Glenn Beck tells us WE MUST support Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich 12-13-11

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

If you have not heard this before, here you go! GB on his show 12/13/2011

[kieefer]

Glenn Beck: Rick Santorum "is the next George Washington" | Rick Santorum for President

[Guest bkelm18]

I'm not going to listen to Beck-tron for advice on... well anything. That guy is Grade A loony.

[Guest TresOsos]

I would support a cock roach before I'd support Newt (Wilsonian Progressive, his words) Gingrich.

[greenego]

Never been a Beck fan. I will vote for anyone over Obama. Even Newt.

[bigwakes]

I don't care who supports Ron Paul, his foreign policy is still the most dangerous of all the candidates!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm just going to vote Republican. I have my preferences, for what that's worth. If Ron get's the Republican

nod, I will vote for him.

As far as I'm concerned, our country is already in a Constitutional Crisis. Politicians are doing desperate things

to protect their power, judging by the recent series of laws passed. When have we had a period so long

without a budget? Why are we letting our local law enforcement get to the point of militarization? It seems

like regardless of who is elected, once they get to DC, their votes still mimick the ones that were replaced.

There doesn't seem to be the excitement to throw out Obamacare from many politicians like there was.

Since when has the phrase "deemed passed" carried any legal weight. Maybe I just missed that.

Something very bad is going to happen and probably sooner than later. I really doubt that Ron Paul has a

snowball's chance in Hell of getting the nod. If he decides to "third party" and it permanently splinters the

country with an Obama win, maybe we can get on with rebuilding after a war. Optimistic, eh?

I have a pocket copy of the Constitution that I keep with me, so I know it won't be lost.

The Iowa Caucus means absolutely nothing to me.

[RobertNashville]

For some reason I can't pull up the link but I'm pretty sure I was listening when he said this and I certainly didn't take his meaning the way this thread title and some in the media are portraying it. In any case, I'm voting for anybody but Obummer.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Would bet eye teeth Bachmann and Santorum don't have an ice cube's chance in hades. Can't see Perry having better odds but stranger things have happened. Maybe Gingrich can get the nomination.

Though I don't like Romney he seems the most likely nominee.

I will vote for Paul regardless. Paul is not the ideal candidate but I can't realistically vote for the others.

It seems doubtful that Romey can beat Obama unless things get even more worser, while Obama and the MSM fail to convincingly blame Bush, the Tea Party, the Evil Rich and House Republicans. If only 25 percent of Republicans want the dude, then how many Independents or Disillusioned Democrats will bother to cast a vote for Romney?

Tis also doubtful that a Prez Romney would be an overall improvement over Obama. Perhaps a little better in some attributes while a little worse in other attributes. He would screw things up just as bad as Obama, but screw things up in a different fashion.

A Prez Romney or Prez Gingrich will never repeal ObamaCare. They will "improve" it into something different but equally brain dead and then rename it RomneyCare or GingrichCare and all the Republicans will applaud.

[1pointofview]

been following beck ever since the marxist took over the white house. I have enjoyed him on fox and listen to him most every morning while at work. I understand what he is saying about Newt but I actually like Newt and will be voting for him in the primary. I was going to vote for Cain until the craziness kicked him out of the running.

A newt/santorum ticket will suit me nicely

The key over the next few years will be ensuring a strong conservative congress. One with common sense and a return to the Constitution.

[kieefer]

Santorum has said if he doesn't place in the top three in Iowa that he's packing it in. I hate to see it because I think he's the best out of the bunch, maybe he can pull it off....?

[mav]

While I think Santorum is way too big government for my taste, I do have a lot of respect for the man. I would prefer to vote for Santorum over any of the candidates, outside of Paul.

[kieefer]

While I think Santorum is way too big government for my taste, I do have a lot of respect for the man. I would prefer to vote for Santorum over any of the candidates, outside of Paul.

He votes more conservatively than RP does who is always touted as being the "most conservative".

[mav]

He votes more conservatively than RP does who is always touted as being the "most conservative".

