't sound like it's "blaming America" for terrorism?
I'm very suspicious of the man. I watched him from June to November and personally speaking, I don't think he's anywhere close to being on the right track. Again, I held different views back then as well. But, looking back, all I can do is shake my head. I also think he will change his tone once a Republican steps in the WH (whenever this may be). I just don't trust him and I think he's very misleading.
Glenn Beck is a fraud and a Judas goat. Ignore him.
Anyone who believes Beck is sincere is delusional.
'What you will not see from the Media'
I must be delusional then. I think the wrong conclusions are being drawn here. Confused, neocon, religious (overly so), yes I can agree with those. Intentionally deceptive? Not unless you're talking about over-dramatizing for the sake of ratings and popularity (which has to be at least a little true).
IMO he's more individual than you're giving him credit for. Keep in mind the rest of all "Fox" combined seems to talk less about freedom, privacy, the Fed, and other neglected topics. Beck also has a 3-hour radio program, not related to Fox at all (unless it's at some high level ownership link), so he sure as heck doesn't need the tv show one bit. As long as he has the ratings, he can do mostly whatever he wants, he's not a "Fox puppet". As long as he has ratings, his employer doesn't have that much power. There's always a competitor that wants the ratings, if the ratings are there.
And if he switched to Fox simply because the political balance of power shifted, he must be psychic because that happened before the election and (at least according to the news) for reasons other than a simple whim.
I can agree that he's not a consistent or even a strong libertarian, but the facts and the time line tell me that his critics aren't considering all the facts in their judgment. There are a few things that he seems frustratingly stubborn on (terrorism...) but again, at the moment he's the best candidate libertarian-convert on the air which has to count for something. (Judge Nap doesn't count since he's Internet-only still afaik.)
LvMIenthusiast: I'm very suspicious of the man. I watched him from June to November and personally speaking, I don't think he's anywhere close to being on the right track. Again, I held different views back then as well. But, looking back, all I can do is shake my head. I also think he will change his tone once a Republican steps in the WH (whenever this may be). I just don't trust him and I think he's very misleading.
I'll have to check out the show again to see what he's talking about. There's been a gap in my listening/viewing between when he started inching towards libertarian and now. I do hope he hasn't reverted but it sounds like he never homed in on the right sources of information.
I haven't seen any change in tone (up till last year when I was still watching) other than the gradual one that has been taking place for many years--you would have had to tune in for a longer period than I suspect most critics bother to do. Unlike most of the goons at Fox he was attacking the Bush administration, at least on socialism and spending, pretty seriously. Well before Obama was running for president...
Beck is an actor.
I only watched the first minute or two of that clip, and I now feel noticeably stupider.
His show was better when he went on hiatus and Judge Napolitano subbed in. They at least got some decent guests discussing the economy honestly and from an Austrian perspective. Of course, to the rest of the MSM folks this is all just "kookery".
Hard Rain: His show was better when he went on hiatus and Judge Napolitano subbed in. They at least got some decent guests discussing the economy honestly and from an Austrian perspective.
His show was better when he went on hiatus and Judge Napolitano subbed in. They at least got some decent guests discussing the economy honestly and from an Austrian perspective.
Oh, hell yes, if only Judge had his own show at prime time. I saw some of these fill-ins and they were great.
Ansury:I must be delusional then.
Those who reject praxeology often are. You're missing the bigger picture. He's a pawn, whether or not he knows it is irrelevant. He and the rest of the fox clowns are the poster child's for the "right wing". The false left / right paradigm is what is used to keep the masses in the statist box.
Ansury:As long as he has the ratings, he can do mostly whatever he wants, he's not a "Fox puppet". As long as he has ratings, his employer doesn't have that much power. There's always a competitor that wants the ratings, if the ratings are there.
How naive.
"Television. Television consists of bland programs and distorted news. Radio and television channels have been nationalized for half a century by the federal government, which grants channels as a gift to privileged licensees, and can and does withdraw these gifts when a station displeases the government's Federal Communications Commission. How can any genuine freedom of speech or of the press exist under such conditions?"
Ansury:There are a few things that he seems frustratingly stubborn on (terrorism...) but again, at the moment he's the best candidate libertarian-convert on the air which has to count for something.
He's not a libertarian, he's a neocon. Simple really. He supported the bailouts, he supports unjustifiable wars of aggression... how anyone can call him a libertarian is beyond me... and largely amounts to some kind of wishful thinking.
IMO, he isn't even a neocon. He is a career talking head. He will say whatever advances his career. He doesn't have sincere stances, but because he is a narcissist he still manages to find plenty to talk about.
But for this reason he is useful as a barometer.
Marko: IMO, he isn't even a neocon. He is a career talking head. He will say whatever advances his career. He doesn't have sincere stances, but because he is a narcissist he still manages to find plenty to talk about. But for this reason he is useful as a barometer.
Well yeah possibly, and the role he is expected to play is that of a neocon.
Politics and the Power Elite - offers a great analysis. No doubt these continue today.
As far as Fox neocon talking heads go, Beck is one of the better ones. I watch him because my family does, and within the past month there were at least two episodes where he devoted a segment to the 9th and 10th Amendments. Constitutional government doesn't mean much to a libertarian, but if he's going to teach the masses about something they've probably never seen to get them worked up, that's not a bad direction to take them.
I know all that Conza (and calling me names doesn't really help convince anyone). I'm familiar with praxeology, I just think you're jumping to conclusions that are too extreme. Some "statists" are much moreso than others. (I know, in principle it's all the same.)
I won't deny that he unknowingly helps prop up a side of that pyramid in the video, but there are topics where he hits awfully close to the roots of the 'problem' such as the Fed. He is still a neocon so I can't say you're totally wrong; I think you're being too cynical and ignoring some of the inroads he's made in certain areas. He's inviting Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and Judge Napolitano onto his show without not trying to make a circus out of it (unlike most media scum). This has to count for something. I don't feel like he's being judged fairly when this is completely ignored by his critics like it always is.
I meant his employer doesn't have much power over him personally. Perhaps this is an overstatement and I should have said they don't have "complete power", and yes he wouldn't be on the air long if he really became "extreme" in the eyes of the FCC, but I don't think he's anywhere near that point yet. He still has some freedom should he ever choose to exercise it, and his ratings certainly add to that freedom in terms of how much his employer will tolerate (until the FCC decides to step in I suppose).
I'm pretty sure Beck doesn't support bailouts of any kind anymore (whether he thinks they were all a mistake up to the beginning, I don't know). Economically (and maybe regarding privacy/big brother) he's moved towards libertarian recently. Like I said before he's not consistent (neocon still), but I never said he's a flat out libertarian... I'm not sure why you're alluding that I've done so. Now would you stop making me defend the selective libertarian tendencies of random neocons?
LvMIenthusiast: I also think he will change his tone once a Republican steps in the WH (whenever this may be).
I also think he will change his tone once a Republican steps in the WH (whenever this may be).
I'll say this: if he changes his tone in 3 years when a Repub likely inevitably retakes the high ground, I'll reconsider his fully intentional motives. I don't think that he will go back to being a Repub fanboy as he was during the early/mid Bush years (well.... it might if that president is Palin). During the late Bush years he was getting pretty critical on most fronts so I didn't see the change in tone matching up perfectly with elections as some others seem to be claiming.
Ansury:...but there are topics where he hits awfully close to the roots of the 'problem' such as the Fed.
Beck has never been anything resembling a Libertarian, and will never be. I'm not sure if anyone caught a segment with Bill O'Reily awhile back where they were arguing which new taxes should be imposed. Beck actually supported the idea of a 2% tax on the entire US GDP to be paid directly to the UN.
I'm more afraid of a saboteur like Beck who manages to mix just enough truth in with his poison, than I am of idiotic talking heads who spew nothing but poison. As I said before, he is a Judas goat and a fraud who's sole job is to destroy any possibility for real change.
The UN? How 'awhile back' is this? I thought he hated the UN. It seems to me many critics like to play time line games and make claims based on inconsistencies or changes in opinion, I mean he is allowed to change positions on things right?
The danger of mixing truth with bull is a good point, but I don't think it's anything unique to him, even the government itself pulls that crap all the time.
Ansury:The UN? How 'awhile back' is this? I thought he hated the UN. It seems to me many critics like to play time line games and make claims based on inconsistencies or changes in opinion, I mean he is allowed to change positions on things right?