Yes and no, it depends on what the definition of conservatism is and who is being asked. It is true that Paul votes no on a lot of bills that are labeled as conservative or are brought forth by conservative members. He votes no a lot because he believes the federal government has no place in doing what is being voted on. That is precisely why he has a mixed voting record. So to say Santorum has a more conservative record than Paul, maybe, it all depends on how you look at it. However, Paul is the hands down winner on who would have a voting record that more closely adheres to the constitution. That is a fact that is even recognized by those who despise Paul.

I am not looking for big government from the right side of the aisle, we have had that before. I will vote for it before continuing with the b.s. we currently have, but I want a federal government that is half its current size. Sorry, but Santorum is not that guy who will do that. Just to note, I am not a Ronulan. I do not believe Paul is the second coming. I am allergic to aluminum. I do not think Paul is the answer to all things, nor do I believe that he will be able to do a lot of what he wants to do. However, he can definitely scale back the executive branch, which I doubt any of the other candidates will do, and he keep congress in check by a liberal use of his veto power. He can also nominate strict constructionists to various benches including the SCOTUS.

[kieefer]

I don't intend to sell Santorum like many of the Ronulans do with RP, you can find plenty of his views on the web, ontheissues, twosides, ect. and judge for yourself, maybe you have but he does want to cut government, reform entitlements and he supports Israel just to name a few.

[Caster]

Tempers keep rising, people keep arguing, no one is doing anything. Sad part, no one WILL do anything[for the better]....no one can do anything. Well then, you have one alternative.

ohh, but they would burn me at the stake for warmongering.

I don't care who you elect, it's over. You keep rereading this page all you like, but eventually you have to turn the page. Next chapter. Me? I just wish they'd get on with it.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I'm not going to listen to Beck-tron for advice on... well anything. That guy is Grade A loony.

I am with you. I used to love Beck, but in the months before he left Fox, he got screwy. The final straw after he left Fox was when he started talking about Biblical prophecy and how we are approaching the "end of days" and need to prepare for Armageddon. Although I do agree with him on many issues, I certainly don't consider him a good source of info any longer. That said, I would support Ron Paul over Newt any day.

As far as Santorum, he's far too much of a social conservative for my liking. There are many problems more urgent and detrimental to our society than worrying about who wants to have sex or marry who.

Edited December 31, 2011 by East_TN_Patriot

[TNMP40]

I like Glenn Beck however Ron Paul has no chance of getting nominated. He has some good ideas but he goes too far in my opinion. One thing is for sure we MUST DEFEAT OBAMA so choose wisely!

[Oh Shoot]

....As far as Santorum, he's far too much of a social conservative for my liking. There are many problems more urgent and detrimental to our society than worrying about who wants to have sex or marry who.

Yeah, I've never quite understood how the GOP came to be this pro Christian (especially evangelical), anti-abortion, anti gay type org. You'd think the freedom afforded by the more traditional government hands off philosophy of "your rights end where my nose begins" would be more appropriate in the long run -- it should champion individual rights more than urging blanket legislation that affect entire segments of the population, particularly on its current definition of "morality".

- OS

[RobertNashville]

I think many confuse "libertarianism" and "conservatism". Both Libertarians/libertarians and conservatives tend to find a "home" with the Republican party because the Republican platform has been much closer to both philosophies about government than the Democratic party; especially today's Democratic party given its current make-up. I believe many "Christians" of any flavor also find a home in the Republican party because in general, Christians tend to have conservative stands on most issues.

I would suggest that a "hands off" philosophy is not "traditional" nor what our founders gave us or wanted us to have...while I believe that our founders wanted as small a government as possible, they still wanted one and recognized the need for one with enough power to address what individual states (or individuals) can not or should not.

I thin Beck sees major problems with Gingrich for the same reasons I do - he IS a big-government Republican; certainly not either a conservative or a libertarian. While he or Ron Paul would almost certainly govern better than Obummer has or would in a second term; neither is, in my opinion, worthy of primary support.

EDIT: Frankly, I'd have a lot more respect for Ron Paul if he would run AS a Libertarian on the Libertarian ticket because that is what he is; he's using the Republican primary because of its structure and the recognition/exposure it affords...I also t think that's why he has steadfastly refused to rule out running as a third choice...I believe he knows that this is his last chance and is willing to prostitute himself to have a real shot at the Presidency.