Nevermind I was wrong, it was to go towards paying down the national debt. Still, not Libertarian in the slightest.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/glenn-beck-for-dummies.html
Ansury:The danger of mixing truth with bull is a good point, but I don't think it's anything unique to him, even the government itself pulls that crap all the time.
Exactly.
The man is far from sincere, in fact he's very much the oppurtunist!
Although I don't agree with Alex Jones on quite a few things, he and the other author hit it right on the head there. He's far from a "libertarian" to say the very least. Sometimes, I wonder if the man understands what he is saying.
(I used to like Glenn Beck, until I realized him for the fraud he was and how he really doesn't care at all)
Just watch his speech at CPAC, come on guys!
Hmm. A 2% "VAT" to pay down the debt - a terribly, amazingly stupid idea, thumbs down of course. And yes, we can't call him a libertarian.. I know.
From the link above:
His bizarre and clownish antics of fake crying, which were proven to be staged when Beck replicated them on demand for a GQ photo shoot, are doing nothing but reinforcing the stereotype that the freedom movement is extreme and unbalanced.
Really? This qualifies as "proof" that these episodes were staged live on the shows? Of course it's not. This is the kind of thing that annoys me and causes me to be critical of Beck's critics. If they're stretching this truth, what else are they stretching in their article?
So while I disagree with the bold, I do agree with the overall statement. For all the assistance he provides for the liberty movement (putting people like Judge or Ron Paul on and so on), he probably causes close to or as much damage in other ways. But I don't feel this is intentionally planned in the least (that sounds like a conspiracy theory). I don't deny that it's possible that he's up to no good intentionally; I'm not yet convinced this is the case.
And again, it looks like most of the references (other than the 2% VAT idiocy) came before the 2008 election period (in some cases, way before). His commentary softened around that point, he started reading more about the founders, and so on. Still not perfect of course, but don't forget that many of us (maybe the majority) were once neocons or partisans at one time too.
I've yet to listen/watch him for about a year though so perhaps my opinion is outdated (but I've yet to see any new criticism from the past year), and I don't really have much of an urge to start tuning in again...
I don't know if this means anything, but he has apparently stated that he believes global warming is caused by mankind ( I don't know where everyone stands on this). But, again this goes against what he has been screaming about for quite sometime as he did cover "Climategate" and did rip on Al Gore countless times when I tuned in to him.
Besides having Andrew Napolitano and Ron Paul on, he has hardly done anything to prove he isn't a statist at the end of the day. I know you haven't listened to the man in a while, but he is just so vague and obscure at times, that it really makes you question what he's up to.
But again Ansury, your entitled to your own thoughts about him, so I really don't want to pester you any further about this.
It's no pestering at all, I'm always open to honest discussion and considering opposing opinions. (Unless it's Paul Krugman's opinion. )
Beck's anthropogenic global warming view, I have definitely not heard before, and this is new to me. Most here (I believe) think this is either a complete scam or there's no solid evidence IIRC the latest thread right. I thought he was still in the "not enough evidence" camp. It's even more confusing because one of my old email addresses still gets his newsletters and I recall seeing "climategate" references recently. I also recall hearing "global temperature decreasing for the last decade" or so (although I was never able to verify that in my own research...) and I think that came from him too.
Meh. Part of the reason I lost interest was things like this. He reports something or makes some claim, but when you go and look for it yourself just to check... maybe the "Google Research Method" just isn't enough, but often I can't find any backing evidence that appears credible. The sad thing is (and he claims he has a large research team to verify facts, whatever that means), many of these things could be true, but if they don't provide the sources of their information how can they be confirmed? That's crap...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125949
This is one of the many sites where you can find this.
Posted: February 22, 2010
Brand spanking new. Seems he may have made disappointing progress over the last year.
I used to follow Beck pretty closely sometime around '08 and early '09 when it seemed like he was legitimately moving toward libertarianism. Although it's become increasingly clear that he is a neo-con giving libertarian lip-service. He's really more of an anti-progressive, than anything else. He is really stuck on the "Constitution" and views it as a divinely inspired document.