Edited January 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[macville]

Yeah, I've never quite understood how the GOP came to be this pro Christian (especially evangelical), anti-abortion, anti gay type org. You'd think the freedom afforded by the more traditional government hands off philosophy of "your rights end where my nose begins" would be more appropriate in the long run -- it should champion individual rights more than urging blanket legislation that affect entire segments of the population, particularly on its current definition of "morality".

Probably because this country was founded on Christian, or "Biblical" morals for the most part. Even the people who didn't believe in the Bible did share the same morals. If they didn't, they kept it to themselves unlike modern people that aren't happy unless they are shoving their immorality in your face. Personally, I believe that this country will never be great again unless we get back to more Biblical morals (families start staying together, hard work ethic, stop lying/stealing/cheating by people, etc.) This is the main reason that when we try to push our form of government on other people, it fails...because they don't share the same morals as us! The problem is that people don't have self limits. It's the mantra of, if it feels good do it-not considering what will happen when they do it to themselves or people around them. So it becomes, how do people be free, but not in everyone else's face with their decent into crapville.

[Oh Shoot]

Probably because this country was founded on Christian, or "Biblical" morals for the most part. ...

In many ways, the Dems are more "Christian" than the GOP or the Founding Fathers. The sense of collectivism, even socialism or communism, is quite a bit more in tune with Christian teaching that the "each man according to his merit" pretense of the GOP. But of course both parties are fraught with hypocrisy compared to any standard at all which they may currently espouse, so let's not even go there.

America (and the world) would be much better off without the guise of religion at all. The Deist bents of many of The Founders is amply deep enough into mysticism, and it seems obvious that many of the other early pols were merely the first to publicly embrace the opiate of the masses for votes, a tradition which became de rigueur.

"Morality" and hence the laws that reflect it naturally come about as a shared ethos of the best practical way for groups of people to survive together peacefully, and fairy tale "only we are right and you're going to hell" overlays (Christianity and Islam being the predominant examples) do little to further the logical betterment of the species, and one could argue actually retard it.

After all, it's only in the last 400 years or so that Christianity has ceased to be a weapon of political control and mass destruction, and Islam, being about that 400 years younger, remains that still. (Not to mention that the average Muslim worldwide doesn't have a pot to piss in and little hope of getting one, so that may well slow Islam's progression some).

Until pols don't have to fake being Christian in this country to be elected, and some few that truly do believe it being elected mainly because of that, we'll sadly continue to see our collective fate influenced as much by magical thinking as logic. That logic being the only possible "God given" hope of a so far quite short-lived species.

- OS

Edited January 1, 2012 by OhShoot
syntax.spelling

[RobertNashville]

In many ways, the Dems are more "Christian" than the GOP or the Founding Fathers. The sense of collectivism, even socialism or communism, is quite a bit more in tune with Christian teaching that the "each man according to his merit" pretense of the GOP. But of course both parties are fraught with hypocrisy compared to any standard at all which they may currently espouse, so let's not even go there.

America (and the world) would be much better off without the guise of religion at all. The Deist bents of many of The Founders is amply deep enough into mysticism, and it seems obvious that many of the other early pols were merely the first to publicly embrace the opiate of the masses for votes, a tradition which became de rigueur.

"Morality" and hence the laws that reflect it naturally come about as a shared ethos of the best practical way for groups of people to survive together peacefully, and fairy tale "only we are right and you're going to hell" overlays (Christianity and Islam being the predominant examples) do little to further the logical betterment of the species, and one could argue actually retard it.

After all, it's only in the last 400 years or so that Christianity has ceased to be a weapon of political control and mass destruction, and Islam, being about that 400 years younger, remains that still. (Not to mention that the average Muslim worldwide doesn't have a pot to piss in and little hope of getting one, so that may well slow Islam's progression some).

Until pols don't have to fake being Christian in this country to be elected, and some few that truly do believe it being elected mainly because of that, we'll sadly continue to see our collective fate influenced as much by magical thinking as logic. That logic being the only possible "God given" hope of a so far quite short-lived species.

- OS

You must have red the New International Version.