The only reason he bags on the Fed is because it was setup under Woodrow Wilson and the story is the same as any other program setup under a progressive administration. He just gives a pass to any other infringement since they are "in the constitution". I had to finally turn him off in disgust when he said to the effect. (paraphrasing) "It is immoral (referring to US troops) to fight a war and not be 100% committed to it, if you're going to fight a war, you need to fight to win and go in with the full power of the military and you shoot them in the head, until they understand not to mess with us any more and then you come home". Ughh
Orthogonal: I used to follow Beck pretty closely sometime around '08 and early '09 when it seemed like he was legitimately moving toward libertarianism. Although it's become increasingly clear that he is a neo-con giving libertarian lip-service. He's really more of an anti-progressive, than anything else. He is really stuck on the "Constitution" and views it as a divinely inspired document. The only reason he bags on the Fed is because it was setup under Woodrow Wilson and the story is the same as any other program setup under a progressive administration. He just gives a pass to any other infringement since they are "in the constitution". I had to finally turn him off in disgust when he said to the effect. (paraphrasing) "It is immoral (referring to US troops) to fight a war and not be 100% committed to it, if you're going to fight a war, you need to fight to win and go in with the full power of the military and you shoot them in the head, until they understand not to mess with us any more and then you come home". Ughh
I would argue that the man doesn't even wholly understand the document (the Constitution) that he advocates for incessantly on his show. With that being said, it's not like I know the Constitution like the back of my hand, but it's fairly obvious that he does disregard the document during many points of his show, while paying lip service to it! I personally think the man is an utter waste of time, I'm sorry guys.
The Glenn Beck program this past Friday (Feb 26th) he had the episode dedicated to Libertarianism. He presented a pole for Americans to take - believing that most Americans are Libertarians and they don't even know it. If you can find the episode on Fox or Youtube or something, it may be worth a view.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36990/
So, I was a little excited about the episode. Judge Napolitano was on the entire time, addressing questions, who actually knows someting about Libertarianism. Everything was going well but then Beck got an audience member to stand up. Beck asked him what it meant to be a Libertarian and what was Anarchy. The guy said that Anarchy equaled destruction. At that moment, if it wasn't against the law to discharge a firearm in city limits, I probably would have shot my TV.
Yes! His "drifting" towards libertarianism (that I can confirm) was taking place right during that period (end 08 to early 09), but then I can't speak for what happened afterward since I stopped watching (too busy reading mises.org and such I suppose). And of course I did notice that he wasn't really making the jump on foreign policy or terrorism at all which I think factored in to my loss of interest...
bearing01:The guy said that Anarchy equaled destruction.
And nobody corrected? What was the response?
Found this which sums up part of how I feel about Beck's critics, not that I disagree with them--I just want the critics to know what they're talking about.
bearing01: Judge Napolitano was on the entire time, addressing questions, who actually knows someting about Libertarianism. Everything was going well but then Beck got an audience member to stand up. Beck asked him what it meant to be a Libertarian and what was Anarchy. The guy said that Anarchy equaled destruction. At that moment, if it wasn't against the law to discharge a firearm in city limits, I probably would have shot my TV.
Judge Napolitano was on the entire time, addressing questions, who actually knows someting about Libertarianism. Everything was going well but then Beck got an audience member to stand up. Beck asked him what it meant to be a Libertarian and what was Anarchy. The guy said that Anarchy equaled destruction. At that moment, if it wasn't against the law to discharge a firearm in city limits, I probably would have shot my TV.
Napolitano is a decent guy, but he does say a lot of absurd things, in that clip it made me laugh when he said "At some point it (taxes) becomes theft".
Also, as Ansury pointed out above, I think when Glenn and his program talk about Anarchy, their referring to the only Anarchists they know which are the Che and Communist crowd chanting "don't tread on me" as they throw a brick through a business window. I don't think he's even heard of anarcho-capitalism or even has a clue to what it is.
Orthogonal: Napolitano is a decent guy, but he does say a lot of absurd things, in that clip it made me laugh when he said "At some point it (taxes) becomes theft".
Not to derail the topic, but while I agree this sounds absurd on the surface, perhaps he didn't mean to imply that this "point" is the same for everyone. If someone is willing to "purchase" all the lousy services the government offers, if someone is willing to voluntarily purchase a portion of their services, or if someone doesn't want ANY government junk-- all these people are stolen from to different degrees.
But, it's entirely likely that I'm giving Judge too much credit and he doesn't really consider this at all.